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

Donne and his family remained with sir Francis Woolev until the death of this excellent friend, whose last act of kindness was to effect some degree of reconciliation between sir George Moor and his son and daughter. Sir George agreed by a bond to pay Mr. Donne eight hundred pounds on a certain day, as a portion with his wife, or twenty pounds quarterly for their maintenance, until the principal sum should be discharged. With this sum, so inferior to what he once possessed, and to what he might have expected, he took a house at Mitcham for his wife and family, and lodgings for himself in London, which heoften visited, and enjoyed the society and esteem of many persons distinguished for rank and talents. It appears, however, by his letters, that his income was far from adequate to the wants of an increasing family, of whom he frequently writes in a style of melancholy and despondence which appear to have affected his health. He still had no offer of employment, and no fixed plan of study. During his residence with sir Francis Wooley, he had read much on the civil and canon law, and probably might have excelled in any of the literary professions which offered encouragement, but he confesses that he was diverted from them by a general desire of learning, or what he calls in one of his poems “the sacred hunger of science.”

Mr. Donne accordingly went abroad with the embassy, and two days after their arrival at Paris had that extraordinary vision which has been minutely detailed by all his biographers. He saw, or fancied he saw, his wife pass through the room, in which he was sitting alone, with her hair hanging about her shoulders, and a dead child in her arms. This story he often repeated, and with so much confidence and anxiety, that sir Robert sent a messenger to Drury-house, who brought back intelligence, that he found Mrs. Donne very sad and sick in bed, and that after a long and dangerous labour, she had been delivered of a dead child; which event happened on the day and hour that Mr. Donne saw the vision. Walton has recorded the story on the authority of an anonymous informant, and has endeavoured to render it credible, not only by the corresponding instances of Samuel and Saul, of Bildad, and of St. Peter, but those of Julius Caesar and Brutus, St. Augustin and Monica. The whole may be safely left to the judgment of the reader.

Of his character some judgment may be formed from, the preceding sketch, taken principally from Zoucb’s much improved edition of Walton’s Lives. His early years, there is reason to think, although disgraced by no flagrant turpitude, were not exempt from folly and dissipation. In some of his poems, we meet with the language and sentiments of men whose morals are not very strict. After his marriage, however, he appears to have become of a serious and thoughtful disposition, his mind alternately exhausted by study, or softened by affliction. His reading was very extensive, and we find allusions to almost every science in his poems, although unfortunately they only contribute to produce distorted images and wild conceits.

One of his prose writings requires more particular notice. Every admirer of his character will wish it expunged from the collection. It is entitled “Biathanatos, a Declaration of that Paradox, or Thesis, that Self-Homicide is not so naturally Sin, that it may never be otherwise.” If it be asked what could induce a man of Dr. Donne’s piety to write such a treatise, we may answer in his own words that “it is a book written by Jack Donne, and not by Dr. Donne.” It was written in his youth, as a trial of skill on a singular topic, in which he thought proper to exercise his talent against the generally-received opinion. But if it be asked why, instead of sending one or two copies to friends with an injunction not to print it, he did not put this out of their power by destroying the manuscript, the answer is not so easy. He is even so inconsistent as to desire one of his correspondents neither to burn it, nor publish it. It was at length published by his son in 1644, who certainly did not consult the reputation of his father, and if the reports of his character be just, was not a man likely to give himself much uneasiness about that or any other consequence.

Dr. Donne’s reputation as a poet, was higher in his own time than it has been since. Dryden fixed his character with his usual judgment; as “the greatest wit, though not the best poet of our nation.” He says afterwards , that “he affects the metaphysics, not only in his satires, but in his amorous verses, where Nature only should reign, and perplexes the minds of the fair sex with nice speculations of philosophy, when he should engage their hearts, and entertain them with the softnesses of love.” Dryden has also pronounced that if his satires were to be translated into numbers, they would yet be wanting in dignity of expression. From comparing the originals and translations in Pope’s works, the reader will probably think that Pope has made them so much his own, as to throw very little lighten Donne’s powers. He every where elevates the expression, and in very few instances retains a whole line. Pope, in his classification of poets, places Donne at the head of a school, that school from which Dr. Johnson has given so many remarkable specimens of absurdity, in his life of Covyley, and which, following Dryden, he terms the metaphysical school. Gray, in the sketch which he sent to Mr. Warton, considers it as a third Italian school, full of conceit, begun in queen Elizabeth’s reign, continued under James and Charles I. by Donne, Crashaw, Cleiveland, carried to its height by CowJey, and ending perhaps in Sprat. Donne’s numbers, if they may be so called, are certainly the most rugged and uncouth of any of our poets. He appears either to have had no ear, or to have been utterly regardless of harmony. Yet Spenser preceded him, and Drummond, the first polished versifier, was his contemporary; but it must be allowed that before Drummond appeared, Donne had relinquished his pursuit of the Muses, nor would it be just to include the whole of his poetry under the general censure which has been usually passed. Dr. Warton seems to think that if he had taken pains, he might not have proved so inferior to his contemporaries; but what inducement could he have to take pains, as he published nothing, and seems not desirous of public fame? He was certainly not ignorant or unskilled in the higher attributes of style, for he wrote elegantly in Latin, and displays considerable taste in some of his smaller pieces and epigrams. At what time he wrote his poems has not been ascertained; but of a few the dates may be recovered by the corresponding events of his life. Ben Jonson affirmed that he wrote all his best pieces before he was twenty-five years of age. His satires, in which there are some strokes levelled at the reformation, must have been written very early, as he was but a young man when he renounced the errors of popery. His poems were first published in 4to, 1633, and 12mo, 1635, 1651, 1669, and 1719. His son was the editor of the early editions.

, an eminent nonconformist, was born at Kidderminster in Worcestershire, in 1730. Having discovered an early inclination to learning, he was sent to Cambridge, and admitted of Pembroke-hall, where he studied with a view to the church, or rather to the meeting, as the church was then under the controul of the republican party. His first destination, however, was to the law, and he wont for some time to receive instructions in an attorney’s office; but his master having employed him to copy some writings on a Sunday, he relinquished the business. It appears to have been after this that he went to the university, and having taken his degrees in arts, became a preacher. His first settlement was at St. Alphage, London-wall. This living being then vacant, Mr. Doolittle appeared as a candidate, with several others, and the parishioners preferring him, he became their pastor in 1654, and remained a very popular preacher, until 1662, when he was ejected for nonconformity. From this he removed to Moorfields, and opened a kind of boarding-school, in which he was so successful as to be obliged to hire a larger house in Bunhillfields, where he continued until the great plague, and then he removed to Woodford. After the plague abated, he returned to London, and saw it laid in ashes by the great fire. On this occasion he and some other nonconformists resumed their preaching, and were for some time unmolested. Mr. Doolittle has the credit of projecting the first meeting-house, which was a hired place in Bunhillfields, but that proving toe small, when the city began to be rebuilt, he erected a more commodious place of worship in Mugwell, or Monkwell-street, Cripplegate, which remains until this day. Here, however, he was occasionally interrupted by the magistrates, who put the laws in execution; but in 1672 he obtained a licence from Charles II. which is still suspended in the vestry-room of the meeting, and for some time continued to preach, and likewise kept an academy at Islington for the education of young men intended for the ministry among the nonconformists. On the corporation-act being passed, when his licence became useless, he was again obliged to leave London, and resided partly at Wimbledon, and partly at Battersea, where, although his house was rifled, he escaped imprisonment. At the revolution he was enabled to resume his ministry in Monkwell-street, and here he closed the public labours of fifty-three years, on May 24, 1707^ the seventyseventh year of his age. Much of this time was spent in writing his various works, many of which attained a high degree of popularity; as, 1. “A Treatise concerning the Lord’s Supper,” 1665, 12mo, which has perhaps been oftener prii ted than almost any book on that subject. 2. “Directions how to live after a wasting plague” (that of London), 1666, 8vo. 3. “A Rebuke for Sin, by God’s burning anger” (alluding to the great Fire). 4. “The Young Man’s Instructor, and the Old Man’s Remembrancer,” 1673, 8vo. 5. “A Call to delaying Sinners,” 1683, 12mo, of which there have been many editions. 6. “A Complete Body of Practical Divinity,” fol. 1723, &c. &c. His son, Samuel, was settled as a dissenting minister at Reading, where-he died in 1717.

adjudged him by a decree of the senate. The same decree contained an order for a statue to be erected to him, and a palace to be bought for him out of the public money. A new government was then formed at Genoa, by his advice, which is the government that subsisted until the late revolutions in Europe; so that he was not only the deliverer, but likewise the legislator of his country. Doria met with all the advantages he could desire from his attachment to the emperor, who gave him his entire confidence, and created him general of the sea, with a plenary and absolute authority. He was then owner of twelve gallies, which by his treaty were to be engaged in the service of the emperor; and that number was now augmented to twenty-two. Doria continued to signalize himself by several maritime expeditions, and rendered the most important services to the emperor. He took from the Turks, in 1532, the towns of Coron and of Patras, on the coast of Greece. The conquest of Tunis, and of the fort of Goulette, where Charles V. resolved to act in person, in 1535, was principally owing to the valour and good conduct of Doria; but it was against his advice and reiterated remonstrances, that the emperor in 1541 set on foot the unfortunate expedition to Algiers, where he lost a part of his fleet, and a great number of soldiers, and cost Doria eleven of his gallies. Nor was he more favoured by fortune in the affair of Prevezzo, in 1539. Being, with the imperial fleet, in conjunction with that of the Venetians and the gallies of the pope, in presence of the Turkish army, commanded by Barbarossa, and far inferior to his, he avoided the engagement under various pretences, and let slip the opportunity of a certain victory. For this he has been blamed by several historians. Some have even pretended (and, at that time, says Brantome, it was the common report), that there was a secret agreement between Barbarossa and him, by which it was settled, that decisive opportunities should be mutually avoided, in order to prolong the war which rendered their services necessary, and furnished them the means of enriching themselves. The African corsairs had never a more formidable enemy to contend with than Doria; the amount of the prizes taken from them, by himself or his lieutenants, was immense. The famous Dragut, among others, was captured by Jeaniietino Doria, with nine of his vessels. The zeal and the services of this great man were rewarded by Charles V. with the order of the golden fleece, the investiture of the principality of Melphes, and the marquisate of Tursi, in the kingdom of Naples, to him and his heirs for ever; together with the dignity of grand chancellor of that kingdom. It was not till about 1556, at the age of near ninety, that he relinquished the care of his gallies, and the command of them in person. Then, sinking under the weight of years, Philip II. king of Spain permittee] him to coustitute John Andrew Doria, his nephew, his lieutenant. He terminated his long and glorious career on the 25th of November, 1560, at the age of ninety-three, without offspring, though he had been married. He was very far from leaving so much property as might have been presumed, from the great and frequent opportunities he had of amassing wealth, which is accounted for by the excess of his magnificence, and the little attention be paid to affairs of ceconomy. Few men, without leaving a private station, have ever played so great a part on the stage of the world, as Doria: at home in Genoa, honoured by his fellow citizens as the deliverer and the tutelar genius of his country; abroad, with his gallies alone, holding, as it were, the rank of a maritime power. Few men have, even in the course of a long life, enjoyed a more uninterrupted course of prosperity. Twice was his ruin plotted; once in 1547, by the conspiracy of John Lewis de Fiesco, aimed principally at him; but the enterprise failed by the death of its leader, at the very moment of its execution; the second time, not long after, by that of Julius Cibo, which was detected, and cost the author of it his head. These two conspiracies had no other effect than to give still greater accessions of authority and fame to this great man, in Genoa, and through all Italy. He is accused by some authors of having been too cruel at times, in support of which they cite this instance: the marquis de Marignan, who took Porto Hercole in 1555, having taken prisoner Ottoboni de Fiesco, brother of Lewis, and an accomplice in his conspiracy, delivered him over to Doria, to revenge on him as he pleased the death of Jeannetino Doria, who had been slain in that conspiracy. Andrew, fired with rage, ordered Fiesco to be sewn up in a sack, and thrown into the sea. Those who have written on the side of Doria, have prudently passed over in silence this action, as unworthy of him. Another anecdote is told, more favourable, and characteristic. One of his pilots, who was frequently importuning him, coming up to him one day, told him he had three words to say to him. “I grant it,” returned Doria; “but remember, that if thou speak more, I will have thee hanged.” The pilot, without being disconcerted, replied: “money or dismission.” Andrew Doria, being satisfied with this reply, ordered him to be paid his arrears, and retained him in his service.

, an eminent engraver, the brother of the preceding, was born in France in 1G57. His father dying when he was very young, he was brought up to the study of the law, which he pursued till about thirty years of age: when being examined, in order to being admitted to plead, the judge, finding him very deaf, advised him to relinquish a profession to which one of his senses was so ill adapted. He took the advice, and shut himself up for a year to practise drawing, for which he had probably better talents than for the law, sinee he could sufficiently ground himself in the former in a twelvemonth. Repairing to Rome, and receiving instructions from his brother Lewis, he followed painting for some years, and having acquired great freedom of hand, he was advised to try etching. Being of a flexile disposition, or uncommonly observant of advice, he accordingly turned to etching, and practised that for some more years; but happening to look into the works of Audran, he found he had been in a wrong method, and took up Audran’s manner, which he pursued for ten years. He was now about fifty years of age, had done many plates, and lastly the gallery of Cupid and Psyche, after Raphael, when a new difficulty struck him. Not having learned the handling and ri-rht use of the graver, he despaired of attaining the harmony and perfection at whicn he aimed, and at once abandoning engraving, he returned to his pencil a word from a friend, says lord Orford, would have thrown him back to the law. However, after two months, he was persuaded to apply to the graver; and receiving some hints from one that used to engrave the writing under his plates, he conquered that difficulty too, and began the seven planets from Raphael. Mercury, his first, succeeded so well, that he engraved four large pictures with oval tops, and from thence proceeded to Raphael’s “Transfiguration,” which raised his reputation above all the masters of that time. At Rome he became known to several Englishmen of rank, who persuaded him to come to England and engrave the Cartoons, then at Hampton Court. He arrived in June 1711, but did not begin his drawings till Easter following, the intervening time being spent in raising a fund for his work. At first it was proposed that the plates should be engraved at the queen’s expence, and to be given as presents tothe nobility, foreign princes, and ministers. Lord-treasurer Oxford was much his friend but Dorigny demanding 4000l. or 5000l. put a stop to that plan; yet the queen gave him an apartment at Hampton Court, with necessary perquisites. The work, however, was undertaken by subscription , at four guineas a set, and Dorigny sent for Dupuis and Dubosc from Paris to assist him; but from some disagreement that occurred, they left him before the work was half completed. In 1719 he presented two complete sets to king George I. and a set a-piece to the prince and princess; for which the king gave him 100 guineas, and the prince a gold medal. The duke of Devonshire, who had assisted him, procured for him, in 1720, the honour of knighthood. His eyes afterwards failing him, he returned to Paris, where, in 1725, he was made a member of the royal academy of painting, and died in 1746, aged eighty-nine.

, a writer of the fifteenth century, was born at Kiritz, in the marche of Brandenburgh, and was very young when he became a monk of the order of St. Francis. After studying philosophy and theology with distinguished success, he became eminent not only as a preacher, but as a lecturer on the scriptures at Erfurt, and professor of theology at Magdeburgh. He was likewise made minister of his order in the province of Saxe, and held that office in 1431, at which time the Landgrave of Thuringia wrote several letters to him, instructing him to introduce some reform amono 1 the Franciscans of Eisenac. About the same time he was sent as one of the deputies to the council of Basil, by that party of his order who adhered to that council. It was either then, or as some think, ten years later, that he was raised to be general of his order. Whether he had been dismissed, or whether he resigned the office of minister of Saxe, he held it only six years, and went afterwards to pass the rest of his days in the monastery of Kiritz, where he devoted himself to meditation and study, and wrote the greater part of his works. The time of his death is a disputed point. Casimir Oudin gives 1494 as the date of that event, which Marchand, with some probability reduces to 1464.

a popish divine, who acquired some celebrity from the characters of Jewell, and Nowell, against whom he wrote, was born at Berkhamstead in Hertfordshire, and educated by the care of his uncle Thomas Dorman, of Amersham in Buckinghamshire. He was afterwards educated by Richard Reeve, a very celebrated schoolmaster at Berkhamstead, whence he went to Winchester school, and afterwards to New College, Oxford, where he was admitted probationer-fellow. From this college, however, he removed to All Souls, of which he was elected fellow in 1554. He appears at this time to have been popishly affected, but afterwards avowed his principles by quitting his fellowship and country, and retiring first to Antwerp, and afterwards to Louvaine, where he resumed his studies. He had taken his degrees in law at Oxford, but now proceeded in divinity, and became doctor in that faculty. During his abode at Louvaine, he attacked Jew r ell and Nowell, who replied to him in the most satisfactory manner. In 1569, he was invited to the English college at Doway, where he taught for some time, and afterwards was beneficed at Tournay, in which city he died either in 1572, or 1577. His works, of which a particular account, with the answers, may be seen in Mr. Archdeacon Churton’s excellent “Life of Nowell,” are, 1. “A proof of certain articles in Religion denied by Mr. Jewell,” Antwerp, 1564, 4to. 2. “A Request to Mr. Jewell, that he keep his Promise, made by solemn protestation in his late sermon had at Paul’s Cross,” London, 1567, 8vo. 3. “A Disproof of Mr. Alexander Nowell'a Reproof,” Antwerp, 1565, 4to.

In 1515, when Erasmus was at Basil, Dorpius wrote against his “Praise of Folly.” In this, Jortin says he was the first adversary of Erasmus, or at least the first who wrote against him, condemning the “Praise of Folly,” as a satire upon all orders and professions. Erasmus replied with much mildness; and Dorpius, who was then a very young man, not only admitted his apology, but became his friend. At his death he was honoured by Erasmus with an epitaph, and deeply lamented by him as an irreparable loss to the republic of letters.

, a French divine, was born of a noble family at Issoudun, and educated in the seminary de St. Magloire, at Paris, where he took a doctor’s degree, 1695. After being official at Chalons, he became canon of the church at Paris, and successively archdeacon, grand chanter, and official. Dorsane always opposed the bull Unigenitus, and retired when he found that M. de Noailles was about to issue his mandate for its acceptance. He died November 13, 1728, leaving an historical journal of all that had passed respecting the bull Unigenitus, which extends to 1728, 6 vols. 12mo, or 1756, 2 vols. 4to, which last is reckoned the best edition.

, a French Jesuit, a native of Vernon, who died at Orleans Sept. 21, 1716, filled several high offices belonging to his order, and was said to have been the author of the famous problem levelled at the cardinal de Noailles, “Whom are we to believe? M. de Noailles, archbishop of Paris, condemning the exposition of faith, or M. de Noailles, bishop of Chalons, approving the moral reflections?” alluding to an apparent change in Noailles* opinions of the disputes between the Jansenists and Jesuits. Doucin was a member of the club or cabal which the Jansenists called the Norman cabal, and which was composed of the Jesuits Tellier, Lallemand, and Daniel; and his zeal and activity were of great service to them. During the dispute on the famous bull Unigenitus, he was sent to Rome, and was a powerful advocate for that measure. He wrote a very curious piece of ecclesiastical history, entitled “Histoire de Nestorianisme,” Paris, 1698, 4to another, entitled “Histoire de I'Origenisme,” 4to, and “Memorial abrege touchant l'etat et les progres de Jansenistne en Hollande,” written in 1697, when he accompanied the count de Creci to the congress at Ryswick. He was also the author of many pamphlets of the controversial kind, strongly imbued with the spirit of party.

He published, 1. “Two Sermons,” on the abstruseness of divine mysteries, and on church schisms, 1628, 4to. 2. “The King’s Cause rationally, briefly, and plainly debated, as it stands de facto, against the irrational misprision of a deceived people,” Oxford, 1644, 4to. 3. “Velitationes polemicae; or polemical short discussions of certain particular and select questions,” Lond. 1651 and 1652, 8vo. 4. “Analecta sacra; sive excursus philologici, &c.” Lond. 1658 and 1660, 8vo.

, bishop of Dunkeld, eminent for his poetical talents, was descended from a noble family, being the third son of Archibald, earl of Angus, and was born in Scotland at the close of the year 1474, or the Beginning of 1475. His father was very careful of his education, and caused him to be early instructed in literature and the sciences. He was intended by him for the church; and after having passed through a course of liberal education in Scotland, is supposed to have travelled into foreign countries, for his farther improvement in literature, particularly to Paris, where he finished his education. Alter his return to Scotland, he obtained the office of provost of the collegiate church of St. Giles in Edinburgh, a post of considerable dignity and revenue; and was also made rector of Heriot church. He was likewise appointed abbot of the opulent convent of Aberbrothick; and the queenmother, who was then regent of Scotland, and about this time married his nephew the earl of Angus, nominated him to the archbishopric of St. Andrew’s. But he was prevented from obtaining this dignity by a violent opposition made to him at home, and by the refusal of the pope to confirm his appointment. The queen-mother afterwards promoted him to the bishopric of Dunkeld; and for this preferment obtained a bull in his favour from pope Leo X. by the interest of her brother, Henry VIII. king of England. But so strong an opposition was again made to him, that he could not, for a considerable time, obtain peaceable possession of this new preferment; and was even imprisoned for more than a year, under pretence of having acted illegally, in procuring a bull from the pope. He was afterwards set at liberty, and consecrated bishop of Dunkeld, by James Beaton, chancellor of Scotland, and archbishop of Glasgow. After his consecration he went to St. Andrew’s, and thence to his own church at Dunkeld; where the first day, we are told, “he was most kindly received by his clergy and people, all of them blessing God for so worthy and learned a bishop.” He still, however, met with many obstructions; and, for some time, was forcibly kept out of the palace belonging to his diocese; but he at length obtained peaceable possession. He soon after accompanied the duke of Albany, regent of Scotland, to Paris, when that nobleman was sent to renew the ancient league between Scotland and France. After his return to Scotland, he made a short stay at Edinburgh, and then repaired to his diocese, where he applied himself diligently to the duties of his episcopal office. He was also a promoter of public-spirited works, and particularly finished the stone bridge over the river Tay, opposite to his own palace, which had been begun by his predecessor. We meet with no farther particulars concerning him till some years after, when he was at Edinburgh, during the disputes between the earls of Arran and Angus. On that occasion bishop Douglas reproved archbishop Beaton for wearing armour, as inconsistent with the clerical character, but was afterwards instrumental in saving his life. During all these disorders in Scotland, it is said, that bishop Douglas behaved “with that moderation and peaceableness, which became a wise man and a religious prelate;” but the violence and animosity which then prevailed among the different parties in Scotland, induced him to retire to England. After his departure, a prosecution was commenced against him in Scotland; but he was well received in England, where he was treated with particular respect, on account of the excellency of his character, and his great abilities and learning. King Henry VII I. allowed him a liberal pension; and he became particularly intimate with Polydore Vergil. He died of the plague, at London, in 1521, or 1522, and was interred in the Savoy church, on the left side of the tomb-stone of Thomas Halsay, bishop of Laghlin, in Ireland; on whose tomb-stone a short epitaph for bishop Douglas is inscribed. Hume, of Godscroft, in his “History of the Douglases,” says, “Gawin Douglas, bishop of Dunkeld, left behind him great approbation of his virtues and love of his person in the hearts of all good men; for besides the nobility of his birth, the dignity and comeliness of his personage, he was learned, temperate, and of singular moderation of mind; and in these turbulent times had always carried himself among the factions of the nobility equally, and with a mind to make peace, and not to stir up parties; which qualities were very rare in a clergyman of those days.”

Bishop Douglas is styled by Mr. Warton, one “of the distinguished luminaries that marked the restoration of letters in Scotland, at the commencement of the sixteenth century, not only by a general eminence in elegant erudition, but by a cultivation of the vernacular poetry of his country.” He translated the Æneid of Virgil into Scottish heroics, with the additional thirteenth book by Mapheus Vegius, at the request of Henry, earl of Sinclair, to whom he was related. It was printed at London, in 1553, 4to, under the following title: “The XIII Bukes of Eneados of the fainose poete Virgill, translatet out of Latyne verses into Scottish metir, bi the reverend father in God, Mayster Gawin Douglas, bishop of Dunkel, and unkil to the erle of Angus every Buke having his perticular prologe.” “This translation,” says Mr. Warton, “is executed with equal spirit and fidelity and is a proof that the lowland Scotch and English languages were now nearly the same. I mean the style of composition; more especially in the glaring affectation of anglicising Latin words.” It certainly has great merit, though it was executed in the space of about sixteen months. It appears, that he had projected this translation so early as the year 1501, but did not complete it till about eleven years after. Besides this work, bishop Douglas also wrote an original poem, called *' The Palice of Honour,“which was printed at London, 1553, 4to, and Edinburgh, 1579, 4to. Mr. Warton observes of this poem, that” it is a moral vision written in 1501, planned on the design of the Tablet of Cebes, and imitated in the elegant Latin dialogue * De Tranquillitate Anitni' of his countryman Florence Wilson, or Florentius Volusenus. The object of this allegory is to show the instability and insufficiency of worldly pomp; and to prove, that a constant and undeviating habit of virtue is the only way to true honour and happiness. The allegory is illustrated by a variety of examples of illustrious personages; not only of those who by a regular perseverance in honourable deeds gained admittance into this splendid habitation, but of those who were excluded from it, by debasing the dignity of their eminent stations with a vicious and unmanly behaviour. It is addressed, as an apologue for the conduct of a king, to James the Fourth, is adorned with many pleasing incidents and adventures, and abounds with genius and learning." Both the editions which have been printed of this poem are extremely scarce.

, an eminent physician, and reader of anatomy to the company of surgeons, was born in Scotland, in 1675. After completing his education he came to London, and applied himself diligently to the study of anatomy and surgery, which he both taught and practised several years with success. Haller, who visited him when he was in England, speaks of him in high terms of approbation. He saw, he says, several of his anatomical preparations made with great art and ingenuity, to shew the motion of the joints, and the internal structure of the bones. He was then meditating an extensive anatomical work, which, however, he did not live to finish, and has rot been since published. When Mr. (afterwards Dr.) William Hunter, came to London, he consulted with Dr. Douglas on the method of improving himself in anatomy, and Dr. Douglas took him into his house, to assist him in his dissections; at the same time he gave him an opportunity of attending St. George’s hospital. The year following, 1742, Dr. Douglas died. Besides several communications to the royal society, which are published in their Transactions, containing the anatomy of the uterus, with the neighbouring vessels, and some cases in surgery, the doctor published in 1707, “Myographix comparator specimen,” or a comparative description of all the muscles in a man, and in a quadruped (a dog), 12mo; containing the most correct description of the muscles that had been seen to that time. “Bibliographic anatomicoe specimen, seu catalogus pene omnium auctorum qui ab Hippocrate ad Harveium rem anatomicam illustrarunt,” London, 1715, 8vo reprinted with improvements at Leyderi, in 1731. “A description of the peritoneum, and of that part of the membrana cellularis which lies on its outside,” &c. London, 1730, 4to, a very accurate and valuable work. “A history of the lateral operation for the stone,” 1726, 8vo; republished with an appendix, in 1733, comprising a comparison of the methods used by different lithotomists, particularly of that practised by Cheselden.

When a detachment of the army was ordered home to suppress the rebellion in Scotland, he returned to England in Sept. 1745, and having no longer any connexion with the guards, went back to Baliol college, where he was elected one of the exhibitioners on the more lucrative foundation of Mr. Snell. In 1747 he was ordained priest, and became curate of Tilehurst, near Reading; and afterwards of Dunstevv, in Oxfordshire, where he was residing, when, at the recommendation of Dr. Charles Stuart, and lady Allen, a particular friend of his mother, he was selected by lord Bath as a tutor to accompany his son, lord Pulteney, on his travels. Of the tour which he then made, there exists a manuscript in Mr. Douglas’s hand-writing. It relates principally, if not exclusively, to the governments and political relations of the several countries through which he passed. In October 1749, he returned to England, and took possession of the free chapel of Eaton Constantine, and the donative of Uppington, in Shropshire, on the presentation of lord Bath. Here he commenced his literary career, by his able defence of Milton. Early in 1747, William Lander, a Scotch schoolmaster, made a most flagitious attempt to subvert the reputation of Milton, by shewing that he was a mere copier or translator of the works of others, and that he was indebted to some modern Latin poets for the plan, arrangement, &c. of his Paradise Lost. Many persons of considerable literary talents gave credit to the tale of Lander, among whom was the celebrated Dr. Johnson. Mr. Douglas, however, examined the merits of the case, considered most accurately the evidence adduced by Lander, and soon found that the whole was a most gross fabrication. He published in 1750 a defence of Milton against Lander, entitled, “Milton vindicated from the Charge of Plagiarism,” &c. which appeared in the form of a letter addressed to the earl of Bath. Having justified the poet, he proceeded to charge the accuser with the most gross and manifest forgery, which he substantiated to the entire satisfaction of the public. The detection was indeed so clear and manifest, that the criminal acknowledged his guilt, in a letter dictated by Dr. Johnson, who abhorred the imposition he had practised.

In the same year (1750) he was presented by lord Bath to the vicarage of High Ercal, in Shropshire, and vacated Eaton Constantine. He only occasionally resided on his livings, and at the desire of lord Bath, took a house in a street contiguous to Bath-house, London, where he passed the winter months. In the summer he generally accompanied lord Bath in his excursions to Tunbridge, Cheltenham, Shrewsbury, and Bath, and in his visits to the duke of Cleveland, lord Lyttelton, &c. In Sept. 1752, he married miss Dorothy Pershouse, sister of Richard Pershouse, of Reynolds-hall, near Walsall, in Staffordshire; and within three months became a widower. In the spring of 1754, he published “The Criterion, or Miracles examined, &c.” in the form of a letter to an anonymous correspondent, since known to have been Dr. Adam Smith, with whom he probably became acquainted at Baliol-college, where Smith studied for some time. This was designed as a refutation of the specious objections of Hume and others to the reality of the miracles recorded in the New Testament. Hume had maintained that there was as good evidence for the miracles said to have taken place among the ancient heathens, and in later times, in the church of Rome, as there was for those recorded by the evangelists, and said to have been performed by the power of Christ. Mr. Douglas, who had shewn himself an acute judge of the value of evidence, pointed out the distinction between the pretended and true miracles, to the honour of the Christian religion. Dr. Leland, in his “View of Deisiical Writers,” has made very honourable mention of this work.

In 1786 he was elected one of the vice-presidents of the Society of Antiquaries, and framed their address on the king’s recovery, 1789, both to his majesty and the queen. In March 1787 he was elected one of the trustees of the British Museum, and in September of the same year, was appointed bishop of Carlisle. In 1788 he succeeded to the deanery of Windsor, for which he vacated his residentiaryship of St. Paul’s. In 1789 he preached before the house of lords, and of course published, the sermon on the anniversary of king Charles’s martyrdom. In June 1791, he was translated to the see of Salisbury. In 1793 he preached, which is also published, the anniversary sermon before the society for propagating the Gospel. Having been often and very urgently requested, by many of his literary friends, to publish a new edition of the “Criterion,” which had been many years out of print, he undertook to revise that excellent work. He had a long time before collected materials for a new and enlarged edition; but unfortunately they had been either mislaid or lost; or, more probably, destroyed, by mistake, with some other manuscripts. This circumstance, and his very advanced ago, sufficiently accounts for his not having attempted to alter materially the original work. In this statement, all the avowed publications of the bishop are enumerated, but he was concerned in many others, in which he was never supposed to have had any part, and in some of no trifling celebrity, whose nominal and reputed authors he permitted to retain and enjoy exclusively all that credit of which he could have justly laid claim to no inconsiderable share. During a great part of his life, he was in correspondence with some of the most eminent literary and political characters of the age. Few could have read more, if indeed any one so much as, with such habits of incessant application as those in which he persevered, almost to the last hour of his long protracted life, he must necessarily have read. In the strictest sense of the expression, he never let one minute pass unimproved; for he never deemed any space of time too short to be employed in reading; nor was he ever seen by any of his family, when not in company with strangers, without having a book or a pen in his hand. He retained his faculties to the last, and without any specific complaint, died on Monday, May 18, 1807, without a struggle,in the arms of his son, to whom, the public are indebted for the principal part of the preceding memoir. Bishop Douglas was interred on Monday the 25th in a vault in St. George’s chapel, Windsor.

, a very learned man, was born of a noble family at Nortwick in Holland, 1545. He lost his parents when very young, and was sent to several schools; and to one at Paris among the rest, where he made a great progress in Greek and Latin. When he had finished his education, he returned to his own country, and married; and though he was scarcely grown up, he applied himself to affairs of state, and was soon made a curator of the banks and ditches, which post he held above twenty years, and then resigned it. But Dousa was not only a scholar and a statesman, but likewise a soldier; and he behaved himself so well in that capacity at the siege of Leyden in 1574, that the prince of Orange thought he could commit the government of the town to none so properly as to him. In 1575 the university was founded there, and Dousa made first curator of it; for which place he was well fitted, as well on account of his learning as by his other deserts. His learning was indeed prodigious and he had such a memory, that he could at once give an answer to any thing that was asked him, relating to ancient or modern history, or, in short, to any branch of literature. He was, says Melchior Adam, and, after him, Thuanus, a kind of living library; the Varro of Holland, and the oracle of the university of Leyden. His genius lay principally towards poetry, and his various productions in verse were numerous: he even composed the annals of his own country, which he had collected from the public archives, in verse, which was published at Leyden 1601, 4to, and reprinted in 1617 with a commentary by Grotius. He wrote also critical notes upon Horace, Sallust, Plautus, Petronius, Catullus, Tibullus, &c. His moral qualities are said to have been no less meritorious than his intellectual and literary; for he was modest, humane, benevolentj and affable. He was admitted into the supreme assembly of the nation, where he kept his seat, and discharged his office worthily, for the last thirteen years of his life. He died Oct. 12, 1604, and his funeral oration was made by Daniel Heinsius. Of his works, we have seen, 1. “Couiin. in Catullum, Tibullum, et Horatium,” Antwerp, 1580, 12mo. 2. “Libri tres Prascidaneorum in Petronium Arbitrmn,” Leyden, 1583, 8vo. 3. “Epodon ex puris lambis,” Ant. 1514, 8vo. 4. “Plautinae Explicationes,” Leyden, 1587, 16mo. 5. “Poemata,” ibid. 1607, 12mo. 6. “Odarum Britannicarum liber, ad Elizabetham reginam, et Jani Dousae filii Britannicorum carminum silva,” Leyden, 1586, 4to; and 7. lt Elegiarum libri duo, et Epigrammatum liber unus; cum Justi Lipsii aliorumque ad eundem carminibus," ibid. 1586, 4to. In some catalogues, however, the works of the father and son seem be confounded.

Douw appears, incontestably, to be the most wonderful in his finishing of all the Flemish masters. Every thing that came from his pencil is precious, and his colouring hath exactly the true and the lovely tints of nature; nor do his colours appear tortured, nor is their vigour lessened by his patient pencil; for, whatever pains he may have taken, there is no look of labour or stiffness; and his pictures are remarkable, not only for retaining their original lustre, but for having the same beautiful effect at a proper distance, as they have when brought to the nearest view. The most capital picture of this master in Holland was, not very long since, in the possession of the widow Van Hoek, at Amsterdam; it was of a size larger than usual, being three feet high, by two feet six inches broad, within the frame. In it two rooms are represented; in the first (where there appears a curious piece of tapestry, as a separation of the apartments) there is a pretty figure of a woman giving suck to a child; at her side is a cradle, and a table covered with tapestry, on which is placed a gilt lamp, and some pieces of still life. In the second apartment is a surgeon’s shop, with a countryman undergoing an operation, and a woman standing by him with several utensils. The folding-doors show on one side a study, and a man making a pen by candle-light, and on the other side, a school with boys writing and sitting at different tables. At Turin are several pictures by Gerhard Douw, wonderfully beautiful; especially one, of a doctor attending a sick woman, and surveying an urinal. The execution of that painting is astonishingly fine; and although the shadows appear a little too dark, the whole has an inexpressible effect. In the gallery at Florence, there is a nightpiece by candle-light, which is exquisitely finished; and in the same apartment, a mountebank attended by a number of figures, which, says Pilkington, it seems impossible either sufficiently to commend, or to describe. Sir Joshua Reynolds, however, has contrived to describe it without much commendation, as a picture that is very highly finished, but has nothing interesting in it. The heads have no character, nor are any circumstances of humour introduced. The only incident is a very dirty one, which every observer must wish had been omitted; that of a woman clouting a child. The rest of the figures are standing round, without invention or novelty of any kind. After other objections to this picture, sir Joshua observes that the single figure of the woman holding a hare, in Mr. Hope’s collection, is worth more than this large picture, in which perhaps there is ten times the quantity of work. Gerhard Douw died very opulent in 1674.

, better known by the name of Bernard of Bibiena, an eminent cardinal, was born of a reputable family at Bibiena in 1470, and was sent at nine years of age to pursue his studies at Florence. His family connexions introduced him into the house of the Medici, and such was the assiduity with which he availed himself of the opportunities of instruction there afforded him, that at the age of seventeen, he had attained a great facility of Latin composition, and was soon afterwards selected by Lorenzo de Medici, as one of his private secretaries. He was also the principal director of the studies of John de Medici, afterwards Leo X. and when the honours of the church were bestowed on his pupil, the principal care of his pecuniary concerns was intrusted to Dovizi; in the execution of which he rendered his patron such important services, and conducted himself with so much vigilance and integrity, that some have not hesitated to ascribe to him, in a considerable degree, the future eminence of his pupil, who, when made pope, gave his tutor a cardinal’s cap. He also employed himself in several negociations. He sent him as legate to the army raised against the duke of Urbino; and also to the emperor Maximilian. In 1518 he was sent as legate to France to persuade the king to join in the crusade against the Turks, in which he would have succeeded, had not the pope discouraged the enterprize by his unreasonable distrust and caballing against France. Bibiena remonstrated against this conduct with great freedom in his letters to Rome, which is supposed to have hastened his death in Nov. 1520. Some have asserted that he was poisoned by the order or contrivance of Leo X. which is positively denied by the historian of that pontiff, as utterly destitute of proof.

, bishop of Derry in Ireland, the son of William Downham, bishop of Chester, was born there. He was educated at Cambridge, was elected a fellow of Christ college in 1585, and was afterwards professor of logic. Fuller says that no man was better skilled in Aristotle and Ramus, and terms him “the top-twig of that branch.” He was esteemed a man of learning, and was chaplain to James I. by whom he was advanced to the see of Derry, by letters dated Sept. 6, 1616, and was consecrated Oct. 6, of the same year. During the government of the lord chancellor Loftus, and the earl of Cork, he obtained a commission, by an immediate warrant from himself to arrest, apprehend, and attach the bodies of all people within his jurisdiction, who should decline the same, or should refuse to appear upon lawful citation, or appearing should refuse to obey the sentence given against them, and authority to bind them in recognizances, with sureties or without, to appear at the council-table to answer such contempts. The like commission was renewed to him by the lord deputy Wentworth, Oct. 3, 1633. Both were obtained upon his information, that his diocese abounded with all manner of delinquents, who refused obedience to all spiritual processes. He died at Londonderry April 17, 1634, and was buried there in the cathedral. He had a brother named John, who was an eminent divine and a writer. His own works are very numerous, and evince his theological abilities and piety. 1. “A treatise concerning Antichrist, in two books,” Lond. 1603, 4to. 2. “The Christian’s Sanctuary,” ibid. 1604, 4to. 3. “Lectures upon the Fifteenth Psalm,” ibid. 1604, -4to. 4. “Sermon at the consecration of the Bishop of Bath and Wells, upon Apocalypse i. 20,” ibid. 160S, 4to. 5. “Defence of the same Sermon against a nameless author,” ibid. 1611,4to. 6. “Two Sermons, the one commending the ministry in general, the other, the office of bishops in particular,” ibid. 1608. The latter of these, but enlarged, is the consecration sermon above mentioned. 7. “Papa Antichristus, sen Diatriba de Antichristo,” ibid. 1620, a different treatise from the former against Antichrist. 8. “The Covenant of Grace, or an Exposition upon Luke i. 73, 74, 75,” Dublin, 1631, 8vo. 9. “A treatise on Justification,” Lond. 1633, folio. 10. “The Christian’s Freedom, or the doctrine of Christian Liberty,” Oxford, 1635, 8vo. 11. “An Abstract of the Duties commanded, and sins forbidden in the Law of God,” Lond. 1635, 8vo. 12. “A godly and learned Treatise of Prayer,” Lond. 1640, 4to. These three last were posthumous. His brother John, above mentioned, was likewise educated at Cambridge, where he took the degree of B. D. He exercised his ministry in different parts of London, and was the first who preached the Tuesday’s lecture in St. Bartholomew Exchange, which he did with great reputation. His principal work is entitled “The Christian Warfare.” He died in 1644.

, an English divine, the eldest son of Calybute Downing of Shennington, in Gloucestershire, gent, was born in 1606, and in 1623 became a commoner of Oriel college, Oxford, where he took one degree in arts. His master’s degree, according to Wood, he took at Cambridge, or abroad; after which, entering into orders, he held the vicarage of Hackney, near London, with the parsonage of Hickford, in Buckinghamshire. But these not being sufficient for his ambition, he stood in competition with Dr. Gilbert Sheldon for the wardenship of All -soul’s; and losing that, was a suitor to be chaplain to the earl of Strafford, lord lieutenant of Ireland, thinking that road might lead to a bishopric. But failing there also, he joined the parliament party, and became a great promoter of their designs; and in a sermon preached before the artillery-company, Sept. 1, 1640, delivered this doctrine: “That for the defence of religion, and reformation of the church, it was lawful to take up arms against the king” but fearing to be called in question for this assertion, he retired to the house of Robert earl of Warwick, at Little Lees, in Essex. After this he became chaplain to the lord Robert’s regiment, and in 1643 was one of the assembly of divines; but died in the midst of his career, in 1644. He has some political discourses and sermons in print, enumerated by Wood. He was father of sir George Downing, made by king Charles II. secretary to the treasury, and one of the commissioners for the customs.

About the same period a literary society was established at Exeter, consisting at first of nine, afterwards augmented to twelve members. The design of this meeting was, to unite talents of different descriptions, and genius directed to different pursuits. In a society thus formed, conversation would probably rise superior to the usual discussion of the topics of the day, and by talents thus combined or contrasted each might improve with the assistance of another. An essay on any subject, except a strictly professional one, was read by every member in his turn, which might suggest a subject of discussion, if no more interesting one occurred. This society for nearly twelve years was conducted with equal spirit and good humour. A volume of its essays has been published, and materials for another have been preserved; but, in a later period, the communications were less numerous, thon;h the society was supported with equal harmony till 1808, when the impaired health of Dr. Downman, its firs: founder and chief promoter, damped its spirit, and the meetings were discontinued. In the collections of this s )cirty are the few prose compositions of the subject of this memoir, though generally united with poetry. The very judicious address to the members, on their first meeting, was from his pen; and the defence of Pindar from the imputation, of writing for hire, supposed to be countenanced by passages in the 11th Pythian, and the 2d Isthmean odes, accompanied by a new translation of each, displays equally his learning and the acuteness of his critical talents. la the same volume is an essay “on the origin and mythology of the Serpent Worship,” tracing this superstition to its earliest periods, in Judea, ^gypt, and Greece, a subject which he afterwards pursued with respect to the worship of the sun and fire, in an exclusive essay, not published, in which, pursuing the track of Mr. Bryant, he chiefly rests on the insecure and delusive basis of etymology. His other contributions were an essay on the shields of Hercules and Achilles, and various poetical pieces. But his chief reputation is founded on his excellent didactic poem of “Infancy,” first published in 1771, and received with such avidity by the public, that he lived to see the seventh edition. He had now so far recovered as to be able to resume his profession, and his practice for several years was extensive and successful. In 1805, increasing infirmities warned him to retire; and, weaning himself from business by a visit to his friends in Hampshire and London, he declared his intention of resigning it entirely. This determination met with a strenuous opposition. He was urged to contract his limits; to give occasional assistance in consultation, at the least inconvenient hours; in short, to continue his useful labours in the way most easy to himself; but every solicitation was in vain, and he retired to private life with the eulogies and blessings of all around him. In his retirement, he made few original efforts. He reviewed his former labours, and a selection of those which he preferred is reserved in ms. The “Poems sacred to Love and Beauty,” appear to be some of these early efforts and he published with his last corrections, the seventh edition of “Infancy.” He died at Exeter, Sept 23, 1809, deeply lamented as an ingenious scholar, an able and humane physician, and an amiable man.

, a surgeon at York, and an eminent antiquary, was much esteemed by Dr. Mead, Mr. Folkes, the two Mr. Gales, and all the principal members of the Royal and Antiquarian Societies. He published, in 1736, “Eboracum or the History and Antiquities of the City of York,” a splendid folio. A copy of it with large manuscript additions was in the hands of his son, the late rev. William Drake, vicar of Isleworth, who died in 1801, and was himself an able antiquary, as appears by his articles in the Archseologia, and would have republisbed his father’s work, if the plates could have been recovered. Mr. Drake was elected F. S. A. in 1735, and F. R. S. in 1736. From this latter society, for whatever reason, he withdrew in 1769, and died the following year. Mr. Cole, who has a few memorandums concerning him, informs us that when the oaths to government were tendered to him in 1745, he refused to take them. He describes him as a middle-aged man (in 1749) tall and thin, a surgeon of good skill, but whose pursuits as an antiquary had made him negligent of his profession. Mr. Cole also says, that Mr. Drake and Csesar Ward, the printer at York, were the authors of the “Parliamentary or Constitutional History of England,” printed in twenty-four volumes, 1751, &c. 8vo. This work extends from the earliest times to the restoration.

, a celebrated political writer and physician, was born at Cambridge in 1667; and at the age of seventeen admitted a member of that university, where he soon distinguished himself by his uncommon parts and ingenuity. Some time before the revolution, he took the degree of B. A. and after that of M. A. bur, going to London in 1693, and discovering an inclinutioji for the study of physic, he was encouraged in the pursuit of it by sir Thomas Millington, and the most eminent members of the college of physicians. In 1696 he took the degree of doctor in that faculty; and was soon after elected F. R. S. and a fellow of the college of physicians. But whether his own inclination led him, or whether he did it purely to supply the defects of a fortune, which was not sufficient to enable him to keep a proper equipage as a physician in town, he applied himself to writing for the booksellers. In 1697 he was concerned in the publication of a pamphlet, entitled “Commendatory verses upon the author of prince Arthur and king Arthur.” In 1702 he published in 8vo, “The History of the last Parliament, begun at Westminster Feb. 10, in the twelfth year of king William, A. D. 1700.” This created him some trouble; for the house of lords, thinking it reflected too severely on the memory of king Williau), summoned the author before" them in May 1702, and ordered him to be prosecuted by the attorney-general; who brought him to a trial, at which he was acquitted the year following.

In 1704, being dissatisfied with the rejection of the bill to prevent occasional conformity, and with the disgrace of some of his friends who were sticklers for it, he wrote, in concert with Mr. Poley, member of parliament for Ipswich, “The Memorial of the Church of England humbly offered to the consideration of all true lovers of our Church and Constitution,” 8vo. The treasurer Godolphin, and the other great officers of the crown in the whig interest, severely reflected on in this work, were so highly offended, that they represented it to the queen as an insult upon her honour, and an intimation that the church was in danger under her administration. Accordingly her majesty took notice-of it in her speech to the ensuing parliament, Oct. 27, 1705; and was addressed by both houses upon that occasion. Soon after, the queen, at the petition of the house of commons, issued a proclamation for discovering the author of the “Memorial;” but no discovery could be made. The parliament was not the only body that shewed their resentment to this book; for the grand jury of the city of London having presented it at the sessions, as a false, scandalous, and traitorous libel, it wa*s immediately burnt in the sight of the court then sitting, and afterwards before the Royal Exchange, by the hands of the common hangman. But though Drake then escaped, yet as he was very much suspected of being the author of that book, and had rendered himself obnoxious upon other accounts to persons then in power, occasions were sought to ruin him if possible; and a newspaper he was publishing at that time under the title of “Mercurius Politicus,” afforded his enemies the pretence they wanted. For, taking exception at some passages in it, they prosecuted him in the queen’s-bench in 1706. His case was argued at the bar of that court, April 30 when, upon a flaw in the information (the simple change of an r for a t, or nor for not) the trial was adjourned, and in November following the doctor was acquitted but the government brought a writ of error. The severity of this prosecution, joined to repeated disappointments and ill-usage from some of his party, is supposed to have flung him into a fever, of which he died at Westminster, March 2, 1707, not without violent exclamations against the rigour of his prosecutors.

Besides the performances already mentioned, he made an English translation of Herodotus, which was never published. He wrote a comedy called “The Sham- Lawyer, or the Lucky Extravagant” which was acted at the theatre royal in 1697. It is chiefly borrowed from two of Fletcher’s plays, namely, “The Spanish Curate,” and “Wit without Money.” He was the editor of Historia Anglo-Scotica, 1703, 8vo, which was burnt by the hands of the hangman at Edinburgh: in the dedication he says, that, “upon a diligent revisal, in order, if possible, to discover the name of the author, and the age of his writing, he found, that it was written in, or at least not finished till, the time of king Charles I.” But he says nothing more ol? the ms. nor how it came into his hands. But whatever merit there might be in his political writings, or however they might distinguish him in his life-time, he is chiefly known now by his medical works: by his new “System of Anatomy” particularly, which was finished a little before his decease, and published in 1707, with a preface by W. Wagstaffe, M. D. reader of anatomy at Surgeons’-hall. Dr. Wagstaffe tells us, that Drake “eminently excelled in giving the rationale of tilings, and inquiring into the nature and causes of phsenomena. He does not,” says he, “behave himself like a mere describer of the parts, but like an unprejudiced inquirer into nature, and an absolute master of his profession. And if Dr. Lower has been so much and so deservedly esteemed for his solution of the systole of the heart, Dr. Drake, by accounting for the diastole, ought certainly to be allowed his share of reputation, and to be admitted as a partner of his glory.” A second edition of this work was published in 1717, in 2 vols. 8vo; and an appendix in 1728, 8vo, which is usually bound np with the second volume. The plates, which are very numerous, are accurately drawn, and well engraved. Some of them are taken from Swammerdam. Dr. Drake added notes to the English translation of Le Clerc’s “History of Physic,” printed in 1699, tfvo; and there is also, in the Philosophical Transactions, a discourse of his concerning some influence of respiration on the motion of the heart hitherto unobserved. The “Memorial of the Church of England,” &c. was reprinted in 8vo, in 1711 to which is added, an introductory preface, containing the life and death of the author; from which this present account is chiefly drawn.

, a German author, was born in 1573, and died in 1630. He compiled a work entitled “Bibliotheca Classica,” of which the best edition is that in two volumes 4to, Frankfort, 1625 in which are inserted the titles of all kinds of books. It is, however, merely a crowded catalogue of all the works which had appeared at the Francfort fairs; but although they are not well arranged, or very easily found, and the errors are innumerable, it is, upon the whole, a very useful catalogue, particularly for German books, and musical publications.

, an English poet, was born at HarshuU, in the parish of Atherston, in the county of Warwick, in 1563. His family was ancient, and originally descended from the town of Drayton in Leicestershire, which gave name to his progenitors, as a learned antiquary of his acquaintance has recorded; but his parents removing into Warwickshire, our poet was born there. When he was but ten years of age, he seems to have been page to some person of honour, as we collect from his own words: and, for his learning at that time, it appears evidently in the same place, that he could then construe his Cato, and some other little collection of sentences. It appears too, that he was then anxious to know, “what kind of strange creatures poets were r” and desired his tutor of all things, that if possible “he would make him a poet.” He was some time a student in the university of Oxford: though we do not find that he took any degree there. In 1588, he seems, from his own description of the Spanish invasion, to have been a spectator at Dover of its defeat; and might possibly be engaged in some military post or employment there, as we find mention of his being well spoken of by the gentlemen of the army. He took delight very early, as we have seen, in the study of poetry; and was eminent for his poetical efforts, nine or ten years before the death of queen Elizabeth, if not sooaer. In 1593 he published a collection of pastorals, under the title of “Idea: the Shepherd’s Garland, fashioned in nine eclogues; with Rowland’s sacrifice to the nine Muses,” 4to, dedicated to Mr. Robert Dudley. This “Shepherd’s Garland” is the same with what was afterwards reprinted with emendations by our author in 1619, folio, under the title of “Pastorals,” containing eclogues; with the “Man in the Moon;” but the folio edition of Drayton’s works, printed in 1748, though the title-page professes to give them all, does not contain this part of them. Soon after he published his “Barons’ Wars,” and “England’s heroical Epistles;” his “Downfalls of Robert of Normandy, Matilda and Gaveston;” which were all written before 1598; and caused him to be highly celebrated at that time, when he was distinguished not only as a great genius, but as a good man. He was exceedingly esteemed by his contemporaries; and Burton, the antiquary of Leicestershire, after calling him his “near countryman and old acquaintance,” adds further of him, that, “though those transalpines account us tramontani, rude, and barbarous, holding our brains so frozen, dull, and barren, that they can afford no inventions or conceits, yet may he compare either with their old Dante, Petrarch, or Boccace, or their neoteric Marinella, Pignatello, or Stigliano. But why,” says Burton, “sould I go about to commend him, whom his own works and worthiness have sufficiently extolled to the world?”

Drayton was one of the foremost of Apollo’s train, who welcomed James I. to his British dominions, with a congratulatory poem, &c. 1603, 4to and how this very poem, through strange ill luck, might have proved his ruin, but for his patient and prudent conduct under the indignity, he has, with as much freedom as was then convenient, informed us in the preface to his “Poly-Olbion,” and in his epistle to Mr. George Sandys among his elegies. It is probable, that the unwelcome reception it met with might deter him from attempting to raise himself at court. In 1613 he published the first part of his “Poly-Olbion;” by which Greek tide, signifying very happy, he denotes England; as the ancient name of Albion is by some derived from Olbion, happy. It is a chorographical description of the rivers, mountains, forests, castles, &c. in this island, intermixed with the remarkable antiquities, rarities, and commodities thereof. The first part is dedicated to prince Henry, by whose encouragement it was written: and there is an engraving at full length of that prince, in a military posture, exercising his pike. He had shewed Drayton some singular marks of his favour, and seems to have admitted him as one of his poetical pensioners; but dying before the book was published, our poet lost the benefit of his patronage. There are 1 S songs in this volume, illustrated with the learned notes of Selden; and there are maps before every song, in which the cities, mountains, forests, rivers, &c. are represented by the figures of men and women. His metre of 12 syllables being now antiquated, it is quoted more for the history than the poetry in it; and in that respect is so very exact, that, as Nicolson observes, and since, Mr. Gough, Drayton’s Poly-Olbion affords a much truer account of this kingdom, and the dominion of Wales, than could well be expected from the pen of a poet. It is interwoven with many fine episodes: of the conquest of this island by the Romans; of the coming of the Saxons, the Danes, and the Normans, with an account of their kings; of English warriors, navigators, saints, and of the civil wars of England, &c. This volume was reprinted in 1622, with the second part, or continuation of 12 songs more, making 30 in the whole, and dedicated to prince Charles, to whom he gives hopes of bestowing the like pains upon Scotland.

All his other children died, either in their infancy, or in the flower of their youth, except a daughter, married to mons. Malnoc, advocate of the parliament of Paris; and who instead of following him into Holland, whither he retired with his protestantism at the time of the dragoonade, continued at Paris, where she openly professed the Roman catholic religion.

3. “Tablettes anecdotes des rois de France, 3 vols. 12mo. The author has here collected the remarkable sayings, the ingenious sentiments, and the witticisms of the kings, or attributed to the kings, of France. 4.” Histoire* anecdotes des reines et regentes de France,“6 vols. 12mo. 5.” Recreations historiques, critiques, morales, & d'erudition,“2 vols. 12mo. 6.” Vie de Witikind le Grand," 1757, 12mo; abridged from the folio of Cruzius. All these works shew that the author has ransacked every scarce and uncommon book for his materials; but his style is prolix, negligent, and familiar; there is a want of method too, in the distribution of the facts, as well as of grace in the narration. Dreux du Radier composed also several briefs for the bar; among others, for John Francis Corneille. This author died 1st March, 1780. Though he was much given to sarcasm in his writings, especially in those of the latter description, yet he was of a friendly disposition, and he often took upon him with pleasure the business of searching records, archives, and papers for families, or for literary men who wanted the assistance of his pen or of his erudition.

He retained all his faculties till the last years of his life; even his memory, so early and so generally diminished by age, was but little impaired. He not only remembered the incidents of his childhood or youth, but the events of later years and so faithful was his memory to him, that his son has often said, that he never heard him tell the same story twice, but to different persons, and in different companies. His eye-sight failed him many years before his death, but his hearing was uniformly perfect and unimpaired. His appetite was good till within a few weeks before his death. He generally ate a hfarty breakfast of a pint of tea or coffee, as soon as he got out of his bed, with bread and butter in proportion. He ate likewise at eleven o'clock, and never failed to eat plentifully at dinner of the grossest solid food. He drank tea in the evening, but never ate any supper. He had lost all his teeth thirty years before his death (his son says, by drawing excessive hot smoke of tobacco into his mouth); but the want of suitable mastication of his food did not prevent its speedy digestion, nor impair his health. Whether the gums, hardened by age, supplied the place of his teeth in a certain degree, or whether the juices of the mouth and stomach became so much more acrid by time, as to perform the office of dissolving the food more speedily and more perfectly, may not be so easily ascertained; but it is observable, that old people are more subject to excessive eating than young ones, and that they suffer fewer inconveniences from it. He was inquisitive after news in the last years of his life; his education did not lead him to increase the stock of his ideas in any other way. But it is a fact well worth attending to, that old age, instead of diminishing, always increases the desire of knowledge. It must afford some consolation to those who expect to be old, to discover, that the infirmities to which the decays of nature expose the human body, are rendered more tolerable by the enjoyments that are to be derived from the appetite for sensual and intellectual food.

The subject of this article was remarkably sober and temperate. Neither hard labour, nor company, nor the usual afflictions of human life, nor the wastes of nature, ever led him to an improper or excessive use of strong drink. For the last twenty-five years of his life he drank twice every day a draught of toddy, made with two tablespoons-full of spirit, in half a pint of water. His son, a man of fifty-nine years of age, said he had never seen him intoxicated. The time and manner in which he used spirituous liquors, perhaps, contributed to lighten the weight of his years, and probably to prolong his life. He enjoyed an uncommon share of health, insomuch that in the course of his long life he was never confined more than three days to his bed. He often declared that he had no idea of that most distressing- pain called the head-ach. His sleep was interrupted a little in the last years of his life with a defluxion in his breast, which produced what is commonly called the old man’s cough.

The character of this aged citizen was not summed up in his negative quality of temperance: he was a man of a most amiable temper; he was uniformly cheerful and kind to every body; his religious principles were as steady as his morals were pure; he attended public worship above thirty years in the rev. Dr. Sproat’s church, and died in a full assurance of a happy immortality. The life of this man is marked with several circumstances which perhaps have seldom occurred in the life of an individual; he saw and heard more of those events which are measured by time, than have ever been seen or heard by any man since the age of the patriarchs; he saw the same spot of earth in the course of his life covered with wood and bushes, and the receptacle of beasts and birds of prey, afterwards become the seat of a city, not only the first in wealth and arts in the new, but rivalling in both many of the first cities in the old world. He saw regular streets where he once pursued a hare; he saw churches rising upon morasses where he had often heard the croaking of frogs; he saw wharfs and warehouses where he had often seen Indian savages draw fish from the river for their daily subsistence; and he saw ships of every size and use in those streams where he had been used to see nothing but Indian canoes; he saw a stately edifice filled with legislators on the same spot probably where he had seen an Indian council fire; he saw the first treaty ratified between the newly-confederated powers of America and the ancient monarchy of France, with all the formalities of parchment and seals, on the same spot probably where he once saw William Penn ratify his first and last treaty with the Indians without the formalities of pen, ink, or paper; he saw all the intermediate stages through which a people pass from the most simple to the most complicated degrees of civilization; he saw the beginning and end of the empire of Great Britain in Pennsylvania.

In 1753 when a severe attack was made on the political character of his two intimate friends Mr. Stone and Mr. Murray, afterwards the great earl of Mansfield, the bishop vindicated his old school-fellows before a committee of the privy council, directed to inquire into the charge, with that persuasive energy of truth, which made the king exclaim on reading the examination, “That is indeed a man to make a friend of.” In May 1761 he was translated to the see of Salisbury, and when archbishop of York elect, in which dignity he was enthroned in the November following, he preached the coronation sermon of their present majesties, and soon after became lord high almoner, and a member of the privy council. In the former office he rectified many abuses, and rendered it more extensively beneficial, by preventing the royal bounty from being considered as a fund to which persons of high n;nk and opulence could transfer any just claims on their own private generosity. On one occasion, when applied to by a very rich peer in behalf of two of his cousins, he replied, “that he was sorry to say that the very reason which would induce himself to assist them, prevented his considering them as objects of his majesty’s charity their near relationship to his lordship.” His conduct in the metropolitan see of York is described with great spirit and truth by Mr. llastal, the topographer of Southwell, who styles him “peculiarly virtuous as a statesman, attentive to his duties as a churchman, magnificent as an archbishop, and amiable as a man.” This character appears to be confirmed by all who knew him. As a statesman he acted upon manly and independent principles, retiring from parliament in 1762, when new men and measures were promoted, averse, in his opinion, to that system of government under which the country had so long flourished. When, however, any question was introduced, in which the interference of a churchman was proper, he was sedulous in his attendance, and prompt in delivering his sentiments. His munificence in his see deserves to be recorded. When he was translated to York, he found the archiepiscopal palace, small, mean, and incommodious; and the parish church in a state of absolute decay. To the former he made many splendid additions, particularly in the private chapel. The latter he rebuilt from its foundation, with the assistance of a small contribution from the clergyman of the parish, and two or three neighbouring gentlemen. He died at his palace at Bishopsthorpe, Dec. 10, 1776, in the 66th year of his age, and was buried by his own desire, in a very private manner, under the altar of the church. Although his literary attainments were very considerable, he published only six occasional sermons, which were much admired, and of which his son, rev. George Hay Drummond, M. A. prebendary of York, published a correct edition in 1803: to this edition are prefixed “Memoirs of the Archbishop’s Life,” and it also contains “A Letter on Theological Study,” addressed to the son of an intimate friend, then a candidate for holy orders, which evinces an intimate acquaintance with many of the best writers on theological subjects. His own principles appear to have been rather more remote from those contained in the articles and homilies than could have been wished, because they are thereby not so consistent with some of the writers whom he recommends; and he speaks with unusual freedom of certain doctrines which have been held sacred by some of the wisest and best divines of the established church. Of the “Memoirs” prefixed to this new edition of his Sermons, we have availed ourselves in this brief record of a prelate whose memory certainly deserves to be rescued from oblivion. His Sermons are composed in an elegant and classical style, and contain many admirable passages, and much excellent advice on points of moral and religious practice.

, an elegant and ingenious poet, a descendant of the ancient family of the Drummonds of Carnock, and the son of sir John Drummond of llawthornden, was born, probably at Hawthornden, his father’s seat in Scotland, on the 13th of December, 1585. He received his school education at Edinburgh, and afterwards studied at the university of that city, where he took the degree of master of arts. At the age of twenty-one he went to France, in compliance with his father’s views, and attended lectures on the civil law, a subject on which he left sufficient documents to prove that his judgment and proficiency were uncommon. The president Lockhart, to whom these manuscripts were communicated, declared, that if Mr. Drummond had followed the practice of the law, “he might have made the best figure of any lawyer in his time.” After a residence abroad of nearly four years, he returned to Scotland in 1610, in which year his father died. Instead, however, of prosecuting the study of the law as was expected, he thought himself sufficiently rich in the possession of his paternal estate, and devoted his time to the perusal of the ancient classics, and the cultivation of his poetical genius. Whether he had composed or communicated any pieces to his friends before this period, is uncertain. It was after a recovery from a dangerous illness that he wrote a prose rhapsody, entitled “Cypress Grove,” and about the same time his “Flowers of Zion, or Spiritual Poems,” which, with the “Cypress Grove,” were printed at Edinburgh in 1623, 4to. A part of his Sonnets, it is said, were published as early as 1616. During his residence at Hawthornden, he courted a young lady of the name of Cunningham, with whom he was about to have been united, when she was snatched from him by a violent fever. To dissipate his grief, which every object and every thought in this retirement contributed to revive, he travelled on the continent for about eight years, visiting Germany, France, and Italy, which at that time comprized all that was interesting in polished society and study to a man of curiosity and taste. During this tour he enriched his memory and imagination, by studying the various models of original poetry, and collected a valuable set of Greek and Latin authors, with some of which he enriched the college library of Edinburgh, and others were reposited at Hawthornden. The books and manuscripts which he gave to Edinburgh were arranged in a catalogue printed in 1627, and introduced by a Latin preface from his pen, on the advantage and honour of libraries, which at that time were considered rather as accidental collections than necessary institutions.

Or,

His character has descended to us without blemish. Unambitious of riches or honours, he appears to have projected the life of a retired scholar, from which he was diverted only by the commotions that robbed his country of its tranquillity. He was highly accomplished in ancient and modern languages, and in the amusements which became a man of his rank. Among his intimate friends and learned contemporaries, he seems to have been mostly connected with the earl of Stirling, and the celebrated English poets Drayton and Ben Jonson. The latter paid him a visit at Hawthornden, and communicated to him without reserve, many particulars of his life and opinions, which Drummond committed to writing, with a sketch of Jonson’s character and habits, which has not been thought very liberal. This charge of illiberality, however, is considerably lessened when we reflect that Drummond appears to have had no intention of publishing what he had collected from Jonson, and that the manuscript did not appear until many years after Jonson was beyond all censure or praise. An edition of Drummond’s poems was printed at London, 1656, 8vo, with a preface by Philips. The Edinburgh edition in folio, 1711, includes the whole of his works, both in verse and prose, his political papers, familiar letters, and the history of the James’s; with an account of his life, which, however unsatisfactory, is all that can now be relied on . A recent edition of his poems was printed at London in 1791, but somewhat differently arranged from that of 1656. A more correct arrangement is still wanting, if his numerous admirers shall succeed in procuring that attention of which he has been hitherto deprived.

There is one poem added to the edition of his works in the “English Poets” of a very different kind. It is entitled “Polemo-Middinia,” or the battle of the dunghill, a rare example of burlesque, and the first macaronic poem by a native of Great Britain. A copy of it was published by bishop Gibson, when a young man, at Oxford in 1691, 4to, with Latin notes, but the text, probably from Mr. Gibson’s being unacquainted with the Scotch language, is less correct than that of any copy that has fallen in the way of his late editor, who has therefore preferred the elegant edition printed by Messrs. Foulis of Glasgow in 1768. The humour of this piece is so remote from the characteristics of his polished mind and serious muse, that it may be regarded as a very singular curiosity. It appears to be the fragment of a larger poem which the author wrote for the amusement of his friends, but was not anxious to preserve. Mr. Gilchrist conjectures that it was written when Drummond was on a visit to his brother-in-law at Scotstarvet, and that it alludes to some rustic flispute well known at the time.

, an English mariner, and a native of Leicestershire, merits some notice as the author of the most authentic account ever given of Madagascar, which was first published in 1729, reprinted in 1743, and more recently, in 1808. Drury was shipwrecked in the Degrave East Indiaman, on the south side of that island, in 1702, being then a boy, and lived there as a slave fifteen years. After his return to England, he had among those who knew him, the character of a plain honest man, without any appearance of fraud or imposture. The truth of his narrative, as far as it goes, was confirmed by its exact agreement with the journal kept by Mr. John Benbow (eldest son of the brave but unfortunate admiral), who, being second-mate of the Degrave, was also shipwrecked, and narrowly escaped being massacred by the natives, with the captain and the rest of the crew, Drury and three other boys only excepted. Mr. Benbow’s journal was accidentally burnt in 1714, in a fire near Aldgate; but several of his friends who had seen it, recollected the particulars, and its correspondence with Dairy’s. (See Benbow). Indeed the authenticity of Drury’s narrative seems to be amply confirmed, and his facts have been accordingly adopted by the compilers of geography. There is all that simplicity and verbiage which may be expected in the narratives of the illiterate, but none of the artifices of fiction. After his return from his captivity, he went to Loughborough, to his sister and other relations. It is said that he had the place of a porter at the India-house, and that his father left him 200l. and the reversion of a house at Stoke Newington. A friend of the late Mr. Duncombe, who was living in 1769, knew him well, and used frequently to call upon him at his house in Lincoln’s-inn fields, which were not then inclosed, and had often seen Drury throw a javelin there, and hit a small mark at a surprizing distance; but other particulars of his life are not known.

, an English gentleman of considerable learning and genius, of the seventeenth century, was a teacher of poetry and rhetoric in the English college at Doway, in 1618. He was invited thither by Dr. Kellison, the president, who was then providing professors to teach such young men as had been drawn from the protestant religion in England, and had hitherto been educated in the schools of the Jesuits. Drury was for some time a prisoner in England, on account of his religion, but about 1616 was released at the intercession of count Gondemar, the Spanish ambassador in England, to whom he dedicated his Latin plays. These plays, three in number, entitled “Aluredus sive Alfretius,” a tragi-comedy “Mors,” a comedy; and “Reparatus sive depositum,” a tragi-comedy, were printed together at Doway, in 1628, 12mo, and often reprinted. There is a copy of his “Aluredus” in the British Museum, printed separately, of the date 1620, 16mo. These plays, Dodd informs us, were exhibited with great applause, first privately, in the refectory of the college of Doway, and afterwards in the open court or quadrangle in the presence of the principal persons of the town and university.

, a learned protestant and eminent critic, was born at Oudenard, in Elandcrs, June 28, 1550. He was designed for the study of divinity, and sent very early to Ghent, to learn the languages there, and afterwards to Louvain, to pass through a course of philosophy; but his father having been outlawed for his religion in 1567, and deprived of his estate, retired to England, and Drusius soon followed him, though his mother, who continued a bigoted catholic, endeavoured to prevent him. Masters were provided to superintend his studies; and he had soon an opportunity of learning Hebrew under Anthony Cevellier, or rather Chevalier, who was come over to England, and taught that language publicly in the university of Cambridge. Drusius lodged at his house, and had a great share in his friendship. He did not return to London till 1571; and, while he was preparing to go to France, the news of the massacre of St. Bartholomew made him change his resolution. Soon after this, he was invited to Cambridge by Cartwright, the professor of divinity; and also to Oxford, by Dr. Lawrence Humphrey, whither he went, and became professor of the oriental languages there at the age of twenty-two. He taught at Oxford four years with great success*; after which, being desirous of returning to his own country, he went to Louvain, where he studied the civil law. The troubles on account of religion obliged him to come back to his father at London; but, upon the pacification of Ghent, in 1576, they both returned to their own country. The son tried his fortune in Holland, and was appointed professor of the oriental tongues there, in 1577. While he continued in this station at Leyden, he married in 1580 a young gentlewoman of Ghent, who was more than half a convert, and became a thorough protestant after her marriage. The stipend allowed to Drusius, in Holland, not being sufficient to support himself and family, he gave intimations that if better terms should be offered him elsewhere, he would accept of them. The prince of Orange wrote to the magistrates of Leyden, to take care not to lose a man of his merit; yet they suffered him to remove to Friesland, whither he had been invited to be professor of Hebrew in the university of Franeker. He was admitted into that professorship in 1585, and discharged the functions of it with great honour till his death, which happened in 1616.

* His progress and liberal reception at Oxford, is thus related by Wood: “Turning his course to Oxon, in the beginning of the year 1572, he was entertained by the society of Mertoncollege, admitted to the degree of B. A. as a member of that house, in July the same year; and in the beginning of August following, had a chamber set apart for him by the society, who then also decreed that he should have forty shillings yearly allowed to him, so long as he read a Hebrew lecture in their common refectory. For four years, at least, he lived in the said house, and constantly read (as he did sometimes to the scholars of Magdalen college, upon the desire of Dr. Lawrence Humphrey, president thereof,) either Hebrew, Chaldee, or Syriac lectures. In 1573, he was, as a member of the said house of Merton, licensed to proceed in arts, and in the year following was recommended by the chancellor of the university to the members of the convocation, that he might publicly read the Syriac language in one of the public schools, and that for his pains he receive a competent stipend. Soon after, upon consideration of the matter, they allowed him twenty marks, to be equally gathered from among them, and ordered that the same respect be given to him, as to any of the lecturers. He left Oxford in 1576.” His works are very numerous, and many of them still held in great esteem. Niceron has given a catalogue of forty, but as the most valuable part of them consist of bihlical criticisms, and have been incorporated in the “Critici Sacri,” it is unnecessary here to specify the titles of them when published separately. Drusius carried on so extensive a correspondence with the literati of Europe, that after his death there were found among his papers 2300 Latin letters, besides many in Hebrew, Greek, French, English, and Dutch.

, a celebrated monk in the abbey of Corby, in the ninth century, was born in Aquitaine, and afterwards taught in the monasteries of Stavelo and Malmedy, in the diocese of Leige. He was very learned for the age he lived in, and left a commentary on St. Matthew, Strasburg, 1514; or Haguenau, 1530, fol. and in the library of the fathers, which contained some opinions respecting transubstantiation that were favourable to the protestant faith. The second edition is scarce, but the first much more so. At the end of each is part of a Commentary on St. Luke and St. John, which he did not finish. The scarcity of his work may be accounted for from its being suppressed, in consequence of his opinions on transubstantiation. Dupin says that his commentaries are short, historical, easy, and without allegories or tropes; and adds, that Druthmar was called the Grammarian, on account of his skill in the languages, particularly Greek and Latin, which he always interpreted literally.

In 1661 he produced his first play, “The Duke of Guise,” which was followed the next year by the “Wild Gallant.” In the same year, 1662, he addressed a poem to the lord chancellor Hyde, presented on new-year’s-day; and, the same year also, published a satire on the Dutch*. His next production was “Annus Mirabilis,” the year of wonders, 1666; an historical poem: printed in 1667. His reputation as a poet was now so well established, that this, together with his attachment to the court, procured him the place of poet-laureat, and historiographer to Charles II. of which accordingly he took possession, upon the death of sir William Davenant, in 1668, but his patent was not signed till 1670. The pension of the two offices was 200l. a year. In 1667 he published “An Essay on Dramatic Poesy,” dedicated to Charles earl of Dorset and Middlesex. In the preface we are told that the purpose of this discourse was to vindicate the honour of our English writers from the censure of those who unjustly prefer the French. The essay is drawn up in the form of a dialogue. It was animadverted upon by sir Robert Howard, in the preface to his “Great Favourite, or Duke of Lerma,” to which Dryden replied in a piece prefixed to the second edition of his “Indian Emperor.” Although his first plays had not been very successful, he went on, and in the space of twenty-five years produced twenty-seven plays, besides his other numerous poetical writings. Of the stage, says Dr. Johnson, when he had once invaded it, he kept possession; not indeed, without the competition of rivals, who sometimes prevailed, or the censure of critics, which was often poignant, and often just; but with such a degree of reputation, as made him at least secure of being heard, whatever might be the final determination of the public. These plays were collected, and published in 6 vols. 12mo, in 1725; to which is prefixed the essay on dramatic poetry, and a dedication to the duke of Newcastle by Congreve, in which the author is placed in a very equivocal light.

In 1673, his tragi-comedies, entitled the “Conquest of Granada” by the Spaniards, in two parts, were attacked by Richard Leigh, a player belonging to the duke of York’s theatre, in a pamphlet called “A Censure of the Rota,” &c. which occasioned several other pamphlets to be written. Elkanah Settle likewise criticised these plays; and it is remarkable that Settle, though in reality a mean and inconsiderable poet, was the mighty rival of Dryden, and for many years bore his reputation above him. To the first part of the “Conquest of Granada,” Dryden prefixed an essay on Heroic Plays, and subjoined to the second a Defence of the Epilogue; or, an essay on the dramatic poetry of the last age. In 1679 was published an “Essay on Satire,” written jointly by the earl of Mulgrave and Dryden. This piece, which was handed about in ms. contained severe reflections on the duchess of Portsmouth and the earl of Rochester; and they, suspecting Dryden to be the author of it, hired three men to cudgel him; who, as Wood relates, effected their business as he was returning from Will’s coffee-house through Rose-street, Covent-gardeu, to his own house in Gerrard-street, Soho, at eight o'clock at night, on the 16th of December, 1679. In 1680 came out an English translation in verse of Ovid’s epistles by several hands two of which, viz. Canace to Macareus, and Dido to Æneas, were translated by Dryden, who also wrote the general preface and the epistle of Helen to Paris by Dryden and the earl of Mulgrave.

The same year, 1681, he published his Medal, a satire against sedition. This poem was occasioned by the striking of a medal, on account of the indictment against the earl of Shaftesbury for high-treason being found ignoramus by the grand jury at the Old Bailey, November 1611, for which the whig-party made great rejoicings by ringing of bells, bonfires, &c. in all parts of London. The whole poem is a severe invective against the earl of Shaftesbury and the whigs to whom the author addresses himself, ina satirical epistle prefixed to it, thus “I have one favour to desire of you at parting, that, when you think of answering this poem, you would employ the same pens against it, who have combated with so much success against Absalom and Achitophel; for then you may assure yourselves of a clear victory without the least reply. Rail at me abundantly; and, not to break a custom, do it without wit. If God has not blessed you with the talent of rhyming, make use of my poor stock and welcome: let your verses run upon my feet; and for the utmost refuge of notorious blockheads, reduced to the last extremity of sense, turn my own lines upon me, and, in utter despair of your own satire, make me satirize myself.” Settle wrote an answer to this poem, entitled “The Medal reversed;” and is erroneously said to have written a poem called “Azariah and Hushal,” against “Absalom and Achitophel.” This last was the production of one Pordage, a dramatic writer. In 1682, Dryden published a poem, called “Religio Laici; or, the Layman’s Faith.” This piece is intended as a defence of revealed religion, and of the excellency and authority of the scriptures, as the only rule of faith and manners, against deists, papists, and presbyterians. The author tells us in the preface, that it was written for an ingenious young gentleman, his friend, upon his translation of father Simon’s “Critical History of the Old Testament.” In October of this year, he also published his Mac Flecnoe, an exquisite satire against the poet Shad well.

His tragedy of the “Duke of Guise,” much altered, with the assistance of Lee, appeared again in 168S, dedicated to Lawrence earl of Rochester, and gave great offence to the whigs. It was attacked in a pamphlet, entitled “A Defence of the charter and municipal rights of the city of London, and the rights of other municipal cities and towns of England. Directed to the citizens of London. By Thomas Hunt.” In this piece, Dryden is charged with condemning the charter of the city of London, and executing its magistrates in effigy, in his “Duke of Guise;” frequently acted and applauded, says Hunt, and intended most certainly to provoke the rahhle into tumults and disorders. Hunt then makes several remarks upon the design of the play, and asserts, that our poet’s purpose was to corrupt the manners of the nation, and lay waste their morals; to extinguish the little remains of virtue among us by bold impieties, to confound virtue and vice, good and evil, and to leave us without consciences. About the same time were printed also “Some Reflections upon the pretended Parallel in the play called The Duke of Guise” the author of which pamphlet tells us, that he was wearied with the dulness of this play, and extremely incensed at the wicked and barbarous design it was intended for; that the fiercest tories were ashamed of it; and, in short, that he never saw any thing that could be called a play, more deficient in wit, good character, and entertainment, than this. In answer to this and Hunt’s pamphlet, Dryden published “The Vindication: or, The Parallel of the French holy league and the English league and covenant, turned into a seditious libel against the king and his royal highness, by Thomas Hunt and the author of the Reflections, &c.” In this Vindication, which is printed at the end of the play, he tells us that in the year of the restoration, the first play he undertook was the “Duke of Guise,” as the fairest way which the act of indemnity had then left of setting forth the rise of the late rebellion; that at first it was thrown aside by the advice of some friends, who thought it not perfect enough to be published; but that, at the earnest request of Mr. Lee, it was afterwards produced between them; and that only the first scene, the whole fourth act, and somewhat more than half the fifth, belonged to him, all the rest being Mr. Lee’s. He acquaints us also occasionally, that Mr. Thomas Shadwell, the poet, made the rough draught of this pamphlet against him, and that Mr. Hunt finished it.

In 1684 he published a translation of “Maimbonrg’s History of the League” in which he was employed by Charles II. on account of the pla'ui parallel between the troubles of France and those of Great Britain. Upon the death of this monarch, he wrote his “Threnodia Augustalis:” a poem sacred to the happy memory of that prince. Soon after the accession of James II. he turned Roman catholic upon which occasion, Mr. Thomas Browne wrote “The reasons of Mr. Bayes’s changing his religion considered, in a dialogue between Crites Eugenius and Mr. Bayes, 1688,” 4to; and also, “The late converts exposed: or, the reasons of Mr. Bayes’s changing his religion considered, in a dialogue; part the second 1690,” 4to. In 1686 he wrote “A defence of the papers written by the late king of blessed memory, and found in his strong box.” This was written in opposition to Stillingfleet’s “Answer to some papers lately printed, concerning the authority of the catholic church in matters of faith, and the reformation of the church of England, 1686,” 4to. He vindicates the authority of the catholic church, in decreeing matters of faith upon this principle, that “The church is more visible than the scripture, because the scripture is seen by the church;” and, to abuse the reformation in England, he affirms, that “it was erected on the foundation of lust, sacrilege, and usurpation, and that no paint is capable of making lively the hideous face of it.” He affirms likewise, that “the pillars of the church established by law, are to be found but broken staffs by their own concessions: for, after all their undertakings to heal a wounded conscience, they leave their proselytes finally to the scripture; as our physicians, when they have emptied the pockets of their patients, without curing them, send them at last to Tunbridge waters, or the air of Montpelier; that we are reformed from the virtues of good living, from the devotions, mortifications, austerities, humility and charity, which are practised in catholic countries, by the example and precept of that lean, mortified, apostle, St. Martin Luther, &c.” Stillingrleet hereupon published “A vindication of the Answer to some late papers,” in 1687, 4to; in which he treats Dryden with some severity; “If I thought,” says he, “there was no such thing as true religion in the world, and that the priests of all religions are alike, I might have been as nimble a convert, and as early a defender of the royal papers, as any one of these champions. For why should not one, who believes no religion, declare for any?” In 1687 he published his “Hind and Panther; a poem.” It is divided into three parts, and is a direct defence of the Romish church, chiefly by way of dialogue between a hind, who represents the church of Rome, and a panther, who sustains the character of the church of England. These two beasts very learnedly discuss the several points controverted between the two churches; as transubstantiation, church-authority, infallibility, &c. In the preface he tells us, that this poem “was neither imposed on him, nor so much as the subject given han by any man. It was written,” says he, “durin;- the last winter and the beginning of this spring, though with long interruptions of ill health and other hindrances. About a fortnight before I had finished it, his majesty’s declaration for liberty of conscience came abroad which it 1 had so soon expected, I might have spared myself the labour of writing many things, which are contained in the third part of it. But 1 was always in some hope the church of England might have been persuaded to have taken off the penal laws and the test, which was one design of the poem when I proposed to myself the writing of it.” This poem was immediately attacked by the wits, particularly by Montague (afterwards earl of Halifax,) and Prior; who joined in writing ' The Hind and Panther transversed to the story of the Country Mouse and the City Mouse.“In 1688 he published” Britannia Rediviva;" a poem on the birth of the prince.

He was supposed, some time before this, to have been engaged in translating Varillas’s History of Heresies, but to have dropped that work before it was finished. This we learn from a passage in Burnet’s “Defence of the Reflections on the ninth book of the first volume” of that history: “I have been informed from England,” says the doctor, “that a gentleman, who is famous both for poetry and several other things, has spent three months in translating Mr. Varillas’s history; but that, as soon as my * Reflections’ appeared, he discontinued his labour, finding the credit of his author was gone. Now, if he thinks it is recovered by his answer, he will perhaps go on with his translation; and this may be, for aught I know, as good an entertainment for him as the conversation he has set on foot between the hinds and panthers, and all the rest of the animals, for whom Mr. Varillas may serve well enough, as an author and this history and that poem are sucb> extraordinary things of their kind, that it will be but suitable to the author of the worst poem to become likwise the translator of the worst history that the age has produced. If his grace and his wit improve both proportional)] y, we shall hardly find that he has gained much by the change he has made, from having no religion to choose one of the worst. It is true, he had somewhat to sink from in matter of wit; but as for his morals, it is scarce possible for him to grow a worse man than he was. He has lately wreaked his malice on me for spoiling his three months labour; but in it he has done me all the honour that any man can receive from him, which is, to be railed at by him. If I had ill nature enough to prompt me to wish a very bad wish for him, it should be, that he would go on and finish his translation. By that it will appear, whether the English nation, which is the most competent judge in this matter, has, upon the seeing our debate, pronounced in Mr. Varilias’s favour or mine. It is true, Mr. Dryden will suffer a little by it but at least it will serve to keep him in from other extravagances and if he gains little honour by this work, yet he cannot lose so much by it as he has done by his last employment.” This passage, besides the information which it affords, shews the opinion, whether just or not, which Burnet entertained of Dryden and his morals.

He married the lady Elizabeth Howard, daughter of the earl of Berkshire, who died in June or July 1714, after having been for some years insane. By her he had three sons, Charles, John, and Erasmus—Henry, of all whom we shall take some notice hereafter. There are some circumstances, relating to Dryden’s funeral, recorded in Wilson’s memoirs of the life of Mr. Congreve, which have been generally credited. It is said that the day after his death. Sprat, bishop of Rochester and dean of Westminster, sent word to lady Elizabeth Howard, his widow, that he would make a present of the ground, and all the other abbey fees. Lord Halifax likewise sent to lady Elizabeth, and to Mr. Charles Dryden her son, offering to defray the expences of our poet’s funeral, and afterwards to bestow 500l. on a monument in the abbey; which generous offer from both was accepted. Accordingly, on the Sunday following, the company being assembled, the corpse was put into a velvet hearse, attended by 18 mourning coaches, When they were just ready to move, lord Jefferu-s, son of the chancellor Jefferies, with some of his rakish companions, coining by, asked whose funeral it was; and, being told it was Mr. Dry den’s, he protested, that ho should not be buried in that private manner; that he would himself, with lady Elizabeth’s leave, have the honour of his interment, and would bestow 1000l. on a monument in the abbey for him. This put a stop to the procession; and Jefferies, with several of the gentlemen who had alighted from the coaches, went up stairs to the lady Elizabeth, who was sick in bed. Jefferies repeated the purport of what he had said below; but lady Elizabeth absolutely refusing her consent, he fell on his knees, vowii.g never to rise till his request was granted. The lady, under a sudden surprise, fainted away and lord Jefferies, pretending to have gained her consent, ordered the body to be carried to Mr. RussePs, an undertaker in Cheapside, and to be left there till further orders. In the mean time, the abbey was lighted up, the ground opened, the choir attending, and the bishop waiting some hours to no purpose for the corpse. The next day, Mr. Charles Dryden waited upon lord Halifax and the bishop, and endeavoured to excuse his mother, by relating the truth; but they would not hear of any excuse. Three days after, the undertaker, receiving no orders, waited on lord Jetieries, who turned it off in a jest, pretending, that those who paid any regard to a drunken frolic deserved no better; that he remembered nothing at all of the matter; and that they might do what they pleased with the corpse. Upon this, the undertaker waited on the lady Elizabeth, who desired a day to consider what must be done. Mr. Charles Dryden immediately wrote to lord Jefferies, who returned for answer, that he knew nothing of the matter, and would be troubled no more about it. Mr. Dryden applied again to lord Halifax and the bishop of Rochester, who absolutely refused to do any thing in the affair. In this distress, Dr. Garth sent for the corpse to the college of physicians, and proposed a funeral by subscription which succeeding, about three weeks after Dryden’s decease, Garth pronounced a Latin oration over his body, which was conveyed from the college, attended by a numerous train of coaches, to Westminster-abbey. After the funeral, Mr. Charles Dryden sent lord Jefteries a challenge, which was not accepted; and, Mr. Dryden publicly declaring he would watch every opportunity to fight him, his lordship thought fit to leave the town upon it, and Mr. Dryden never could meet him after. Mr. Malone, however, has very clearly proved that the greater part of all this was a fiction by Mrs. Thomas. The fact is, that, on May 1, a magnificent funeral was projected by several persons of quality, and the body was in consequence conveyed to the College of Physicians, whence, after Dr. Garth had pronounced a Latin oration in his praise, it was, on the 13th of May, conveyed to Westminster-abbey, attended by above one hundred coaches.

As to Dryden’s character, it has been treated in extremes, some setting it too high, others too low; for he was too deeply engaged in party, to have strict justice done him either way. As to his dramatic works, to say nothing more of the Rehearsal, we find, that the critics, his contemporaries, made very free with them and, it must be confessed, they are not the least exceptionable of his compositions. In tragedy, it has been observed, that he seldom touches the passions, but deals rather in pompous language, poetical flights, and descriptions; and that this was his real taste, appears not only from the tragedies themselves, but from two instances mentioned by Mr. Gildon. The first is, that when a translation of Euripides was recommended to him instead of Homer, he replied, that he had no relish for that poet, who was a master of tragic simplicity: the other is, that he generally expressed a very mean, if not a contemptible, opinion of Otway, who is universally allowed to have succeeded in affecting the passions; though, in the preface to his translation of M. Fresnoy, he speaks more favourably of that poet. Gildon ascribes this taste in Dryden to his intimacy with French romances. As to comedy, he acknowledges his want of gem us for it, in his defence of the “Essay on Dramatic Poetry,” prefixed to his Indian Emperor: “I know,” says he, “I am not fitted by nature to write comedy; I want that gaiety of humour which is required in it. My conversation is slow and dull; my humour saturnine and reserved. In short, 1 am none of those who endeavour to break jests in company, or to make repartees. So that those who decry my comedies, do me no injury, except it be in point of profit: reputation in them is the last thing to which I shall pretend.” But perhaps he would have wrote better in both kinds of the drama, had not the necessity of his circumstances obliged him to conform to the popular taste; and, indeed, he insinuates as much in the epistle dedicatory to the Spanish Friar: “I remember some verses of my own Maximin and Almanzor, which cry vengeance on me for their extravagance. All I can say for those passages, which are, I hope, not many, is, that I knew they were bad enough to please, even when I writ them. But I repent of them among my sins; and if any of their fellows intrude by chance in my present writings, I draw a stroke over all those Dalilahs of the theatre, and am resolved I will settle myself no reputation by the applause of fools. It is not that I am mortified to all ambition; but I scorn as much to take it from half-witted judges, as I should to raise an estate by cheatingfof bubbles. Neither do I discommend the lofty style in tragedy, which is naturally pompous and magnificent; but nothing is truly sublime, that is not just and proper.” He tells us, in his preface to Fresnoy, that his “Spanish Friar was given to the people; and that he never wrote any thing in the dramatic way to please himself, but his Anthony and Cleopatra.”

His translations of Virgil, Juvenal, and Persius, and his Fables, were more successful, as we have observed already. But his poetical reputation is built chiefly upon his original poems, among which his Ode on Saint Caecilia’s Day is justly esteemed one of the most perfect pieces in any language. It has been set to music more than once, particularly in the winter of 1735, by Handel; and was publicly performed with the utmost applause, on the theatre in Covent-garden. Congreve, in the dedication of our author’s dramatic works to the duke of Newcastle, has drawn his character to great advantage. He represented him, in regard to his moral character, in every respect not only blameless, but amiable; and, “as to his writings,” says he, “no man hath written in our language so much and so various matter, and in so various manners, so well. Another thing I may say was very peculiar to him; which is, that his parts did not decline with his years, but that he was an improving writer to the last, even to near se* venty years of age; improving even in fire and imagination, as well as in judgment; witness his Ode on St. Caecilia’s Day, and his Fables, his latest performances. He was equally excellent in verse and in prose. His prose had all the clearness imaginable, together with all the nobleness of expression; all the graces and ornaments proper and peculiar to it, without deviating into the language or diction of poetry. I have heard him frequently own with pleasure, that if he had any talent for English prose, it was owing to his having often read the writings of the great archbishop Tillotson. His versification and his numbers he could learn of nobody; for he first possessed those talents in perfection in our tongue. In his poems, his diction is, wherever his subject requires it, so sublimely and so truly poetical, that its essence, like that of pure gold, cannot be destroyed. What he has done in any one species or distinct kind of writing, would have been sufficient to have acquired him a great name. If he had written nothing but his prefaces, or nothing but his songs or his prologues, each of them would have entitled him to the preference and distinction of excelling in his kind.” It may be proper to observe, that Congreve, in drawing this character of Dryden, discharged an obligation laid on him by our poet, in these lines:

It is said, that he had once a design of taking orders, but was refused*; and that he solicited for the provost­* The malignity which Dryden often not have admitted, and such as may expressed against the clergy is ira- vitiate light and unprincipled minds, puted by Langhaiue to a repulse which But there is no reason for supposing he suffered when he solicited ordina- that he disbelieved the religion which tion but he “denied that he ever de- he disobeyed. He forgot his duty rasigned to enter into the church and ther than disowned it. His tendency such a denial,” observes Dr. Johnson, to profaneness is the effect of levity, “he would not have hazarded, if he negligence, and loose conversation, could have been convicted of falsehood, with a desire of accommodating himMalevolence to the Clergy,” adds the self to the corruption of the times, bydoctor, “is seldom at a great distance venturing to be wicked as far as he from irreverence of religion, and Dry- durst. When he professed himself a den affords no exception to this ob- convert to Popery, he did not pretend f^rvatiou. His writings exhibit many to have received any new conviction passages, which, with all the allow- of the fundamental doctrines of Curisance that can be made for characters tianity.” and occasions, are such as piety would ship of Eton-college, but failed also in this. This we have upon the authority of Thomas Brown, who, in “The late Converts exposed, or the reason of Mr. Bayes’s changing his religion,” of which he was supposed to be the author, has the following passage in the preface: “But, prythee, why so severe always upon the priesthood, Mr. Bayes? You, I find, still continue your old humour, which we are to date from the year of Hegira, the loss of Eton, or since orders were refused you.” Langbaine likewise, speaking of our author’s Spanish Friar, tells us, that “ever since a certain worthy bishop refused orders to a certain poet, Mr. Dryden has declared open defiance against the whole clergy; and since the church began the war, he has thought it but justice to make reprisals on the church.”

, our author’s second son, was born probably in 1667 or 1663, and educated at Westminsterschool, from which he was elected to Oxford, but instead of being matriculated of Christ-church, was placed by his father, now become a Roman catholic, under the private tuition of Obadiah Walker, master of University college, a concealed papist. It is supposed that he went to Rome about the end of 1692, and obtained some office under his brother in the pope’s household. Previously to his leaving England, he translated the fourteenth satire for his father’s Juvenal, and while at Rome, wrote a comedy, “The Husband his own Cuckold,” which was acted in London, and published with a preface by his father. He made a tour in Sicily and Malta, of which his account, after remaining many years in manuscript, was published in 1776, in an 8vo pamphlet. Soon after his return to Rome from this excursion, in 1701, he is said to have died there of a fever.

A collection of his won.s was made in his life-time, and printed at Lyons in 1554; but after his death, another edition, more complete, was published in 1579, under the inspection of Nicholas Cisner, who had been his scholar, and was afterwards professor of civil law at Heidelberg. Whether this, or the edition afterwards printed in 1592, contains the same number of pieces, we have not an opportunity of examining. His principal works are: 1. “Commentaria in varies titulos digesti &. codicis.” 2. “Disputation um anniversariarum libri dno.” 3. “De jure accrescendi libri duo.” 4. “De ratione docendi discendique juris.” 5. “De jurisdictione & imperio.” 6. “Apologia adversus Eguinarium Baronem.” 7. “De plagiariis.” This Bayle calls “a curious treatise, but too short for so copious a subject.” 8. “In consuetudines feudorum commentarius.” 9. “De sacris ecclesiae ministeriis ac beneficiis.” 10. “Pro libertate ecclesiae Gallicanrc adversus artes Romanas defensio.” This piece prejudiced the court of Rome against him, and procured it a place in the Index Expurgatorius. II. “Epistola ad Sebast. Albespinam, regis Gallise oratorem.” 12. “Epistola de Francisco BaU duino.” 13. “Defensio adversus Balduini sycophante maledicta.”

, an eminent French writer and critic, secretary, and one of the forty members of the French academy, censor-royal, &c. was born at Beauvais, in December, 1670. After some elementary education at home, he came to Paris in 1686, and pursuing his studies, took his bachelor’s degree in divinity in 1691. One of his uncles, a canon of the cathedral of Beauvais, being attacked by a dangerous illness, resigned his canonry to him in 1695, but on his recovery chose to revoke his resignation. The nephew appears to have felt this and other disappointments in his view of promotion so keenly, as to determine to change his profession. He accordingly left Beauvais in the last-mentioned year, returned to Paris, and soon was distinguished as a man of abilities. The same year he acquired a situation in the office for foreign affairs, and became patronized by M. de Torcy, by whose means he accompanied the French plenipotentiaries to Ryswick, in 1696, where peace was concluded. After his return to France, he was sent to Italy in 1699, although without an ostensible character, to negociate some affairs of importance in the Italian courts, which occupied him until 1702. Some time after, he went to England, as charge d'affaires, and while the war occasioned by the contest about the crown of Spain was at its height, and had involved all Europe, he was the only minister France had at the court of St. James’s, where he resided without rank or character. He then went to the Hague, and to Brussels, and at this latter place wrote the manifesto of the elector of Bavaria, which did him so much credit. In 1707 we find him at Neufchatel, and in 1710 at Gertruydenburgh, and he appears to have had a considerable hand in the treaties of peace concluded at Utrecht, Baden, and Rastadt. All these services were recompensed in 1705, by the priory of Veneroles, and in 1714 by a canonry of the church of Beauvais. Having been employed in other state affairs by the regent and by cardinal Dubois, he was rewarded in 1716 by a pension of 2000 livres, and in 1723 was promoted to the abbey of Notre-Dame de Ressons, near Beauvais. As it was now his intention to execute the duties of these preferments, he received in 1724 the orders of subdeacon and deacon, and was about to have taken possession of his canonry, when he was seized with a disorder at Paris, which proved fatal March 23, 1742. In 1720 he was elected into the French academy, and in 1723 was appointed their secretary.

His works, which procured him a very high reputation in France, were published inxhe following order: 1. “Histoire des quatre Gordiens, prouvee et illustree par les medailles,” Paris, 1695, 12mo, in which he proves, contrary to the common opinion, that there was a fourth Gordianus, the son of the younger Gordianus of Africa; but this produced two answers, in which his opinion was attacked. 2. “Animadversiones ad Nicolai Bergerii librog de publicis et militaribus imperii Romani viis,” Utrecht and Leyden, 1699. 3. “Les interets de PAngleterre, mal entendiis dans la guerre presente,” Amst. 1704, of which there have been several editions, but it appears to have been better relished in France than in England; it consists of many melancholy prophecies respecting England, one of which only, the separation of the American colonies from the mother country, which he hints at, has been fulfilled. 4. “Histoire de la ligue de Cambrai, faite Tan 1508, centre la republique de Venise,” Paris, 1709, 2 vols. 12mo, and reprinted in 1728. 5. “Reflections critiques sur la Poesie et la Peinture,” Paris, 1719, 2 vols. 12mo, and often reprinted in 3 vols, and translated into English. This work, on which the abbe“Dubos’s reputation now principally rests, contains many useful remarks, in a style peculiarly agreeable, but his taste has been frequently attacked, and his enthusiasm for the arts doubted. Voltaire gave him the praise of having seen, heard, and reflected upon the fine arts, and he must be allowed to be upon some topics an elegant writer, and an ingenious reasoner; but, with regard to the subject of music, both his prejudices and his ignorance are visible. He not only determines, says Dr. Burney, that the French and Fleming* cultivated music before the Italians; but, wholly unacquainted with the compositions of other parts of Europe, asserted that there was no music equal to that of Lulli, only known and admired in France. And where, adds the doctor, will he be believed, except in that kingdom, when he says that foreigners allow his countrymen to understand time and measure better than the Italians? He never loses an opportunity of availing himself of the favourable opinions of foreigners in behalf of French music, against that of other parts of Europe. Not only Guicciardini, but Addison, Gravina, and Vossius, all equally unacquainted with the theory, practice, or history of the art, and alike deprived of candour by the support of some favourite opinion or hypothesis, are pressed into the service of his country. If when D'Alembert wrote his Eulogy, he could say that Dubos was one of those men of letters who had more merit than fame, the converse of the proposition is now nearer the truth, and yet the merit of having produced a very agreeable book may be allowed him; and a book, a great deal of which will contribute to form a just taste on those subjects with which he is really acquainted. 6.” Histoire critique de l'etablissment de la monarchic Franoise dans les Gaules," Paris, 1734, 3 vols. 4to. Profiting by some criticisms on this work from the pen of M. Hoffman, professor of history at Wittemberg, he left for publication a corrected edition, which appeared in 1743, 2 vols. 4to. Besides these, he published a translation in French prose, of part of Addison’s Cato, and some discourses held in the French academy.

, one of the martyrs to the cause of the protestant religion in France, in the sixteenth century, was a native of Auvergne, sou to Stephen du Bourg, comptroller general of the customs in Languedoc, and brother to Anthony du Bourg, president of the parliament of Paris, and afterwards chancellor of France. He was born in 1521, designed for the church, and ordained priest; but embracing the protestant religion, was honoured with the crown of martyrdom. He was a man of great learning, especially in the law, which he taught at Orleans with much reputation, and was appointed counsellor-clerk to the parliament of Paris in October 1557. In this high station, he declared himself the protector of the protestants, and endeavoured either to prevent or soften the punishments inflicted upon them. This alarmed some of Henry II.'s counsellors, who advised that monarch to get rid of the protestants, and told him that he should begin by punishing those judges who secretly favoured them, or others who employed their credit and recommendations to screen them from punishment. They likewise suggested that the king should make his appearance unexpectedly in the parliament which was to be assembled on the subject of the Mercurials, or Checks, a kind of board of censure against the magistrates instituted by Charles VIII. and called Mercurials from the day on which they were to be held (Wednesday). The king accordingly came to parliament in June 1559, when Du Bourg spoke with great freedom in his defence, and went so far as to attack the licentious manners of the court; on which the king ordered him to be arrested. On the 19th he was tried, and declared a heretic by the bishop of Paris, ordered to be degraded from the character of priest, and to be delivered into the hand of the secular power; but the king’s death, in July, delayed the execution until December, *vhen he was again condemned by the bishop of Paris, and the archbishop of Lyons, his appeals being rejected by the parliament. Frederick, elector Palatine, and other protestant princes of Germany, solicited his pardon, and probably might have succeeded, had it not been for the assassination, at this time, of the president M in art, whom Du Bourg had challenged on his trial; and it was not therefore difficult, however unjust, to persuade his persecutors that he had a hand in this assassination. He was accordingly hanged, and his body burnt Dec. 2O, 1559; leaving behind him the character of a pious and learned man, an upright magistrate, and a steady friend. At his execution he avowed his principles with great spirit; and the popish biographers are forced to allow that the firmness and constancy shown by him and others, about the same time, tended only to “make new heretics, instead of intimidating the old.”

, an eminent antiquary and medailist, was born in 1721 at Housseau, in the canton of Soleure in Switzerland, whence, at nine years of age, he was sent to Denmark, and entered soon after as a student in the university of Copenhagen. Having completed his stud'es in that seminary, he repaired to France, which he considered from that moment as his adopted country, and entered into a Swiss regiment, in the service of it. In his military capacity his conduct was such as to merit and receive the esteem of his superior officers. At the battle of Fontenoy, he received two musket-shots, but still remained in his station, and could not be prevailed upon to leave the field of action, until his leg and part of his thigh had been carried off by a cannon-ball. Being thus rendered unfit for service, he was obliged to take refuge in the hospital for invalids, where he first resolved to extend his knowledge by cultivating foreign languages. After an obstinate pursuit of his object, which occupied all his thoughts, and occasioned several journies among the northern nations, expressly for the purpose of acquiring proficiency in this favourite study, he arrived at such a degree of eminence, as justly to merit the office of interpreter to the royal library for the English, Dutch, German, and Flemish, as well as the Swedish, Danish, and Russian languages. He fulfilled the duties of this important station with so much probity and exactness, that the council of the admiralty appointed him to occupy the same functions in the maritime department; and, during the thirtytwo years in which he filled this office, he gave repeated proofs of his integrity and disinterestedness. Possessing a mind equally unclouded by ambition and the love of pleasure, he employed all his leisure hours in the study of coins and medals, in which he acquired great proficiency. He began with considering and collecting such as had been struck during sieges, and in times of necessity; a pursuit analogous to his taste, and to the profession to which his early life had been devoted. Having completed this task, he undertook to form and to publish a more complete collection of the different species of money struck by the barons of France, than any that had hitherto appeared. In this, which may be called a national work, not content with consulting all the authors who had treated on the subject, he also searched a number of different cabinets, on purpose to verify the original pieces, and to satisfy himself as to their existence and authenticity. But while occupied in drawing up an account of the coins of the first, second, and third race of the kings of France, he was snatched from his favourite avocations by the hand of death, Nov. 19, 1782, when his family were left to mourn the loss of a good husband and father, society to regret an estimable and a modest man, and the sciences to lament an able and an indefatigable investigator. In 1790, the works he had finished were published in a splendid form in 3 vols, imperial 4to, with many plates, at Paris, under the title, “The Works of the late Mr. P. A. T. Duby, &c.” containing in vol. I. a general collection of pieces struck during sieges, or in times of necessity; and in vols. II. and III. a treatise on the money coined by the peers, bishops, abbots, &c. of France. The coins in these volumes are admirably executed, and the whole is a strong proof of the author’s skill in antiquities and general knowledge of every branch connected with his subject.

, or Fronton. See Fronton.

Though disappointed in his wishes of entering into holy orders, he became intimately connected with the church He was elected commissary or official of the peculiar and exempt jurisdiction of the collegiate church or free chapel of St. Katharine, near the Tower of London, 1753; was appointed commissary and official of the city and diocese of Canterbury, by archbishop Herring, in December, 1758; and of the subdeanries of South Mailing, Pagham, and Terring, in Sussex, by archbishop Seeker, on the death of Dr. Dennis Clarke, in 1776. He was elected F. A. S. Sept. 22, 1737, and was one of the first fellows of the society nominated by the president and council on its incorporation 1755. He was also elected Aug. 29, 1760, member of the Society of Antiquaries at Cortona; on which occasion he sent them a Latin letter drawn up by his friend the late rev. Philip Morant. He was admitted F. R. S. Feb. 18, 1762; became an honorary fellow of the Society of Antiquaries of Cassel, by diploma, dated in November, 1778; and of that of Edinburgh in 1781. In 1755, he solicited the place of sub-librarian at the Museum, in the room of Mr. Empsom; but it was pre-engaged.

The doctor’s first publication, though without his name, was “A Tour through Normandy, described in a letter to a friend,” 1754, 4to. This tour through part of his native country was undertaken, in company with Dr. Bever, in the summer of 1752; and his account of it, considerably enlarged, was re-published under the title of “Anglo-Norman Antiquities considered, in a Tour through part of Normandy, by Dr. Ducarel, illustrated with 27 copperplates, 1767,” fol. inscribed to Dr. Lyttelton, bishop of Carlisle, then president of the Society of Antiquaries. His lordship had first remarked, 1742, the difference between the mode of architecture used by the Normans in their buildings, and that practised by the contemporary Saxons in England; and the doctor’s observations, actually made on the spot ten years afterward, confirmed the rules then laid down. This ancient dependance of the English crown, with the many memorials in it by the English, was a favourite object of his contemplation. Its coinage was his next research; and he published “A series of above 200 Anglo-Gallic or Norman and Aquitaine Coins of the ancient kings of England, exhibited in sixteen copper-plates, and illustrated in twelve letters, addressed to the Society of Antiquaries of London, and several of its members; to which is added, a map of the ancient dominions of the Icings of England and France, with some adjacent countries, 1757,” 4to. His portrait, engraved by Perry, from a painting by A. Soldi, 1746, was first prefixed to this work, which was the result of his acquaintance with i\l. de Boze, keeper of the French king’s medals, and secretary of the academy of inscriptions and belles lettres. (See Boze). In this undertaking- the doctor found himself seconded by sir Charles Frederick, who engraved all the Aquitaine coins in his possession, in 36 quarto plates, but without any description or letter-press, and intended only for private use, being little known before their circulation on his decease.

A question being started by the hon. Daines Barrington, concerning trees indigenous to Great Britain, in the “Philosophical Transactions,” and the chesnut, elm, Him 1 and sycamore, box, abele, and yew, accounted non-indigenous; the doctor undertook the defence of the first of these trees, and to prove it a native here in which he was supported by his antiquarian friends Thorpe and Hasted, who, as Kentishinen, seern to have thought themselves more particularly interested in the dispute. His and their letters on the subject were printed in the “Philosophical Transactions,” vol. LXI.; and Mr. Harrington, in the next article, gave up the controversy, and Dr. Ducarel received great congratulations on his victory. His account of the early cultivation of botany in England, and more particularly of John Tradescant, a great promoter of that science, and of his monument and garden at Lambeth, appeared originally in the “Philosophical Transactions;” whence it is copied, in the “History of Lambeth,” with several improvements, communicated by the doctor to Mr. Nichols. Dr. DucarePs letter to Gerard Meerman, grand pensioner at the Hague, on the dispute concerning Corsellis, as the first printer in England, read at the Society of Antiquaries, 1760, and translated into Latin by Dr. Musgrave, with Mr. Meerman’s answer, were published in the second volume of Meerman’s “Origines Typographies, 1765,” and, with a second letter from Mr. Meerman, were given to the public by Mr. Nichols in a Supplement to his learned partner’s “Two Essays on the Origin of Printing, 1776.” Upon printing the new edition of bishop Gibson’s “Codex,” at the Clarendon press, 1761, the doctor collated the ms collections of precedents annexed to it with the originals at Lambeth, and elsewhere; in return for which, at his own desire, the delegates of the press presented him with two copies of the new edition handsomely bound. From the time of Dr. Ducarel’s appointment to be keeper of the library at Lambeth, his pursuits took a different turn to the ecclesiastical antiquities of this kingdom, and more particularly to those of the province of Canterbury, for which he was so well supplied with materials from that library. In 1761 he circulated printed proposals for publishing a general repertory of the endowments of vicarages, for the service both of vicars and their parishioners, as nothing conduces so much to ascertain their mutual rights as ancient original endowments, which are to be found in the registries of the bishop or dean and chapter of the diocese, or in the chartularies and register books of religious houses. He had proceeded so far as to set down, in alphabetical order, the name and date of every endowment in the registers of the see of Canterbury; and all such as he could discover in the public libraries, or in printed books. He therefore next solicited the like communications from the other diocesans, or from possessors of ancient records; and subjoined a specimen of his method, and a list of the endowments already discovered, in this inquiry the assistance he received was very considerable, and it was at one time in contemplation to print an account of all these several registers, in a volume of his epistolary correspondence with some of the first characters in literature, accompanied with several valuable antiquarian tracts collected by Dr. Ducarei. The proposal for publishing the general repertory of endowments of vicarages, originally circulated, with a specimen annexed, in a single sheet, 4to, dated Dec. 3, 1761, was prefixed (with a new date, Dec. 23, 1762) to “A Repertory of the Endowments of Vicarages in the Diocese of Canterbury, 1763,” 4to, printed for the benefit of the charity-school at Canterbury; of which Mr. Gough had the doctor’s copy, with considerable additions in ms. by him, which were all incorporated into a second edition in 8vo, 1782; to which were added, endowments of vicarages in the diocese of Rochester. In a letter to the rev, Mr. Cole, of Milton, 1757, he says, “I hope, within this year, to have about twelve dioceses ready for the press;” and in another, to the rev. Dr. Cox Macro, 1763, he tells him he had eleven other dioceses then ready. In 1768 he appears to have entertained thoughts of going to press with these collections. In 1763 he drew up an account of the Mss. in the Norfolk library belonging to the royal society, amounting to 563, including 45 then first catalogued. On this occasion he was of a committee with lord Charles Cavendish and the late Dr. Birch. Jn the same year he was appointed by the lords commissioners of the Treasury, at the head of whom Mr. Grenville then was, in conjunction with sir Joseph Ayloffe, bart. and Mr. Astle, to digest and methodize the records of the state paper office at Whitehall; and afterwards those in the augmentationofh'ce. A calendar of the records of the latter, in two volumes, folio, was purchased at his sale for the Bodleian library. In 1766, he communicated to the society of antiquaries a paper on Bezants; which bishop Lyttleton, in a letter to him, styled “curious and elaborate.”

He was engaged also in arranging and indexing above 30 folio volumes of leases, papers, &c. and such was his assiduity in whatever he undertook, that, besides the fair copy of the index by him taken of all the Lambeth registers, and the general index which he made to them, he reserved for himself another, which at his sale became the property of Mr. Gough, and at the sale of the latter was bought for the British Museum. It contains in 48 volumes folio, neatly bound, an account of every instrument relative to the see, province, and diocese of Canterbury, from Pecham to Herring; and, with a great variety of other materials amassed by the doctor, may be justly styled a fund of ecclesiastical antiquities for that province in particular, and for the kingdom at large. In this laborious undertaking he was materially assisted by the industry of his friend Mr. Howe-Mores; by Mr. Hall, his predecessor in the office of librarian; and by Mr. Pouncey, who for many years was his assistant, as clerk and deputy librarian. Dr. Ducarel had an intention of publishing his abstract of archbishop Pecham’s register; and the rough draught of a Latin title, with a preface or dedication to archbishop Herring, together with a copy of the abstract, and various notes by Mr. Mores, came to Mr. Gough by purchase, at Mr. Mores’ s sale.

For many years it was his custom to travel incognito in August, with his friend Samuel Gale, esq. attended only by his own coachman and Mr. Gale’s footman, George Monk. Twenty miles was their usual stage on the first day, and every other day about fifteen. It was a rule not to go out of their road to see any of their acquaintance. The coachman was directed to say, “it was a job; and that he did not know their names, but that they were civil gentlemen;” and the footman, “that he was a friend of the coachman’s, who gave him a cast.” They usually took up their quarters at an inn, and penetrated into the country for three or four miles round. After dinner, Mr. Gale smoked his pipe, whilst Dr. Ducarel took notes, which he regularly transcribed, and which after his death were purchased by Mr. Gough. They constantly took with them Camden’s Britannia, and a set of maps. In Vertue’s plate of London-bridge chapel, the figure measuring is Dr. Ducarel; that standing is Mr. Samuel Gale.

Dr. Ducarel closed a life of unremitted industry and application in antiquarian pursuits, at his house at South Lambeth, May 29, 1785, after he had returned only three days from a fortnight’s journey into Kent, where he had held a visitation for himself, and three different ones for his friend archdeacon Backhouse. He was a stout., athletic man, and had a strong prepossession that he should live to a great age. He frequently said, that he had the stamina of long life; and that if he escaped any violent accident, or a stroke of the palsy, “he should take a peep into the next century.” The immediate cause of the disorder which carried him off, was a sudden surprize, on receiving, whilst at Canterbury, a letter informing him that Mrs. Ducarel was at the point of death. He hastened home, took to his bed, and died in three days; and was buried in his favourite church of St. Katharine, on the north side of the altar, in a vault which (as has been already mentioned) he had many years ago selected for that purpose.

, a learned dissenting minister, was born in Ireland 1697. He had his early education under the direction of an uncle his preparatory studies were greatly assisted by the well-known Mr. Abernethy and he finished his course of study at the universitv or Glasgow which, in- testimony of his merit, conferred en him the degree of D.D. He resided for ten or eleven years at Cambridge, as the pastor of a small congregation there; where he enjoyed the advantage of books, and of learned conversation, which he improved with the greatest diligence. On Mr. Abernethy’s removal from Antrim, he succeeded him in that place; and on the death of that gentleman, was chosen to be minister to the protestant dissenting congregation of Wood-street, Dublin, in which situation he continued to his death, which happened in 1761.

During his residence here, when he was in the decline of life, of a valetudinary habit, and had frequent avocations in the way of his profession, he composed and wrote sermons to the amount of more, it appears on the best computation, than 700. From this mass a collection was taken after his death, and published in 1764, 3 vols. 8vo. They are mostly on new and uncommon subjects; and though they cannot bear a strict critical examination, yet a vein of strong manly sense and piety runs through the whole. During his life, he published a volume of excellent discourses on the presumptive arguments in favour or the Christian religion; and many occasional tracts, both in England and Ireland.

, born at Paris, Oct. 29, 1668, was the son of a gentleman of the bedchamber to the French king. His father took great pains in his education; but left him scarcely any property, and he soon had recourse to his pen as the means of gaining a subsistence. The marchioness de Maintenon, having seen some of his essays, made choice of him to furnish her pupils at St. Cyr with sacred sonnets, and recommended him so strongly to Pontchartrain, the secretary of state, that the minister, taking the poet for some considerable personage, went and made him a visit. Duche, seeing a secretary of state enter his doors, thought he was going to be sent to the Bastille^; but he was soon relieved from his fright by the civilities of the minister. Duche had as much gentleness in his disposition as charms in his wit, and never indulged in any strokes of satire. Rousseau and he were the delight of the companies they frequented; but the impression made by Duche, though less striking at first, was most lasting. He was also admired for the talent of declamation, which he possessed in no common degree. The academy of inscriptions and belles lettres were pleased to admit him of their body; but he died in the prime of life, Dec. 14, 1704. Duche presented the French theatre with three tragedies, Jonathan, Absalom, and Deborah, of which the second, containing several pathetic scenes, still keeps its ground on the stage; and also wrote some ballets, tragedies, &c. for the opera. Of these last, his “Iphigenia” is his best performance and in the opinion of his countrymen, has many of the excellencies of the Grecian tragedies. There is likewise by this author a collection of edifying stories, which used to be read at St. Cyr with no less edification than pleasure, but which has sometimes been confounded with the pious and moral stories of the abbé de Choisi. The two works are indeed written in the same design, that of disengaging youth from frivolous reading but the collection of the poet is less known than that of the abbé yet is not inferior to it, either in elevation of sentiment, in truth of character, or even in elegance of style. His hymns and his sacred canticles were also sung at St. Cyr.

He was then about 24 years of age; was married, and at service: he had little time to spare: he had no books, and no money to get any; but used to work more than other day-labourers, by which means he got some little matter added to his pay. This overplus was at his own disposal; and with this he bought first a book of vulgar arithmetic, then one of decimal, and a third of measuring land; of all which, by degrees, he made himself a tolerable master, in those hours he could steal from sleep after the labours of the day. He had, it seems, one dear friend, who joined with him in this literary pursuit; and with whom he used to talk and read, when they could steal a little time for it. This friend had been in a service at London for two or three years, and had an inclination to books, as well as Stephen Duck. He had purchased some, and brought them down with him into the country; and Stephen had always the use of his little library, which in time was increased to two or three dozen of books. “Perhaps,” says his historian, Mr. Spence, “you would be willing to know, what books their little library consisted of. I need not mention those of arithmetic again, nor his Bible. Milton, the Spectators, and Seneca, were his first favourites; Telemachus, with another piece by the same hand, and Addisou’s Defence of Christianity, his next. They had an English dictionary, and a sort of English grammar, an Ovid of long standing with them, and a Bysshe’s Art of Poetry of later acquisition. Seneca’s Morals made the name of L'Estrange dear to them; and, as I imagine, might occasion their getting his Joseph us in folio, which was the largest purchase in their whole collection. They had one volume of Shaksneare, with seven of his plays in it. Besides these, Stephen had read three or four other plays; some of Epictetus. Waller, Dryden’s Virgil, Prior, Hudibras, Tom Browne, and the London Spy.”

With these helps Stephen grew something of a poet, and something of a philosopher. He had from his infancy a cast in his mind towards poetry, as appeared from several little circumstances; but what gave him a higher taste of it than he had been used to, was Milton’s Paradise Lost. This he read over twice or thrice with a dictionary before he could understand the language of it thoroughly; and this, with a sort of English grammar he had, is said to have been of the greatest use to him. It was his friend that helped him to the Spectators; which, as he himself owned, improved his understanding more than any thing. The pieces of poetry scattered in those papers helped on his natural bent that way; and made him willing to try whether he could not do something like them. He sometimes turned his own thoughts into verse, while he was at wo;k and at la>-t bo;,an to venture those thoughts a little upon paper. The thing took air; and Stephen, who had before the name of a scholar among the country people, was said now to be able to write verses too. This was mentioned accidentally, about 1729, before a gentleman of Oxford, who sent for Stephen and, after some talk with him, desired him to write him a letter in verse. He did so; and that letter is the epistle which stands the last in his poems, though the first whole copy of verses that ever he wrote.

By these attempts, one after another, he became known to the clergymen in the neighbourhood; who, upon examining him, found that he had a great deal of merit, made him some presents, and encouraged him to go on. At length some of his essays falling into the hands of a lady of quality who attended on queen Caroline, he became known to her majesty, who took him under her protection, and settled on him a yearly pension, supposed to be of 30l.; it was such a one at least as was sufficient to maintain him independently of labour. This Duck very gratefully acknowledges in the dedication of his poems to the queen “Your majesty,” says he, “has indeed the same right to them, as you have to the fruits of a tree, which you have transplanted out of a barren soil into a fertile and beautiful garden. It was your generosity which brought me out of obscurity, and still condescends to protect me; like the Supreme Being, who continual‘.;,’ supports the meanest creature which his goodness has produced.” Swift, who might, one would think, easily have overlooked such an object as Duck, but whose spleen prompted him to be satirical on any occasion or none, was so piqued at this generosity in the queen, while we suppose he thought himself and his own friends neglected, that he wrote the following quibbling epigram, as he calls it, “on Stephen Duck, the thresher and favourite poet:”

In 1733 the queen made him one of the yeomen of the guards, from which situation, by a singular, and, we think, absurd transition, he was admitted into orders, and preferred to the living of Byfleet in Surrey. The only qualification for this office which his biographers mention, is a small knowledge of Latin, not enough surely to justify such an abuse of church patronage. Before this he was appointed keeper of the queen’s select library at Richmond, called Merlin’s Cave, where he had apartments, which were continued to his daughter after his decease. Here and at Byfleet he continued for many years to make poems and sermons, and was much followed by the people as a preacher; till, falling at length into a low-spirited melancholy way, he flung himself into the Thames from a bridge near Reading, or, as some say, into a trout stream, which is near Reading, and was drowned. This unhappy accident, for he was perfectly lunatic, befell him some time in March or April, 1756. In the preface to his poems he makes his acknowledgments to some gentleman who “first took notice of him in the midst of poverty and labour.” What those gentlemen did was highly generous and praise-worthy, and it was but gratitude in Stephen to acknowledge it yet it is more than probable, that if he had been suffered to pass the remainder of his lite, after he had spent so much of it, in poverty and labour, he had lived and died more happily. It was thought that his melancholy proceeded from a notion that he had not been sufficiently provided for, and if so, his injudicious patrons must have flattered him into a very false estimate of his merit. Warton says that Spence, who wrote Duck’s life and published his poems, was the means of his obtaining the living of Byfleet; and such was the taste of the courtiers of queen Caroline, that they actually wished to set up this poor versifier as a rival to Pope. But although, to use Warburton’s sarcastic language, “queen Caroline, who moderated, as a sovereign, between the two great philosophers, Clarke and Leibnitz, in the most sublime points in metaphysics and natural philosophy, chose this man for her favourite poet,” it was beneath such a man as Spence to persuade poor Duck that he merited the higher rewards of genius. Few men, if we may judge from his works, had ever less pretensions.

, born at Dinant in Bretagne, about the close of 1705, the son of a hatter, received a distinguished education at Paris. His taste for literature obtained him admission to the most celebrated academies of the metropolis, of the provinces, and of foreign countries. Being chosen to succeed Mirabaud, as perpetual secretary of the French academy, he filled that post as a man who was fond of literature, and had the talent of procuring it respect. Though domesticated at Paris, he was appointed in 1744 mayor of Dinant; and in 1755 had a patent of nobility granted him by the king, in reward for the zeal which the states of Bretagne had shewn for the service of the country. That province having received orders to point out such subjects as were most deserving of the favours of the monarch, Duclos was unanimously named by the tiers-6tat. He died at Paris, March 26, 1772, with the title of historiographer of France. His conversation was at once agreeable, instructive and lively. He reflected deeply, and expressed his thoughts with, energy, and illustrated them by well selected anecdotes. Lively and impetuous by nature, he was frequently the severe censor of pretensions that had no foundation. But age, experience, intercourse with society, a great fund of good sense, at length taught him to restrict to mankind in general those hard truths which never fail to displease individuals. His austere probity, from whence proceeded that bluntness for which he was blamed in company, his beneficence, and his other virtues, gave him a right to the public esteem. “Few persons,” says M. le prince de Beauvau, “better knew the duties and the value of friendship. He would boldly serve his friends and neglected merit on such occasions he displayed an art which excited no distrust, and which would not have been expected in a man who his whole life long chose rather to shew the truth with force, than to insinuate it with address.” At first he was of the party which went under the name of the philosophers; but the excesses of its leader, and of some of his subalterns, rendered him somewhat more circumspect. Both in his conversation and in his writings he censured those presumptuous writers, who, under pretence of attacking superstition, undermine the foundations of morality, and weaken the bands of society. Once, speaking on this subjert, “these enthusiastic philosophers,” said he, “will proceed such lengths, as at last to make me devout.” Besides, he was too fond of his own peace and happiness to follow them in their extravagancies, and placed no great value on their friendship or good will. “Duclos est a la fois droit et adroit,” said one of his philosophical friends, and it was in consequence of this prudence, that he never would publish any tiling of what he wrote as historiographer of France. “Whenever I have been importuned,” said he, “to bring out some of my writings on the present reign, I have uniformly answered, that I was resolved neither to ruin myself by speaking truth, nor debase myself by flattery. However, I do not the less discharge my duty. If I cannot speak to my contemporaries, I will shew the rising generation what their fathers were.” Indeed, we are told that he did compose the history of the reign of Lewis XV. and that after his death it was lodged in the hands of the minister. The preface to this work may be seen in the first vol. of the “Pieces inte>essantes” of M. de la Place. Duclos’s works consist of some romances, which have been much admired in. France; 1. “The Confessions of count ***.” 2. “The baroness de Luz.” 3. “Memoirs concerning the Manners of the eighteenth Century;” each in 1 vol. 12mo. 4. <l Acajou;“in 4to and 12mo, with plates. In the Confessions he has given animation and action to what appeared rather dry and desultory in his” Considerations on the Manners.“Excepting two or three imaginary characters, more fantastical than real, the remainder seems to be the work of a master. The situations, indeed, are not so well unfolded as they might have been; the author has neglected the gradations, the shades; and the romance is not sufficiently dramatical. But the interesting story of madame de Selve proves that M. Duclos knew how to finish as well as to sketch. His other romances are inferior to the” Confessions.“The memoirs relating to the manners of the eighteenth century abound in just observations on a variety of subjects. Acajou is no more than a tale, rather of the grotesque species, but well written. 5.” The History of Lewis XI.“1745, 3 vols. 12mo; and the authorities, an additional volume, 1746, contain curious matter. The style is concise and elegant, but too abrupt and too epigrammatical. Taking Tacitus for his model, whom, by the way, he approaches at a veryhumble distance, he has been less solicitous about the exact and circumstantial particularization of facts, than their aggregate compass, and their influence on the manners, laws, customs, and revolutions of the state. Though his diction has been criticised, it must be confessed that his lively and accurate narration, perhaps at the same time rather dry, is yet more supportable than that ridiculous pomp of words which almost all the French authors have employed in a department where declamation and exaggeration are the greatest defects. 6.” Considerations on the Manners of the present Century,“12mo; a book replete with just maxims, accurate definitions, ingenious discussions, novel thoughts, and well-drawn characters, although the style is sometimes obscure, and there is here and there an affectation of novelty, in which a writer of consummate taste would not have indulged; but these defects are amply compensated by a zeal for truth, honour, probity, beneficence, and all the moral and social virtues. Lewis XV. said of this book,” It is the work of a worthy man.“7.” Remarks on the general Grammar of PortRoyal.“In these he shews himself a philosophical grammarian. 7.” Voyage en Italie,“1791, 8vo. This trip he took in 1767 and 1768. 8.” Memoirs secrets sur les regnes de Louis XIV et Louis XV. 1791," 2 vols. 8vo, in which are many curious anecdotes and bold facts. He wrote also several dissertations in the Memoirs of the academy of belles-lettres, which contain much eruuiti Hi, qualified by the charms of wit, and ornamented by a diction clear, easy, correct, and always adapted to the subject. Duclos had a greater share than any other in the edition of 1762 of the Dictionary of the French Academy; in which his usual accuracy and judgment are everywhere apparent and he had begun a continuation of the history of that society. His whole works were collected for the first time, and printed at Paris in 1806, 10 vols. 8vo, with a life by M. Auger, and many pieces left by him in manuscript. This edition appears to have revived his fame in France, and made him be enrolled among her standard authors.

, an eminent prelate, was born Feb. 6, 1533, at Buda, and educated by his uncle, who was bishop of Vaccia, or Veitzen, and out of respect to him he took the name of Shardellet. In 1560 the emperor Ferdinand II. admitted Dudith into his council, and appointed him bishop of Tina. He was sent soon after to the council of Trent, in the name of the emperor, and all the Hungarian clergy; and there made a very eloquent speech, April 9, 1568, which was heard with great pleasure. But this was not the case with another speech which he delivered in that place on July 6; for, though he shewed great zeal for the pope, and exclaimed strongly against Luther, yet he expressed himself so freely, both there and in his common conversation, on the necessity of episcopal residence, and in favour of marriage among the clergy, and administering the cup in the sacrament, that the legates, apprehensive of his drawing many prelates to his opinion, wrote to the pope, informing him, that Dudith was a dangerous man, and that it was necessary he should leave Trent. Upon tnis the pope solicited the emperor to recall him, which he accordingly did: but Ferdinand, far from blaming his conduct, rewarded it with the bishopric of Chonat, and soon after gave him that of five churches. This prince dying 1564, Dudith was sent by Maximilian II. into Poland, whither he nad been sent before by Ferdinand, and privately married lleyna Strazzi, maid of honour to the queen, resigning his bishopric. Rome cited him, excommunicated him, and even condemned him to the flames as an heretic, yet he despised her threats, and remained in security. After the death of his first wife, by whomhehadthreechildren, he married in 1579, a lady descended from an illustrious Polish family, widow of count John Zarnow, and sister of the famous Sborowits, by whom also he had children. Dudith, at length, openly professed the reformed religion, and even became a Socinian, according to most authors, particularly of the modern school^ who seem proud of their convert; but the fact is denied by the writer of his life, who, on the contrary, asserts, he disputed strongly against Socinus. He then settled at Breslaw in Silesia, where he died February 23, 1589, aged 56. Dudith, according to the representations both of his friends and enemies, was a handsome well-made man, of a peaceable disposition; civil, affable, regular in his conduct, very charitable to the poor, and benevolent towards all mankind. He had a taste for the classics, and so great a veneration for Cicero, that he wrote all that orator’s works, three times over, with his own hand. He likewise understood several languages, and was well acquainted with history, philosophy, mathematics, physic, law, and divinity. He left a great number of works: the principal are, “Dissertationes de Cometis,” Utrecht, 1665, 4to; two discourses, delivered at the council of Trent; an apology for the emperor Maximilian II. &c. published with other tracts, and his Life by Reuter, 1610, 4to. He published also, the Life of cardinal Pole, translated from the Italian of Beccatelli. Several of Dudith’s letters and poems occur in the collections.

, a celebrated lawyer and statesman, in the reign of Henry VII. was born in 1462. Some have said, that he was the son of a mechanic: but this notion probably took its rise from prejudices conceived against him for his mal-administrations in power; for he was of the ancient family of the Dudleys, and his father was sir John Dudley, second son of John Dudley, baron of Dudley, and knight of the garter. About the age of sixteen he was sent to Oxford, where he spent some time and afterwards removed to Gray’s-inn in London, in order to prosecute the study of the law. This he did with great diligence, and came at length to be considered as so able a person in his profession, as to induce Henry VII. to take him very early into his service. It is said that fur his singular prudence and fidelity he was sworn of the king’s privy-council in his 23d year, which some think too early a period: it is, however, asserted by Polydore Vergil, who was then in England. In 1492 we find him one of those great men in the king’s army near Boiogne, who were chiefly instrumental in making a peace with France; and that two years after he obtained the wardship and marriage of Elizabeth, daughter of Edward Grey, viscount L‘lsle, sister and coheiress of John viscount L’lsle, her brother. In 1499 he was one of those who signed the ratification of the peace just mentioned, by the authority of parliament; which shows that he was, if not in great credit with his country, at least in high favour with his prince, whom he particularly served in helping to fill his coffers, under the colour of law, though with very little regard to equity and justice. All our general histories have handled this matter so in the gross, that it is very difficult to learn from them wherein the crimes of Empson and Dudley consisted: but Bacon, who understood it well, relates every circumstance freely and fully in the following manner: “As kings do more easily find instruments for their will and humour, than for their service and honour, he had gotten for his purpose, or beyond his purpose, two instruments, Empson and Dudley, bold men, and careless of fame, and that took toll for their master’s grist. Dudley was of a good family, eloquent, and one that could put hateful business into good language; but Empson, that was the son of a sievemaker, triumphed always in the deed done, putting off all other respects whatsoever. These two persons, being lawyers in science, and privy-counsellors in authority, turned law and justice into wormwood and rapine. For, first, their manner was to cause divers subjects to be indicted for sundry crimes, and so far forth to proceed in form of law; but, when the bills were found, then presently to commit them: and, nevertheless, not to produce them in any reasonable time to their answer, but to suffer them to languish long in prison, and, by sundry artificial devices and terrors, to extort from them great fines and ransoms, which they termed compositions and mitigations. Neither did they, towards the end, observe so much as the half face of justice in proceeding by indictment, but sent forth their precepts to attach men, and convent them before themselves and some others, at their private houses, in a court of commission; and there used to shuffle up a summary proceeding by examination, without trial of jury, assuming to themselves there, to deal both in pleas of the crown and controversies civil. Then did they also use to enthral and charge the subjects’ lands with tenures in capite, by finding false offices, and thereby to work upon them by wardships, liveries, premier seisins, and alienations, being the fruits of those tenures, refusing, upon divers pretexts and delays, to admit men to traverse those false offices according to the law. Nay, the king’s wards, after they had accomplished their full age, could not be suffered to have livery of their lands, without paying excessive fines, far exceeding all reasonable rates. They did also vex men with informations of intrusion, upon scarce colourable titles. When men were outlawed in personal actions, they would not permit them to purchase their charters of pardon, except they paid great and intolerable sums, standing upon the strict point of law, which, upon outlawries, giveth forfeiture of goods: nay, contrary to all law and colour, they maintained the king ought to have the half of men’s lands and rents, during the space of full two years, for a pain, in case of outlawry. They would also ruffle with jurors, and enforce them to find as they would direct and, if they did not, convent them, imprison them, and fine them.”

In the parliament held in 1504, Dudley was speaker of the house of commons; and in consideration, as it may be presumed, of his great services to his master in this high station, we find that two years after he obtained a grant of the stewardship of the rape of Hastings, in the county of Sussex. This was one of the last favours he received from his master who, at the close of his life, is said to have been so much troubled at the oppressions and extortions of these ministers, that he was desirous to make restitution to such as had been injured, and directed the same by his will. Some writers have taken occasion from hence to free that monarch from blame, throwing it all upon Empson and Dudley: but others, and Bacon among them, have very plainly proved, that they did not lead or deceive him in this affair, but only acted under him as instruments. The king died at Richmond the 2 1st of April, 1509, and was scarcely in his grave, when Dudley was sent to the Tower; the clamour of the people being so great, that this step was absolutely necessary to quiet them though Stow seems to think that both he and Empson were decoyed into the Tower, or they had not been so easily taken. At the same time, numbers of their subordinate instruments were seized, imprisoned, tried, and punished. J-;ly the same year, Dudley was arraigned, and found guilty of high treason before commissioners assembled in Guildhall. The king, taking a journey afterwards into the country, found himself so much incommoded by the general outcry of his people, that he caused Empson to be carried into Northamptonshire where, October following, he was also tried and convicted, and then remanded back to the Tower. In the parliament of January 1510, Dudley and Empson were both attainted of high treason; but the king was unwilling to execute them; and Stow informs us, that a rumour prevailed, that queen Catharine had interposed, and procured Dudley’s pardon. The clamours of the people continually increasing, being rather heightened than softened by seeing numbers of mean fellows, whom they had employed as informers and witnesses, convicted and punished, while themselves were spared, the king was at last obliged k> order them for execution and accordingly they both lost their heads upon Tower-hill, Aug. 18, 1510.

, son of the preceding, baron of Maipas, viscount L‘Isle, earl of Warwick, and duke of Northumberland, was born in 1502, and afterwards became one of the most powerful subjects this kingdom ever saw. At the time his father was beheaded, he was about eight years old; and it being known that the severity exercised in that act was rather to satisfy popular clamour than justice, his friends found no great difficulty in obtaining from the parliament, that his father’s attainder might be reversed, and himself restored in blood; for which purpose a special act was passed in 1511. After an education suitable to his quality, he was introduced at court in 15-23, where, having a line person, and great accomplishments, he soon became admired. He attended the king’s favourite, Charles Brandon, duke of Suffolk, in his expedition to France; and distinguished himself so much by his gallant behaviour, that he obtained the honour of knighthood. He attached himself to cardinal Wolsey, whom he accompanied in his embassy to France; and he was also in great confidence with the next prime minister, lord Cromwell. The fall of these eminent statesmen one after another, did not at all affect the favour or fortune of sir John Dudley, who had great dexterity in preserving their good graces, without embarking too far in their designs; preserving always a proper regard for the sentiments of his sovereign, which kept him in full credit at court, in the midst of many changes, as well of men as measures. In 1542, he was raised to the dignity of viscount L’Isle, and at the next festival of St. George, was elected knight of the garter. This was soon after followed by a much higher instance both of kindness and trust; for the king, considering his uncommon abilities and courage, and the occasion he had then for them, made him lord high admiral of England for life; and in this important post he did many singular services. He owed all his honours and fortune to Henry VII L and received from him, towards the close of his reign, very large grants of church lands, which, however, created him many enemies. He was also named by king Henry in his will, to be one of his sixteen executors; and received from him a legacy of 500l. which was the highest he bestowed on any of them.

To give some colour to these marks of royal indulgence, the queen proposed him as a suitor to Mary queen of Scots; promising to that princess all the advantages she could expect or desire, either for herself or her subjects, in case she consented to the match. The sincerity of this was suspected at the time, when the deepest politicians believed that, if the queen of Scotland had complied, it would have served only to countenance the preferring him to his sovereign’s bed. The queen of Scots rejected the proposal in a manner that, some have thought, proved as fatal to her as it had done to his own lady, who was supposed to be sacrificed to his ambition of marrying a queen. The death of this unfortunate person happened September 8, 1560, at a very unlucky juncture for his reputation; because the world at that time conceived it might be much for his conveniency to be without a wife, this island having then two queens, young, and without husbands. The manner too of this poor lady’s death, which, Camden says, was by a fall from a high place, filled the world with the rumour of a lamentable tragedy . In Sept. 1564, the queen created him baron of Denbigh,­and, the day after, earl of Leicester, with great pomp and ceremony; and, before the close of the year, he was made chancellor of Oxford, as he had been some time before high-steward of Cambridge. His great influence in the court of England was not only known at home, but abroad, which induced the French king, Charles IX. to send him the order of St. Michael, then the most honourable in France; and he was installed with great solemnity in 1565. About 1572 it is supposed that the earl married Douglas, baroness dowager of Sheffield: which, however, was managed with such privacy, that it did not come to the queen’s ears, though a great deal of secret history was published, even in those days, concerning the adventures of this unfortunate lady, whom, though the earl had actually married her, and there were legal proofs of it, yet he never would own as his wife. The earl, in order to stifle this affair, proposed every thing he could think of to lady Douglas Sheffield, to make her desist from her pretensions but, finding her obstinate, and resolved not to comply with his proposals, he attempted to take her off by poison “For it is certain,” says Dugdale, “that she had some ill potions given her, so that, with the loss of her hair and nails, she hardly escaped death.” It is, however, beyond all doubt, that the earl had by her a son (sir Robert Dudley, of whom we shall speak hereafter, and to whom, by the name of his Base Son, he left the bulk of his fortune), and also a daughter.

In 1576 happened the death of Walter, earl of Essex, which drew upon lord Leicester many suspicions, after his marriage with the countess of Essex took place, which, however, was not until two years after. In 1578, when the duke of Anjou pressed the match that had been proposed between himself and the queen, his agent, believing lord Leicester to be the greatest bar to the duke’s pretensions, informed the queen of his marriage with lady Essex; upon which her majesty was so enraged, that, as Camden relates, she commanded him not to stir from the castle of Greenwich, and would have committed him to the Tower, if she had not been dissuaded from it by the earl of Sussex. Lord Leicester being now in the very height of power and influence, many attempts were made upon his character, in order to take him down: and in 1584 came out a most virulent book against him, commonly called “Leicester’s Commonwealth,” the purpose of which was to shew, that the English constitution was subverted, and a new form imperceptibly introduced, to which no name could be so properly given, as that of a “Leicestrian Commonwealth.” In proof of this, the earl was represented as an atheist in point of religion, a secret traitor to the queen, an oppressor of her people 1 an inveterate enemy to the nobility, a complete monster with regard to ambition, cruelty, and Just; and not only so, but as having thrown all offices of trust into the hands of his creatures, and usurped all the power of the kingdom. The queen, however, did not fail to countenance and protect her favourite; and to remove as much as possible the impression this performance made upon the vulgar, caused letters to be issued from the privycouncil, in which all the facts contained therein were declared to he absolutely false, not only to the knowledge of those who signed them, but also of the queen herself. Nevertheless, this book was universally read, and the contents of it generally received for true: and the great secrecy with which it was written, printed, and published, induced a suspicion, that some very able heads were concerned either in drawing it up, or at least in furnishing the materials. It is not well known what the original title of it was, but supposed to be “A Dialogue between a scholar, a gentleman, and a lawyer;” though it was afterwards called “Leicester’s Commonwealth.” It has been several times reprinted, particularly in 1600, 8vo; in 1631, 8vo, the running-title being “A letter of state to a scholar of Cambridge;” in 1641, 4to, and 8vo, with the addition of “Leicester’s Ghost;” and again in 1706, 8vo, under the title of “Secret Memoirs of Robert Dudley earl of Leicester,” with a preface by Dr. Drake, (see Drake) who pretended it to be printed from an old manuscript. The design of reprinting it in 1641, was, to give a bad impression of the government of Charles I.; and the same was supposed to be the design of Dr. Drake in his publication. In Dec. 1585, lord Leicester embarked for the protestant Low Countries, whither he arrived in quality of governor. At this time the affairs of those countries were in a perplexed situation; and the States thought that nothing could contribute so much to their recovery, as prevailing upon queen Elizabeth to send over some person of great distinction, whom they might set at the head of their concerns civil and military: which proposition, says Camden, so much flattered the ambition of this potent earl, that he willingly consented to pass the seas upon this occasion, as being well assured of most ample powers. Before his departure, the queen admonished him to have a special regard to her honour, and to attempt nothing inconsistent with the great employment to which he was advanced: yet, she was so displeased with some proceedings of his and the States, that the year after she sent over very severe letters to them, which drew explanations from the former, and deep submissions from the latter. The purport of the queen’s letter was, to reprimand the States “for having conferred the absolute government of the confederate provinces upon Leicester, her subject, though she had refused it herself;” and Leicester, for having presumed to take it upon him. He returned to England Nov. 1585; and, notwithstanding what was past, was well received by the queen. What contributed to make her majesty forget his offence in the Low Countries, was the pleasure of having him near her, at a time when she very much wanted his counsel: for now the affair of Mary queen of Scots was upon the carpet, and the point was, how to have her taken off with the least discredit to the queen. The earl according to report, which we could wish to be able to contradict, thought it best to have her poisoned; but that scheme was not found practicable, so that they were obliged to have recourse to violence. The earl set out for the Low Countries in June 1587; but, great discontents arising on all sides, he was recalled in November. Camden relates, that on his return, finding an accusation preparing against him for mal-administration there, and that he w^as summoned to appear before the council, he privately implored the queen’s protection, and besought her “not to receive him with disgrace upon his return, whom at his first departure she had sent out with honour; nor bring down alive to the grave, whom her former goodness had raised from the dust.” Which expressions of humility and sorrow wrought so far upon her, that he was admitted into her former grace and favour.

In 1588, when the nation was alarmed with the apprehensions of the Spanish armada, lord Leicester was made lieutenant-general, under the queen, of the army assembled at Tilbury. This army the queen went to review in person, and there made this short and memorable speech “I myself will be your general, judge, and rewarder of every one of your virtues in the field. I know already for your forwardness you have deserved rewards and crowns: and we do assure you, on the word of a prince, they shall be duly paid you. In the mean time my lieutenant-general shall be in my stead, than whom never prince commanded a more noble or worthy subject; not doubting but, by your obedience to my general, by your concord in the camp, and your valour in the field, we shall shortly have a famous victory over those enemies of my God, of my kingdom, and of my people.” In such high favour did this noble personage stand to the last: for he died this year, Sept. 4, at his house at Cornbury in Oxfordshire, while he was upon the road to Kenilworth. His corpse was removed to Warwick, and buried there in a magnificent manner. He is said to have inherited the parts of his father. His ambition was great, but his abilities seem to have been greater. He was a finished courtier in every respect; and managed his affairs so nicely, that his influence and power became almost incredible. He differed with archbishop Grindal, who, though much in confidence of the queen, was by him brought first into discredit with her, and then into disgrace; nay, to such a degree was this persecution carried, that the poor prelate desired to lay down his archiepiscopal dignity, and actually caused the instrument of his resignation to be drawn: but his enemies, believing he was near his end, did not press the perfecting of it, and so he died, with his mitre on his head, of a broken heart. This shews the power the earl had in the church, and how little able the first subject of the queen was to bear up against his displeasure, though conceived upon none of the justest motives .

Sir Robert Dudley was not only admired by princes, but also by the learned; among whom he held a very high rank, as well on account of his skill in philosophy, chemistry, and physic, as his perfect acquaintance with all the branches of the mathematics, and the means of applying them for the service and benefit of mankind. He wrote several things. We have mentioned the account of his voyage. His principal work is, “Del arcano del mare,” &c. Fiorenze, 1630, 1646, fol. There is a copy in the British Museum, dated 1661, and called the second edition. This work has been always so scarce, as seldom to have found a place even in the catalogues that have been published of rare books. It is full of schemes, charts, plans, and other marks of its author’s mathematical learning; but is chiefly valuable for the projects contained therein, for the improvement of navigation and the extending of commerce. Wood tells us, that he wrote also a medical treatise, entitled “Catholicon,” which was well esteemed by the faculty. There is still another piece, the title of which, as it stands in Rushworth’s Collections, runs thus: “A proposition for his majesty’s service, to bridle the impertinency of parliaments. Afterwards questioned in the Star-chamber.” After he had lived some time in exile, he still cherished hopes of returning to England: to facilitate which, and to ingratiate himself with king James, he drew up “a proposition, as he calls it, in two parts: the one to secure the state, and to bridle the impertinency of parliaments; the other, to increase his majesty’s revenue much more than it is.” This scheme, falling into the hands of some persons of great distinction, and being some years after by them made public, was considered as of so pernicious a nature, as to occasion their imprisonment: but they were released upon the discovery of the true author. (See Cotton, Sir Robert). It was written about 1613, and sent to king James, to teach him how most effectually to enslave his subjects: for, in that light, it is certainly as singular and as dangerous a paper as ever fell from the pen of man. It was turned to the prejudice of James I. and Charles I.; for though neither they, nor their ministers, made use of it, or intended to make use of it, yet occasion was taken from thence to excite the people to a hatred of statesmen who were capable of contriving such destructive projects. Lastly, he was the author of a famous powder, called “Pulvis comitis Warwicensis,” or the earl of Warwick’s powder, which is thus made: “Take of scammony, prepared with the fumes of sulphur, two ounces; of diaphoretic antimony, an ounce; of the crystals of tartar, half an ounce; mix them all together into a powder.”

In 1666, he published in folio, “Origines Juridiciales; or, historical memoirs of the English laws, courts of justice, forms of trial, punishment in cases criminal, law-writers, law-books, grants and settlements of estates, degree of serjeants, inns of court and chancery, &c.” This book is adorned with the heads of sir John Clench, sir Edward Coke, sir Randolph Crew, bir Robert Heath, Edward earl of Clarendon-, to whom it is dedicated, sir Orlando Bridgman, sir John Vaughan, and Mr. Selden. There are also plates of the arms in the windows of the Temple-hall, and other inns of court. A second edition was published in 1671, and a third in 1680. Nicolson recommends this book as a proper introduction to the history of the laws of this kingdom. His next work was, “The Baronage of England,” of which the first volume appeared in 1675, and the second and third in 1676, folio. Though the collecting of materials for this work cost him, as he tells us, a great part of thirty years’ labour, yet there are many faults in it; so many, that the gentlemen at the Heralds’ office said they could not depend entirely upon its authority. Wood informs us, that Dugdale sent to him copies of all the volumes of this work, with an earnest desire that he would peruse, correct, and add to them, what he could obtain from records and other authorities; whereupon, spending a whole long vacation upon it, he drew up at least sixteen sheets of corrections, but more additions; which being sent to the author, he remitted a good part of them into the margin of a copy of his Baronage on large paper (which copy, we believe, still exists). With all its faults, however, the work was so acceptable, that the year following its publication, there were very few copies unsold.

In May 1677, our antiquary was solemnly created Garter principal king at arms, and the day after received from his majesty the honour of knighthood, much against his will, on account of the smallness of his estate. In 1681 he published “A short View of the late Troubles in England; briefly setting forth their rise, growth, and tragical conclusion, &c.” folio. This is perhaps the least valued of all his works, or rather the only one which is not very much valued. He published also at the same time, “The ancient usage in bearing of such ensigns of honour as are co'i.monly called Arms, &,c.” 8vo a second edition of which was published in the beginning of the year following, with large additions. The last work he published, was, “A perfect copy of all summons of the nobility to the great councils and parliaments of this realm, from the 49th of king Henry III. until these present times, &e.” 1685, folio. He wrote some other pieces relating to the same subjects, which were never published; and was likewise the chief promoter of the Saxon Dictionary by Mr. William Somner, printed at Oxford in 1659. His collections of materials for the Antiquities of Warwickshire, and Baronage of England, all written with his own hand, contained in 27 vols, in folio, he gave by will to the university of Oxford; together with sixteen other volumes, some of his own hand-writing; which are now preserved in Ashmole’s Museum. He gave likewise several books to the Heralds’ office, in London, and procured many more for their library.

, a learned priest of the oratory, was born December 9, 1649, at Montbrison, the son of Claude Duguet, king’s advocate in the presidial of that city. Having entered the congregation of the oratory at Paris, in 1667, he taught philosophy at Troyes, and was afterwards recalled to St. Magloir, at Paris, where he gained great reputation, as professor of divinity, by his “Ecclesiastical Conferences.” Ill health obliged him to resign all his employments in 1680, and in 1685 he quitted the oratory, and retired to M. Arnauld, at Brussels; but returned to Paris afterwards, where he lived in a very retired manner, at the house of M. the president de Menars, 1690, where he continued till the death of that magistrate and his wife. He was afterwards frequently forced to change his dwelling and country, in consequence of his opposition to the Constitution Unigenitus. He was successively in Holland, at Troyes, Paris, &c. and died in the last-named city October 25, 1733, aged eighty-four. His works are numerous, and well written in French. The principal are, 1. “Lettres de Piete et de Morale,” 9 vols, 12mo; 2. “La Conduite d'une Dame Chretienne,” 12mo; 3. “Traite de la Priere publique, et des Saints Mysteres,” 12mo; 4. “Traite dogmatique sur l‘Eucharistie, sur les Exorcismes, et sur l’Usure.” The three last are much admired by Catholics, and are printed together, 1727; 12mo; 5. “Commentaires sur l'Ouvrage des 6 jours.” 12mo; 6. “Sur Job,” 3 tom, in 4 vols. 12mo; 7. “Sur la Genese,” 6 vols. 12mo; 8. “Explication sur les Pseaumes,” 5 tom. in 8 vols. 12mo; 9. “Explication des Rois, Esdras, et Nehemias,” 6 tom. in 7 vols. 12mo; 10. “Explication du Cantique des Cantiques, et de la Sagesse,” 2vols. 12mo; 11. “Explication sur Isaïe, Jonas, et Habacuc,” 6 tom. in 7 vols. 12mo; 12. “Regles pour l‘Intelligence de l’Ecriture Sainte,” 12mo. The preface to this work is by M. d'Asfeld. 13. “Explication du Mystere de la Passion de N. S. J. C.” 9 tom. in 14 vols. 12mo; 14. “Les Characters de la Charité,” 12mo; 15. “Traité des Principes de la Foi Chretienne,” 3 vols. 12mo; 16. “De l‘Education d’un Prince,” 4to, or in 4 vols. 12mo; 17. “Conferences Ecclesiastiques,” 2 vols. 4to; 18. “Je sus crucifié,” 1 vol. or 2 vols. 12mo; and some other pieces, which procured him considerable reputation while works of piety remained popular in France. The history, and an analysis of his work on the education of a prince, may be seen in our third authority.

, was a divine and a poet, the effusions of whose muse have been honoured with a place in Dr. Johnson’s collection, but of whose early history little is known, nor do we know who his parents were, or where he was born. His grammatical education he received under the famous Dr. Busby, at Westminster-school, into wnich he was admitted in 1670, and from which he was elected in 1675, to Trinity- college, Cambridge. In 1673 he took the degree of B. A. and that of M. A. in 1682. He became likewise a fellow of the college, and it is related that he was for some time tutor to the duke of Richmond. Having entered into holy orders, he was presented to the rectory of Blaby, in Leicestershire, in 1687-8, made a prebendary of Gloucester, and in 1688 chosen a procior in convocation for that church, and was chaplain to queen Anne. In 1710 he was presented by sir Jonathan Trelawny, bishop of Winchester, to the wealthy living of Witney, in Oxfordshire, which, however, he enjoyed but a few months; for, on the 10th of February, 1710-11, having returned from an entertainment, he was found dead the next morning. When Mr. Duke left the university, being conscious of his powers, he enlisted himself among the wits of the age. He was in particular the familiar friend of Otway, and was engaged, among other popular names, in the translations of Ovid and Juvenal. From his writings he appears not to have been ill-qualified for poetical composition. “In his Review,” says Dr. Johnson, “though unfinished, are some vigorous lines. His poems are not below mediocrity; nor have I found in them much to be praised.” With the wit, Mr. Duke seems to have shared the dissoluteness of the times for some of his compositions are such as he must have reviewed with detestation in his later days. This was especially the case with regard to two of his poems; the translation of one of the elegies of Ovid, and the first of the three songs. “Perhaps,” observes Dr. Johnson, “like >ome other foolish young men, he rather talked than lived viciously, in an age when he that would be thought a wit was afraid to say his prayers; and whatever might have been bad in the first part of his life was surely condemned and reformed by his better judgment;” and this, it is hoped, was the case.

Mr. Duke, in his character as a divine, published three sermons in his life-time. The first was on the imitation of Christ, preached before the queen in 1703, from 1 John, ii. 6. The second was from Psalm xxv. 14, and was likewise preached before the queen in 1704. The third was an assize sermon, on Christ’s kingdom, from John xviii. 36, and published in the same year. In 1714, fifteen of his sermons on several occasions, were printed in one vol. 8vo, which were held in good reputation, and are spoken of in strong terms of commendation by Dr. Henry Felton, who, in his Dissertation on reading the Classics, says, “Mr. Duke may be mentioned under the double capacity of a poet and a divine. He is a bright example in the several parts of writing, whether we consider the originals, his translations, paraphrases, or imitations. But here I can only mention him as a divine, with this peculiar commendation, that in his sermons, besides liveliness of wit, purity and correctness of style, and justness of argument, we see many fine allusions to the ancients, several beautiful passages handsomely incorporated in the train of his own thoughts; and, to say all in a word, classic learning and a Christian spirit.”

, a learned French lady, was born at Paris, and instructed from her earliest infancy in the belles lettres. She was married very young; but scarcely had she attained the age of seventeen, when her husband was killed in Germany at the head of a company he commanded. She took advantage of the liberty her widowhood gave her, to apply her mind to study, particularly that of astronomy, and published, in 1680, at Paris, a quarto volume, under the title of “Discourses of Copernicus touching the Mobility of the Earth, by Mad. Jeanne Dtimee of Paris.” She explains with clearness the three motions attributed to the enrth and exhibits the arguments that establish or militate against the system of Corpernicus with impartiality.

, an eminent Scotch poet, was born about the year 1465, and, as it is generally supposed, although without much foundation, at Salton, a village on the delightful coast of the Forth in East Lothian. This is collected from what Kennedy, a contemporary poet, says in one of his satires; who mentions likewise his own wealth, and Dunbar’s poverty. If we are to credit the same author, Dunbar was related to the earls of March; but of this there is no satisfactory evidence. In his youth he seems to have been a travelling noviciate of the Franciscan order; but this mode of life not being agreeable to his inclination, he resigned it, and returned to Scotland, as is supposed, about 1490, when he might be 25 years of age. In his “Thistle and Rose,” which was certainly written in 1503, he speaks of himself as a poet that had already made many songs: and that poem is the composition rather of an experienced writer, than of a novice in the art. It is indeed probable that his tales, “The twa marrit wemen and the wedo;” and, “The freirs of Bervvik,” (if the last be his) were written before his “Thistle and Rose.” However tin’s may have been, Dunbar, after being the author of “The gold in Terge,” a poem rich in description, and of many small pieces of the highest merit, died in old age about 1530. In his younger years, our poet seems to have had great expectations that his abilities would have recommended him to an ecclesiastical benetice; and in his smaller poems he frequently addresses the king lor that purpose: but there is no reason to believe that he was successful, although it may be thought that the “Thistle and Rose,” which was occasioned by the marriage of James IV. king of Scotland, with Margaret Tudor, eldest daughter of Henry VII. king of England, deserved better treatment at the hands of the young royal pair. Mr. Pinkerton, in his list of Scottish poets, tells us, he has looked in vain over many calendars of the characters, &c. of this period, to find Dunbar’s name; but suspects that it was never written by a lawyer. Mr. Warton, in characterising the Scottish poets of this time, observes that the writers of that nation have adorned the period with a degree of sentiment and spirit, a command of phraseology, and a fertility of imagination, not to be found in any English poet since Chaucer and Lydgate. “He might safely have added,” says Mr. Pinkerton, “not even in Chaucer or Lydgate.” Concerning Dunbar, Mr. Warton says, that the natural complexion of his genius is of the moral and didactic cast. This remark, however, Mr. Pinkerton thinks, must not be taken too strictly. “The goldin Terge,” he adds, “is moral; and so are many of his small pieces: but humour, description, allegory, great poetical genius, and a vast wealth of words, all unite to form the complexion of Dunbar’s poetry. He unites, in himself, and generally surpasses the qualities of the chief old English poets; the morals and satire of Langland; Chaucer’s humour, poetry, and knowledge of life; the allegory of Gower; the description of Lydgate.” This is a very high character, but surely the morality of his poems may be questioned. Several of his compositions contain expressions which appear to us grossly profane and indecent; and one of his addresses to the queen would not now be addressed to a modern courtezan. Even the most sacred observances of the church are converted into topics of ridicule; and its litanies are burlesqued in a parody, the profaneness of which is almost unparalleled. The notes added to the collection published by sir David Daly rm pie in 1770 are peculiarly valuable; for they not only explain and illustrate the particular expressions and phrases of the pieces in question, but contain several curious anecdotes, and throw considerable light on the manners of the times.

, an illustrious naval officer, the second son of Alexander Duncan, esq. of Lundie, in the county of Angus, in Scotland, by Helen Haldone, daughter of Mr. Haldone, of Gleneagles in Perthshire, was born in the month of July 1731, and received the first rudiments of education at Dundee, and, appears to have been early intended for the naval service, as his elder brother Alexander was for that of the army, of which he died lieutenant-colonel in 1771. About 1746, Adam was put under the command of capt. Robert Haldane, who was then commander of the Shoreham frigate, with whom he continued two or three years. In 174y he was entered as a midshipman on board the Centurion of 50 guns, which then bore the broad pendant of commodore Keppel, who was appointed commander in chief on the Mediterranean station, for the customary period of three years. In Jan. 1755, he was promoted to the rank of lieutenant, by the recommendation of commodore Keppel, who knew his merits; and was appointed to the Norwich, a fourth rate, commanded by captain Barrington, and intended as one of the squadron which was to accompany Mr. Keppel to America, with transports and land forces under the command of general Braddock. After the arrival of this armament in Virginia, Mr. Duncan was removed into the Centurion, in which he continued until that ship returned to England, and captain Keppel, after having for a short time commanded the Swiftsure, being appointed to the Torbay of 74 guns, procured his much esteemed eleve to be appointed second lieutenant of that ship. After remaining on the home station for the space of three years, he proceeded on the expedition sent against the French settlement of Goree, on the coast of Africa. He was slightly wounded here at the attack of the fort; and soon afterwards rose to the rank of the first lieutenant of the Torbay, in which capacity he returned to England.

On the 21st of September, subsequent to his arrival, 1759, he was advanced to the rank of commander, and in February 1761 was advanced to that of post captain, and being appointed to the Valiant of 74 guns, he became again materially connected, in respect to service, with his original friend and patron Mr. Keppel, who was appointed to command the naval part of an expedition against the French island of Belleisle, and on this occasion hoisted his broad pendant on board the Valiant. Thence captain Duncan repaired with Mr. Keppel, and in the same ship, to the attack of the Havannah. Keppel, who was appointed to command a division of the fleet, was ordered to cover the disembarkation of the troops; and, as the post of honour belongs on such occasions, as of right, to the captain of the admiral, or commodore, captain Duncan was accordingly invested with the command of the boats; he was afterwards very actively employed, and highly distinguished himself during the siege. When the town itself surrendered, he was dispatched with a proper force to take possession of the Spanish ships which had fallen on that occasion into the hands of the victors, consisting of five ships of 70 guns, and four of 60. After the surrender of the Havannah, he accompanied Mr. Keppel, who was appointed to the command on the Jamaica station, in the same capacity he had before held, and continued with him there till the conclusion of the war, when he returned to England.

On the re-commencement of the war with France in 1778, he was appointed to the Suffolk of 74 guns, but before the end of that year removed into the Monarch of the same rate, which, during the summer of 1779, was uninterruptedly employed in the main or channel fleet, commanded by sir Charles Hardy, who was obliged to continue all this time on the defensive, as the French and Spanish fleets, now united, were double in number of ships to what he commanded. At the conclusion of the same year, the Monarch was one of the ships put under the command of sir George Bridges Rodney, who was instructed to force his way to Gibraltar through all impediments, and relieve that fortress, which was then closely blockaded by a Spanish army on the land side, and a flotilla by sea, sufficiently strong to oppose the entrance of any trivial succour. On Jan. 16, 1780, the British fleet being then off Cape St. Vincent, fell in with a Spanish squadron, commanded by don Juan de Langara, who was purposely stationed there to intercept sir George, who, according to mis-information received by the court of Spain, was supposed to have only a squadron of four ships of the line. On this memorable occasion, although the Monarch had not the advantage which many other ships in the same armament enjoyed, of being sheathed with copper, and was rather foul, and at best by no means a swift sailer, capt. Duncan was fortunate enough to get into action before any other ship of the fleet; and the St. Augustine of 70 guns struck to him, but was so much disabled, that the conqueror was obliged to abandon her, after taking out the few British officers and seamen who had been put on board. In this action, of eleven Spanish ships of the line and two frigates, four were taken and remained in possession of the English; one was blown up; three surrendered, but afterwards got away much damaged; one was reduced almost to a wreck; and two others, together with the frigates, fled at the first outset, almost without attempting to make any resistance. Such a victory obtained by nineteen British ships of the line over eleven Spanish, is scarcely a matter of exultation, although an advantage, from the loss sustained by the enemy.

Captain Duncan quitted the Monarch not long after his arrival in England, and did not receive any other commission until the beginning of 1782, when he was appointed to the Blenheim of 90 guns, a ship newly come out of dock, after having undergone a complete repair. He continued in the same command during near the whole of the remainder of the war, constantly employed with the channel fleet, commanded, during the greater part of the time, by the late earl Howe. Having accompanied his lordship in the month of September to Gibraltar, he was stationed to lead the larboard division of the centre, or commander-in-chief 's squadron, and was very distinguish* edly engaged in the encounter with the combined fleets of France and Spain, which took place off" the entrance of the Straits. The fleet of the enemy was more than one fourth superior to that of Britain; and yet, had not the former enjoyed the advantage of the weather-gage, it was >vas very evident from the event of the skirmish which did take place, that if the encounter had been more serious, the victory would, in all probability, have been completely decisive against them. Soon after the fleet arrived in England, capt. Duncan removed into the Foudroyant, of 84 guns, one of the most favourite ships of the British navy at that time, which had, during the whole preceding part of the war, been commanded by sir John Jervis, now earl St. Vincent. On the peace, which took place in the ensuing spring, he removed into the Edgar of 74 guns, one of the guard-ships stationed at Portsmouth, and continued, as is customary in time of peace, in that command during the three succeeding years; and this was the last commission he ever held as a private captain. On Sept. 14, 1789, he was promoted to be rear-admiral of the blue, and to the same rank in the white squadron on Sept. 22, 1790. He was raised to be vice-admiral of the blue, Feb. 1, 1793; of the white, April 12, 1794; to be admiral of the blue, June 1, 1795; and lastly, admiral of the white, Feb. 14, 1799. During all these periods, except the two last, singular as it may appear, the high merit of admiral Duncan continued either unknown, or unregarded. Frequently did he solicit a command, and as often did his request pass uncomplied with. It has even been reported, we know not on what foundation, that this brave man had it once in contemplation to retire altogether from the service, on a very honourable civil appointment connected with the navy.

At length, however, his merit burst through the cloud which had so long obscured it from public view. In February 1795, he received an appointment constituting him commander in chief in what is called the North Seas, the limits of his power extending from the North Foreland, even to the Ultima Thule of the ancients, or as far beyond as the operations of the enemy he was sent to encounter should render necessary. He accordingly hoisted his flag on board the Prince George, of 98 guns, at Chatham: but that ship being considered too large for the particular quarter in which the admiral was destined to act, he removed soon afterwards into the Venerable of 74 guns, and proceeded to carry into execution the very important trust which was confided in him.

When the patience and unwearied constancy with which this brave officer continued to watch a cautious and prudent enemy, during the whole time he held the command, a period of five years, are considered, it becomes a matter of difficulty to decide, whether his many invaluable qualities, or the gallantry, as well as the judgment, he displayed on the only opportunity the enemy afforded him of contesting with them the palm of victory, ought most to render him the object of his country’s love and admiration. The depth of winter, the tempestuous attacks of raging winds, the dangers 'peculiar to a station indefatigably maintained off the shoals and sands which t-nviron the coasts of the United Provinces, added to many dark and comfortless nights, all united to render the situation, even of the common seaman, peculiarly irksome: yet, in the midst of these discouraging inconveniencies, surrounded as he stood on every side by perils of the most alarming kind, he never shrunk, even for a moment, from his post, during the whole time he held this important command. There does not appear to have been a single month in which he did not show himself off the hostile coast he insulted.

Nothing material took place beyond the ordinary routine of such a service for more than two years. The occurrences were confined to those small occasional captures, which must frequently occur in the course of such extensive commands; and although the largest of the prizes was of no very considerable force, yet the number of them very sufficiently proves the vigilance of the commander-inchief, and those acting under his orders. The Dutch trade was almost annihilated; their merchant-vessels captured in sight of their own ports; and the whole coast so completely blockaded, that few vessels could venture to sea and escape the vigilance of the British fleet, or its outcruisers. The fleet belonging to the United Provinces, though consisting of fifteen ships of the line, six frigates, and five sloops of war, was also obliged to content itself with remaining quietly in port, or in taking short inoffensive cruises, at times when the want of water or provisions compelled the British ships to repair for a few days to their own coasts. In the month of June 1797, they even patiently suffered themselves to be blocked up by admiral Duncan, though his force was for several days far inferior to theirs, owing to the unhappy and disgraceful spirit of mutiny which at that time appeared throughout almost the whole British navy.

At this most alarming and unprecedented crisis, the conduct of admiral Duncan must not be forgotten, although we have no inclination to revive the memory of that unnatural rebellion by a particular narrative. When the mutiny raged in his squadron in a most awful manner, and when left only with three ships, he still remained firm in his station off the Texel, and succeeded in keeping the Dutch navy from proceeding to sea; a circumstance, in all probability, of as high consequence to the nation as his subsequent victory. His behaviour at the time of the mutiny will be best seen from the speech which he made to the crew of his own ship, on the 3d of June, 1797, and which, as a piece of artless and affecting oratory, cannot but be admired by the most fastidious taste. His men being assembled, the admiral thus addressed them from the quarter-deck: “My lads I once more call you together with a sorrowful heart, from what I have lately seen of the disaffection of the fleets; I call it disaffection, for the crews have no grievances. To be deserted by my fleet, in the face of an enemy, is a disgrace which I believe never before happened to a British admiral; nor could I have supposed it. My greatest comfort, under God, is, that I have been supported by the officers, seamen, and marines of this ship; for which, with a heart overflowing with gratitude, I request you to accept my sincere thanks. I flatter myself much good may result from your example, by bringing those deluded people to a sense of the duty which they owe, not only to their king and country, but to themselves. The British navy has ever been the support of that liberty which has been handed down to us by our ancestors, and which, I trust, we shall maintain to the latest posterity and that can only be done by unanimity and obedience. The ship’s company, and others who have distinguished themselves by their loyalty and good order, deserve to be, and doubtless:,v'// be, the favourites of a grateful country; they will also have, from their individual feelings, a comfort which must be lasting, and not like the fleeting and false confidence of those who have swerved from their duty. It has often been my pride with you to look into the Texel, and see a foe which dreaded coming out to meet us. My pride is now humble indeed! My feelings are not easily to be expressed! Our cup has overflowed, and made us wanton. The all-wise Providence has given us this check as a warning, and I hope we shall improve by it. On Him, then, let us trust, where our only security can be found. I find there are many good men among us; for my own part, I have had full confidence of all in this ship; and once more beg to express my approbation of your conduct. May God, who has thus so far conducted you, continue to do so! and may the British navy, the glory and support of our country, be restored to its wonted splendour, and be not only the bulwark of Britain, but the terror of the world But this can only be effected by a strict adherence to our duty and obedience and let us pray that the Almighty God may keep us in the right way of thinking. God bless you all!” The crew of the Venerable were so affected by this impressive address, that, on retiring, there was not a dry eye among them. On the suppression of the mutiny, the admiral resumed his station with his whole fleet off the coast of Holland, either to keep the Dutch squadron in the Texel, or to attack them if they should attempt to come out. It has since been discovered, that the object of the Batavian republic, in conjunction with France, was to invade Ireland, where, doubtless, they would have been cordially welcomed by numerous bodies of the disaffected. Hence it will be seen that the object of watching and checking the motions of the Dutch admiral was of the Utmost consequence. After a long and very vigilant attention to the important trust reposed in him, the English admiral was necessitated to repair to Yarmouth Roads to refit. The Batavian commander seized this favourable interval, and proceeded to sea. That active officer, captain sir H. Trollope, however, was upon the look-out, and, having discovered the enemy, dispatched a vessel with the glad intelligence to admiral Duncan, who lost not an instant of time, but pushed out at once, and in the morning of the 11th of October fell in with captain Trollope’s squadron of observation, with a signal flying for an enemy to the leeward. By a masterly manoeuvre the admiral placed himself between them and the Texel, so as to prevent them from re-entering without risking an engagement. An action accordingly took place between Camperdown and Egmont, in nine fathoms water, and within five miles of the coast. The admiral’s own ship, in pursuance of a plan of naval evolution which he had long before determined to carry into effect, broke the enemy’s line, and closely engaged the Dutch admiral De Winter, who, after a most gallant defence, was obliged to strike. Eight ships were taken, two of which carried flags! All circumstances considered the time of the year, the force of the enemy, and the nearness to a dangerous shore this action will be pronounced, by every judge of nautical affairs, to be one of the most brilliant that graces our annals. The nation was fully sensible of the merit and consequence of this glorious victory; politicians beheld in it the annihilation of the designs of our combined enemies; naval men admired the address and skill which were displayed by the English commander in his approaches to the attack; and the people at large were transported with admiration, joy, and gratitude. The honours which were instantly conferred upon the venerable admiral received the approbation of all parties. October 21, 1797, he was created lord viscount Duncan, of Camperdown, and baron Duncan, of Lnndie, in the shire of Perth. On his being introduced into the house of peers, on Nov. 8, the lord chancellor communicated to him the thanks of the house, and in his speech said, “He congratulated his lordship upon his accession to the honour of a distinguished seat in that place, to which his very meritorious and unparalleled professional conduct had deservedly raised him that conduct (the chancellor added) was such as not only merited the thanks of their lordships’ house, but the gratitude and applause of the oountry at large; it had been instrumental, under the auspices of Providence, in establishing the security of his majesty’s dominions, and frustrating the ambitious and destructive designs of the enemy.” A pension of 2000l. per annum was also granted his lordship, for himself and the two next heirs of the peerage.

In person, lord Duncan was of a manly, athletic form, six feet four inches high, erect and graceful, with a countenance that indicated great intelligence and benevolence. It would, perhaps, be difficult to find in modern history another man, in whom, with so much meekness, modesty, and unaffected dignity of mind, were united so much genuine spirit, so much of the skill and fire of professional genius; such vigorous, active wisdom such alacrity and ability for great achievements, with such entire indifference for their success, except so far as it might contribute to the good of his country. His private character was that of a most affectionate relative, and a steady friend; and, what crowns the whole with a lustre superior to all other qualities or distinctions, a man of great and unaffected piety. The latter virtue may excite, in some persons, a smile of contempt: but the liberal-minded will be pleased to read that lord Duncan felt it an honour to be a Christian. He encouraged religion by his own practice; and the public observance of it has always been kept up wherever he held the command. When the victory was decided, which has immortalized his name, his lordship ordered the crew of his ship to be called together; and, at their head, upon his bended knees, in the presence of the Dutch admiral (who was greatly affected with the scene), he solemnly and pathetically offered up praise to the God of battles. Let it be added here, that his demeanour, when all eyes were upon him, in the cathedral of St. Paul’s on the day of general thanksgiving, in December following, was so humble, modest, and devout, as greatly to increase that admiration which his services had gained him. In short, lord Duncan was one more instance of the truth of the assertion, that piety and courage ought to be inseparably allied; and that the latter, without the former, loses its principal virtue.

, an eminent physician, born at Montauban in Lano-uedoc in 1649, was the son of Dr. Peter Duncan, professor of physic in that city, and grandson to William Duncan, an English gentleman, of Scottish original, who removed from London to the south of France about the beginning of the last century. Having lost both his parents while yet in his cradle, he was indebted, for the care of his infancy and education, to the guardianship of his mother’s brother, Mr. Daniel Paul, a leading counsellor of the parliament of Toulouse, though a firm and professed protestant. Mr. Duncan received the first elements of grammar, polite literature, and philosophy, at Puy Laurens, whither the magistracy of Montauban had transferred their university for a time, to put an end to some disputes between the students and the citizens. The masters newly established there, finding their credit much raised by his uncommon proficiency, redoubled their attention to him; so that he went from that academy with a distinguished character to Montpellier, when removed thither by his guardian, with a view to qualify him for a profession which had been for three generations hereditary in his family . His ingenuity and application recommended him to the esteem and friendship of his principal instructor there, the celebrated Dr. Charles Barbeyrac (uncle to John Barbeyrac the famous civilian), whose medical lectures and practice were in high reputation. Having taken his favourite pupil into his own house, the professor impressed and turned to use his public and private instruction by an efficacious method, admitting him, at every visit he paid to his patients, to consult and reason with him, upon ocular inspection, concerning the effect of his prescriptions. When he had studied eight years under the friendly care of so excellent a master, and had just attained the age of twenty-four, he was admitted to the degree of M. D. in that university. From Montpellier he went to Paris, where he resided nearly seven years. Here he published his first work, upon the principle of motion in the constituent parts of animal bodies, entitled: “Explication nouvelle & mechanique des actions an i males, Paris, 1678.” It was in the year following that he went for the first time to London, to dispose of some houses there, which had descended to him from his ancestors. He had, besides, some other motives to the journey; and among the rest, to get information relative to the effects of the plague in London in 1665. Having dispatched his other business, he printed in London a Latin edition of his “Theory of the principle of motion in animal bodies.” His stay in London, at this time, was little more than two years; and he was much disposed to settle there entirely. But in 1681 he was recalled to Paris to attend a consultation on the health of his patron Colbert, which was then beginning to decline. Soon after his return he produced the first part of a new work, entitled, “La chymie naturelle, ou explication chymique & mechanique de la Tiourriture de Tanimal,” which was much read, but rather raised than satisfied the curiosity of the learned; to answer which he added afterwards two other parts, which were received with a general applause. A second edition of the whole was published at Paris in 1687. In that year likewise came out his “Histoire de l'animal, ou la connoissance du corps animé par la méchanique & par la chymie.” He left Paris in 1683, upon the much-lamented death of Colbert, the kind effect of whose esteem he gratefully acknowledged, though in a much smaller degree than he might have enjoyed, if he had been less bold in avowing his zeal for protestantism, and his abhorrence of popery. He had some property in land adjoining to the city of Montauban, with a handsome house upon it, pleasantly situated near the skirts of the town. It was with the purpose of selling these, and settling finally in England, that he went thither from Paris. But the honourable and friendly reception he met with there determined his stay some years in his native city. In 1690, the persecution which began to rage with great fury against protestants made him suddenly relinquish all thoughts of a longer abode in France. Having disposed of his house and land for less than half their value, he retired first to Geneva, intending to return to England through Germany; an intention generally kept in petto, but for many years unexpectedly thwarted by a variety of events. Great numbers of his persuasion, encouraged by his liberality in defraying their expences on the road to Geneva, had followed him thither. Unwilling to abandon them in distress, he spent several months in that city and Berne, whither great numbers had likewise taken refuge, in doing them all the service in his power. The harsh and gloomy aspect which reformation at that time wore in Geneva, ill agreeing with a temper naturally mild and cheerful, and the sullen treatment he met with from those of his profession, whose ignorance and selfishness his conduct and method of practice tended to bring into disrepute, occasioned his stay there to be very short. He listened therefore with pleasure to the persuasion of a chief magistrate of Berne, who invited him to a residence more suited to his mind. He passed about 8 or 9 years at Berne, where to his constant practice of physic was added the charge of a professorship of anatomy and chemistry. In 1699, Philip landgave of Hesse sent for him to Cassel. The princess, who lay dangerously ill, was restored to life, but recovered strength very slowly. Dr. Duncan was entertained for three years with great respect, in the palace of the landgrave, as his domestic physician. During his stay at that court, he wrote his treatise upon the abuse of hot liquors. The use of tea, which had not long been introduced into Germany, and in the houses of only the most opulent, was already at the landgrave’s become improper and immoderate, as well as that of coffee and chocolate. The princess of Hesse, with a weak habit of body inclining to a consumption, had been accustomed to drink these liquors to excess, and extremely hot. He thought fit, therefore, to write something against the abuse of them, especially the most common one last mentioned. Their prudent use, to persons chiefly of a phlegmatic constitution, he allowed. He even recommended them, in that case, by his own example, to be taken moderately warm early in the morning, and soon after dinner; but never late in the evening, their natural tendency not agreeing with the posture of a body at rest. He wrote this treatise in a popular style, as intended for the benefit of all ranks of people; the abuse he condemned growing daily more and more epidemical. Though he deemed it too superficial for publication, he permitted it to be much circulated in manuscript. It was not till five years after that he was persuaded by his friend Dr. Boerhaave to print it, first in French, under the title of “Avis salutaire a tout le monde, contre Tabus cles liqueurs chaudes, & particulierement du caffe, du chocolat, & du the.” Rotterdam, J 705. He printed it the year following in English.

The persecution of protestants in France continuing to drive great numbers of them from all its provinces into Germany, he defrayed occasionally the expences of some small bodies of these poor emigrants, who passed through Cassel in 1702, in their way to Brandenburg, where encouraging offers of a comfortable maintenance were held out by Frederic, the newly created king of Prussia, to industrious manufacturers of every sort. The praises these people spread of Dr. Duncan’s liberality, when they arrived at Berlin, procured him a flattering invitation to that court. Here he was well received by the reigning prince; who appointed him distributor of his prudent munificence to some thousands of these poor artificers, and superintendant of the execution of a plan formed for their establishment. This office he discharged with great credit and internal satisfaction; but with no other advantage to himself. Though appointed professor of physic with a decent salary, and physician to the royal household, he found his abode at Berlin likely to prove injurious to his health and fortune. His expences there were excessive, and increasing without bounds by the daily applications made to him as distributor of the royal bounty, which fell short of their wants. Besides, the intemperate mode of living at that court was not according to his taste, and this last reason induced him. in 1703, to remove to the Hague. In this most agreeable residence he settled about twelve years, a short excursion to London excepted in 1706, for the purpose of investing all his monied property in the English funds. He kept at this time a frequent correspondence with Dr. Boerhaave, at whose persuasion he published a Latin edition of uis Natural Chemistn with some improvements and additional illustrations. He commenced about the same time a correspondence upon similar subjects with Dr. Richard Mead, From the time of his leavijig London in 1681. it appears that Dr. Duncan constantly entertained thoughts of fixing there his final abode. He however did not effect this purpose till about the end of 1714. He expressed an intention to quit the Hague some months sooner; but unhappilv just then he was suddenly seized with a stroke of the palsy, which greatly alarmed his friends. Yet, when he had overcome the first shock, he found no other inconvenience from it himself till his death twenty-one years after, except a slight convulsive motion of the head, which seized him commonly in speaking, but never interrupted the constant cheerfulness of his address. To a patient likely to do well he would say, “It is not for your case that I shake my head, but my own. You will soon shake me off, I warrant you.” He dedicated the last sixteen years of his life to the gratuitous service of those who sought his advice. To the rich who consulted him, from whom he as peremptorily refused to take a fee, he was wont to say, with a smile, ' The poor are my only paymasters now; they are the best I ever had; their payments are placed in a government-fund that can never fail; my security is the only King who can do no wrong.“This alluded to the loss he had sustained, in 1721, of a third part of his property by the South Sea scheme, which, however, produced not the least alteration in his purpose, nor any retrenchment of his general beneficence to the poor. He left behind him a great number of manuscripts, chiefly on physical subjects. The writers of the” Bibliotheque Britannique“for June 1735, whence the substance of this account is taken, close the article relating to him with this short sketch of his character” His conversation was easy, cheerful, and interesting, pure from all taint of partyscandal or idle raillery. This made his company desired by all who had a capacity to know its value; and he afforded a striking instance that religion must naturally gain strength from the successful study of nature.“He died at London, April 30, 1735, aged 86. He left behind him an only son, the reverend doctor Daniel Duncan, author of some religious tracts; among the rest,” Collects upon the principal Articles of the Christian Faith, according to the order of the Catechism of the Church of England.“Printed lor S. Birt, 1754. This was originally intended for an appendix to a larger work, completed for the press, but never published, entitled,” The Family Catechism, being a free and comprehensive Exposition of the Catechism of the Church of England.“He corresponded with the writers of the” Candid Disquisitions,“c. in which work he was from that circumstance supposed to have had some share. He died in June, 1761, leaving behind him two sons, both clergymen, the younger of whom, John Duncan, D. D. rector of South Warmborough, Hants, died at Bath Dec. 28, 1808. He was born in 1720, and educated at St. John’s college, Oxford, where he took his degrees of M. A. in 1746, B. D. 1752, and D. D. by decree of convocation in 1757. Jn 1745 and 1746 he was chaplain to the king’s own regiment, and was present at every battle in Scotland in which that regiment was engaged. He afterwards accompanied the regiment to Minorca, and was present at the memorable siege of St. Philip’s, which was followed by the execution of admiral Byng. In 1763 he was presented to the college living of South Warmborough, which he held for forty-five years. Besides many fugitive pieces in the periodical journals, Dr. Duncan published an” Essay on Happiness,“a poem, in four- books; an” Address to the rational advocates of the Church of England;“the” Religious View of the present crisis“” The Evidence of Reason, in proof of the Immortality of the Soul,“collected from Mr. Baxter’s Mss. with an introductory letter by the editor, addressed to Dr. Priestley; and some other tracts and occasional sermons. He contributed to the” Biographia Britannica,“the life of his grandfather, and an account of the family of Duncans and what the editor of that work said of him in his life-time may be justly repeated now,” that he sustained the honour of his family, in the respectability of his character, in the liberality of his mind, and in his ingenious and valuable publications."

, an ancestor of the preceding Dr. Daniel Duncan, and also a physician, was of Scotch origin, but born in London. He appears to have gone early in life to Franct and during a residence at Saumur, acquired the patronage of the celebrated Du Plessis Mornay, then governor of that city, who procured him the professorship of philosophy in the university. This situation he filled with great reputation, and published several learned works, among the rest, a Latin system of Logic, much commended by Burgersdicius, in the preface to his “Jnstitutiones Logicæ,” which he frankly confesses to have formed entirely upon that model. By the interest of the governor, his generous protector, to whom his Logic is dedicated, he became afterwards regent [principal] of the university of Saumur. Among his works is a book against the possession of the Ursuline nuns of Loudun. This piece made so much noise, that Li ubardemont, commissary for the examination of the demoniacal possession of these young women, would have made it a serious affair for him, but for the interposition of the marshal de Breze, to whom he was physician. At Saumur he married a gentlewoman of a good family, and gained so much reputation in his art, that James I. king of Britain sent for him, with an offer of making him his physician in ordinary and for this purpose he sent him the patent of it (as a security of what he was promised) before he crossed the sea but, as his wife was extremely desirous not to leave her native country, her relations, and acquaintance, he refused to accept of an employment that was so honourable and advantageous to his family, and spent the rest of his life at iSanmur, where he died in 1640, to the universal regret of every one, whether high or low, papist or protestant. He was admirably well skilled in philosophy, divinity, and mathematics, besides physic, which he practised with great honour; and was a man of the greatest probity, and of a most exemplary life.

In 1748, Mr. Robert Dodsley published that work so well adapted to the education of youth, entitled “The Preceptor;” and that it might be executed in the best manner, called in the assistance of some of the ablest men of the age, among whom may be reckoned the names of David Fordyce, Dr. John Campbell, and Dr. Samuel Johnson. The part of logic was assigned to Mr. Duncan, and he discharged the task with an ability that excited general approbation. He has treated logic like one who was a thorough master of it. Disdaining to copy servilely after those who had gone before him, he struck out a plan of his own, and managed it with so much perspicuity and judgment, gave so clear and distinct a view of the furniture of our minds for the discovery of truth, and laid down such excellent rules for the attainment of it, that his work was reckoned one of the best introductions to the study of philosophy and the mathematics in our own, or perhaps any other language. Mr. Duncan’s last production was a translation of Ciesar’s Coaimentaries, which appeared in the latter end of 1752, in one vol. folio. This work had a double title to a favourable reception from the public, being recommended both by its external and internal merit. It is beautifully printed, and richly adorned with a variety of fine cuts; and as to the translation, it is acknowledged to be the best that has been given in our tongue of the Commentaries of Caesar. Mr. Duncan has in a great measure caught the spirit of the original author, and has preserved his turn of phrase and expression as far as the nature of our language would permit. Previously to our author’s publication of this work, he had been appointed professor of philosophy in the Alarischal college, Aberdeen. The royal presentation, which conferred this office upon him, was signed by the king at Hanover, May 18, 1752. Mr. Duncan, however, remained in London till the summer of 1753, and was not admitted to his professorship of natural and experimental philosophy till Aug. 21, of the same year. While Mr. Duncan resided in the metropolis, he was in the habits of intimacy with several of the learned men who flourished at that time; and among others, George Lewis Scot, and Dr. Armstrong, were his particular friends. Indeed he was held in general esteem on account of his private, as well as his literary character. The sedentary life he had led before he came into the college at Aberdeen, had a good deal affected his constitution, and particularly his nerves; in consequence of which he was subject to an occasional depression of spirits. By this he was unfitted for great exertions, but not for his ordinary employment, or for enjoying the company of his friends. He died a bachelor. May 1, 1760, in the fortythird year of his age. Mr. Duncan cannot so much be said to have possessed genius, as good sense and taste; and his parts were rather solid than shining. His temper was social, his manners easy and agreeable, and his conversation entertaining and often lively. In his instructions as a professor he was diligent and very accurate. His conduct was irreproachable, and he was regular in his attendance on the various institutions of public worship. Soon after his settlement in the Marischal college, he was admitted an elder of the consistory or church session of Aberdeen, and continued to officiate as such till his death.

, an ingenious poetical and miscellaneous writer, youngest son of John Buncombe, esq. of Stocks, in the parish of Ahibury, Hertfordshire, and Hannah his wife, was born at his father’s house in Hatton-garden, London, Jan. 9, 1689-90, and owed his Christian name to the revolution principles of his father and family. On the same principles, his father in 1693 put his life into the tontine, or annuities increasing by survivorship, subscribing 100l. on it, for which \Ql. per annum was paid immediately, and from which, in the course of his long life, our author received some thousands. He was educated in two private seminaries, viz. at Cheney, in Bucks, and afterwards at Pinner, near Harrow-on-the- Hill, Middlesex, under the tuition of Mr. Thomas Goodwin. In December 1706, Mr. Buncombe was entered as a clerk in the navy-office, and was advanced to a higher salary in January 1707-8. So early as 1715, we find a translation by him of the twenty-ninth ode of the first book of Horace, in the collection commonly known by the name of “The Wit’s Horace.” About this time, being acquainted with Mr. Jabefc Hughes, Mr. Buncombe was introduced to his brother John, author of the “Siege of Damascus,” and also to his sister (afterwards Mrs. Buncombe), who was a woman of excellent sense and temper. Our author’s translation of the Carmen Seculare of Horace was printed in folio in 1721, and was collected in 1731, in Concanen’s Miscellany, entitled “The Flower-piece.” This was followed in 1722, by a translation of the tragedy of “Athaliah” by Racine, which was published by subscription, and has gone through three editions. Having contracted an intimacy at the Navy-office with Mr. Henry Needier, a gentleman endued with a like taste, our author, by supplying him with proper books, enabled him to gratify his ardent thirst for knowledge; and, on his early death in 1718, hastened by his intense application, discharged the debt of friendship by collecting and publishing his “Original Poems, Translations, Essays, and Letters,” in 1724, one vol. 8vo, of which there have been also three editions. On Becember 3, 1725, Mr. Buncombe quitted his place at the Navy-office, and spent the remainder of a long and happy life, among his friends and his books, in literary 7 leisure;­Having a share in the “Whitehall Evening Post,” several of his fugitive pieces appeared occasionally in that paper; in particular, a translation of Buchanan’s “Verses on Valentine’s Day;” “Verses to Euryalus (Mr. John Carleton) on his coming of age;” “The Choice of Hercules,” fr.,;u Xenophon, (for which there was such a demand, that the paper was in a few days ont of print); and a “Defence of some passages in Paradise Lost,” from the hyper-criticism of M. de Voltaire. About the same time, numberless errors in a new edition of Chillingworth were pointed out by him, and translations of the “Letters between Archbishop Fenelon and M. de la Motte,” since republished in the appendix to archbishop Herring’s Letters, and of the “Adventures of Melesickton,” and other fables from Fenelon, were published in the London Journal. In the lottery of 1725, a ticket which Mr. Duncombe had in partnership with miss Elizabeth Hughes, sister of John Hughes, esq. author of “The Siege of Damascus,” was drawn a pnze of 1000l. a circumstance which probably hastened his m image with that amiable lady, which took place Sept 1, 1726, on which he removed to her mother’s house in Red-lion-street, Holborn.

1754, Mr. Duncombe drew up “Remarks on lord Bolingbroke’s Notion of a God,” with some occasional notes; to which he annexed a translation, from Cicero, “De Natura Deorum,” of the arguments of Q Lucilius Balbus, the stoic, in proof of the being, and of the wisdom, power, and goodness, of God. These were read and approved by the archbishop, and others of the author’s friends, but were not published till 1763, when he allowed the late Dr. Dodd to insert them in the “Christian’s Magazine.” They have since been collected in the Appendix to archbishop Herring’s letters. Horace having always been Mr. Duncombe’s favourite author, he had amused himself for more than thirty years, at different times, with translating several of his odes, but without any intention of publishing them, or of giving a version of the whole to the world, till his son offered his assistance for completing the work; and undertook some of the odes and satires, all the epodes, and the first book of epistles, and added several imitations from Sanadon, Dacier, &c. Mr. Duncombe compiled notes to the whole, and published one volume 8vo, in 1757, and the second in 1759. Another edition, in four volumes, 12mo, with several additional imitations, appeared in 1764. On the death of his excellent friend, archbishop Herring, our author, as a token of his gratitude and affection, collected, in one volume 8vo, the “Seven Sermons on public occasions,” which his grace had separately printed in his life-time, and prefixed to them some memoirs of his life. This was his last publication. With a constitution naturally weak and tender, by constant regularity, and an habitual sweetness and evenness of temper, his life was prolonged to the advanced age of seventy-nine; when, without any previous painful illness, he died February 13, 1769, esteemed, beloved, and regretted, by all who knew him. He was interred near the remains of his wife, in, the burying-place of his family, in Aldbury church, Hertfordshire, and left one son, the subject of the next article.

, was born 1730, and when a child, was of an amiable disposition, had an uncommon capacity for learning, and discovered, very early, a genius for poetry. After some years passed at a school at Romford, in Essex, under the care of his relation, the rev. Philip Fletcher, afterwards dean of Kildare, and younger brother to the bishop of that see, he was removed to a more eminent one at Felsted, in the same county. At this school he was stimulated by emulation to an exertion of his talents; and, by a close application, he became the first scholar, as well as captain of the school, and gained the highest reputation; and by the sweetness of his temper and manners, and by a disposition to friendship, he acquired and preserved the love of all his companions, and the esteem of his master and family. He has, on some particular occasions, been heard modestly to declare, that he was never punished, during hib whole residence at either school, for negligence in his lessons or exercise, or for any other misdemeanor. He was very early qualified for the university, and constantly improved himself, when at home, by his private studies, and the assistance or his father, happy in the companionship of such a son, who was always dutiful and affectionate to him; and the first literary characters of that time associated with a father and son, whose polished taste and amiable manners rendered them universally acceptable. He was entered, at the age of sixteen, at Bene‘t-college, Cambridge, where Mr. Castle, afterwards dean of Hereford, was then master: and he was recommended to that college by archbishop Herring, whom we have mentioned as his father’s particular friend. The archbishop baptised his son, and promised to patronize him, if educated for the church, and therefore sent him to the college where he had completed his own education. At the university he continued to rise in reputation as a scholar and a poet, and was always irreproachable in his moral character: he had the happiness of forming some connections there with men of genius an ’< virtue, which lasted through life; but the first and strongest attachment, in which he most delighted, end which reflected honour on his own merit, was the uninterrupted friendship, and constant correspondence, which com.uued to the last, with Mr. Greene, a very respectable clergyman of the diocese of Norwich, a man whose character for learning and abilities, goodness and virtue, justly gained him the esteem and love of all who had the happiness of his acquaintance, whose testimony is real praise, who acknowledged the worth of his valuable friend, “and loved his amiable and benevolent spirit.”

He was, in 1750, with full reputation, chosen fellow of Bene't-college; was, in 1753, ordained at Kew chapel, by Dr. Thomas, bishop of Peterborough, and appointed, by the recommendation of archbishop Herring, to the curacy of Sundridge in Kent; after which he became assistant preacher at St. Anne’s, Soho, where his father resided, and Dr. Squire, afterwards bishop of St. David’s, was rector, with whom he lived in particular intimacy, and who gave him a chaplainship, and intended to patronize him; but in that instance, and several others, he experienced the loss of friends and patrons before they had been able to gratify their own intention, or bestow on him any thing considerable. His elegant discourses acquired him, as a preacher, great reputation; his language was always correct, his expression forcible, and his doctrine so pathetically delivered, as to impress his hearers with reverence and awaken their attention. His voice was harmonious; and rather by the distinct articulation, than from strength, he was better heard, in many large churches, and particularly in the choir of Canterbury cathedral, than some louder tones, having cultivated the art of speaking in the pulpit; and his sermons always recommended that moderation, truly Christian temper, and universal charity and philanthropy, which formed the distinguished mark of his character in every part of life; and he was totally free from all affectation, as well in the pulpit as in common conversation. He was a popular and admired preacher; but he had no vanity on that account, and was equally satisfied to fulfil his duty in a country parish, and an obscure village, as in a crowded cathedral, or populous church in the metropolis. But his merit was not much regarded by the attention of the great. He was, however, esteemed, honoured, and beloved, in the very respectable neighbourhood where he constantly resided; and the dignities and affluence he might reasonably have expected from his family connections, and early patronage, could only have displayed, in a wider sphere, that benevolence, and those viriues, which are equally beneficial to the possessor, in whatever station he may be placed, when exercised to the utmost of his ability.

This living enabled him to fulfil a long engagement, or rather to obey the impulse of a long attachment, to miss Highmore, daughter of Mr. Highmore, who was known to the world, not only by his pencil, but by his other extensive knowledge, and literary pursuits. He was married at St. Anne’s church, 20th April 1763, by Dr. Squire, bishop of St. David’s. A similarity of taste and love of literature had early endeared their companionship; and a mutual affection was the natural consequence, which ensured to them twenty years happiness, rather increased than diminished by the hand of time! He settled at Canterbury; and, in 1766, archbishop Seeker appointed him one of the six preachers in that cathedral. In 1773, archbishop Cornwall is gave him the living of Herne, about six miles from Canterbury, which afforded him a pleasant recess in the summer months. His grace also granted him a chaplainship; and he had, previous to the last living, been entrusted with the mastership of Harbledown and St. John’s hospitals, places of trust only, not emolument: so that he had, in fact, three favours, though not any of them considerable, in succession, from three archbishops.

He was suddenly taken ill in the night, June 2!, 1785. A suffocation was rapidly coming on; but a surgeon being called, he was almost instantly relieved by bleeding a good sleep ensued, but he waked in the morning almost speechless; a paralytic stroke on the organs of articulation only, seemed to have taken place; medical assistance was applied; he partly recovered articulation; but great debility was perceivable, and he could no longer write as usual: however, by slow degrees he regained strength, beyond the expectation of iiis distressed friends; and appeared after the summer passed at Herne, to be quite restored to health and spirits, and pursued every avocation as before the stroke, and with the same power of mind; but those who were most constantly with him, and watched with the tender eye of affection, never lost the alarm, never rested without apprehension, and perceived, by some suaden starts, and nervous complaints, that all was not sound within. In January following he coughed much, two or three days, but without any dangerous symptom, till, on the night of the 18th, a suffocation as before came on; assistance was immediately procured, but not with the former success; the disorder increased, and loss of life ensued. His gentle spirit, as he had lived, departed, easy to himself in his exit; distressful alone to all that knew him, to those most who knew him best. His family, his friends, the servants, and the poor, all by their affliction spoke his real worth. He left one daughter. His temper never changed by any deprivation of the world’s enjoyments, nor by any bodily suffering; no peevishness, no complaints escaped; though it is observed that a great alteration often attends such disorders, and warps the temper naturally good. But he silently used his piety to the laudable purpose of regulating not only his actions, but his words; yet this was discovered rather from observation than from his own profession, as he was remarkably modest and humble on religious topics; and, for fear of ostentation on that subject, might rather err on the opposite side, from an awful timidity, which might not always give a just idea of his unaffected zeal and real faith. His friendship, where professed, was ardent; and he had a spirit in a friend’s cause that rarely appeared on other occasions. He was amiable, affectionate, and tender, as a husband and father; kind and indulgent as a master; and a protector and advocate of the poor; benevolent to all, as far as his fortune could afford.

As he had many leisure hours, he passed much time in literary employments, though many were very cheeriully given to society. Among his published productions maybe mentioned, the “Feminead,” 1754, which passed through two editions, and has been reprinted both in tlu Poetical Calendar, and in Pearch’s Collection. Four Odes appeared in 1753, viz. “The Prophecy of Neptune;” “On the Death of the Prince of Wales;” “*Ode presented to the Duke of Newcastle” and one “*To the hon. James Yorke,” first bishop of St. David’s, and afterwards bishop of Ely. Between 1753 and 1756 came out separatelv, “*An Evening Contemplation in a College,” being a parody on Gray’s Elegy“reprinted in” The Repository.“Other detached poems of Mr. Duncombe’s are,” *Verses to the Author of Clarissa,“published in that work;” *Verses on the Campaign, 1759,“(addressed to Sylvanus Urban, and originally printed in the volume for that year);” *To Colonel Clive, on his arrival in England;“” *On the Loss of the Ramilies, Captain Taylor, 1760;“” Surrey Triumphant, or the Kentish Men’s Defeat, 1773,“4to; a parody on Chevy ­Chace; which, for its genuine strokes of humour, elegant poetry, and happy imitation, acquired the author much applause. This has been translated into” Nichols’s Select Collection of Poems, 1782,“where may be found, also, a poem of his on Stocks House; a translation of an elegant epitaph, by bishop Lowth; and an elegiac *' Epitaph at the Grave of Mr. Highmore.” Those pieces marked with a starare in the Poetical Calendar, vol. VII. together with a Prologue spoken at the Charter-house, 1752 a Poem on Mr. Garrick and translations from Voltaire. And in vol. X. “The Middlesex Garden” “Kensington Gardens” “Farevvel to Hope” “On a Lady’s sending the Author a Ribbon for his Watch” “On Captain Cornwallis’s Monument” “Prologue to Amalasont” “Epigrams.” He published three Sermons; one “On the Thanksgiving, Nov. 29, 1759,” preached at St. Anne’s, Westminster, and published at the request of the pa- 4 rishioners another, “preached at the Consecration of the parish-church of St. Andrew, Canterbury,” July 4, 1774; and one, “On a General Fast, Feb. 27, 1778,” also preached at St. Andrew’s, Canterbury; and so well approved, that by the particular desire of the parish, it appeared in print under the title of “The Civil War between the Israelites and Benjamites illustrated and applied.” He published with his father, in 1766, a translation of Horace, in 8vo; and in 1767, another edition, with many enlargements and corrections, in 4 vols. 12mo. He trans* lated the “Huetiana,” in the Gentleman’s Magazine for 1771. In 1774, he translated Batteley’s “Antiquitates Rutupinte.” He wrote “The Historical Account of Dr. Dodd’s Life,” 1777*, 8vo; and was the translator of“Sherlock’s Letters of an English Traveller,” 1st edition, 4to. The 2d edition, 8vo, was translated by Mr. Sherlock himself. In 1778 he published *' An Elegy written in Canterbury Cathedral;“and in 1784,” Select Works of the Emperor Julian,“2 vols. 8vo. In 1784 he was principally the author of” The History and Antiquities of Keculver and Heme,“which forms the eighteenth number of the Bibliotheca Topographica Britannica to which work he also contributed in 1785, the thirtieth number, containing,” The History and Antiquities of the Three Archiepiscopal Hospitals in and near Canterbury,“which he dedicated to archbishop Moore. He was the editor of several other works; all of which were elucidated by his critical knowledge and explanatory notes; viz. 1.” Letters from several eminent persons, deceased, including the correspondence of John Hughes, esq. and several of his friends; published from the originals, with notes. Of these there have been two editions; the last in 3 vols. 2. “Letters from Italy; by the late right-hon. John earl of Corke and Orrery, with notes,” 1773. These have gone through two editions. 3. “Letters from the late archbishop Herring, to William Buncombe, esq. deceased; from 1728 to 1757, with notes, and an appendix,” 1777. He was also the author of a Letter signed “Rusncus,” in “The World,” vol. I. No. 36 of several Letters in “The Connoisseur,” being the “Gentleman of Cambridge, A. B.” mentioned in the last number. And in the Gentleman’s Magazine, his communications in biography, poetry, and criticism, during the last twenty years of his life, were frequent and valuable. Many of them are without a name; but his miscellaneous contributions were usually distinguished by the signature of Crito.

While a barrister, he shone equally as a powerful pleader and an ingenious reasoner. To the quickest apprehension he joined an uncommon solidity of judgment; and embracing in his mind all the possible arguments which were applicable to his cause, he could even in his unpremeditated pleadings discover at once and instantly attach himself to some strong principle of law on which he built the whole of his reasoning. His eloquence, though as various as the nature of the case required, was constantly subservient to his judgment; and though master of all the powers of expression, he rarely indulged himself in what is properly termed declamation. A fine specimen of his argumentative powers is to be found in his defence of Carnegie of Finhaven. This gentleman was in 1728, tried before the court of justiciary in Scotland, for the murder of Charles earl of Strathmore. At a meeting in the country, where the company had drank to intoxication, Carnegie, having received the most abusive language from Lyon of Bridgeton, drew his sword, and staggering forward to make a pass at this Lyon, killed the earl of Strathmore, a person for whom he had the highest regard and esteem, and who unfortunately came between him and his antagonist, apparently in the view of separating them. In this memorable trial, Mr. Dundas had not only the merit of saving the life of the prisoner, but of establishing a point of the utmost consequence to the security of life and liberty, the power of a jury, which at that time was questioned in Scotland, of returning a general verdict on the guilt or innocence of the person accused.

In Scotland, though general verdicts appear to have been authorised by the most ancient practice of the criminal court, it had long been customary to consider jurymen as tied down to determine simply, whether the facts in the indictment were proved or not proved. This change from the ancient practice is supposed, with much reason, to have been introduced in the latter part of the reign of Charles II. at a time when we find the king’s advocate (Mackenzie) strenuously contending in his “System of Criminal Law,” for the entire abolition of juries. The latter was too strong a measure, and would have been found of difficult accomplishment; the former was of easier attainment, and answered nearly the same end. The accused person, to satisfy appearances, and for the show of justice, was still to be tried by his peers; but his guilt or innocence was rarely within their cognizance; that was decided by the laws, or by their interpreters, the judges; and the jury, tied down to determine solely on the proof of facts, was compelled to surrender into the hands of these judges, and thus often to sacrifice the life of a fellow citizen, though convinced of his innocence, and earnestly desirous of his acquittal. Thus matters stood till the trial of Carnegie, who, had the powers of a Scotch jury remained thus circumscribed, must have suffered the punishment due to the foulest malefactor; the court had found the facts in the indictment “relevant to infer the pains of law” and the proof of these facts was as clear as noon-day. There remained no hope for the prisoner, unless the jury should be roused to assert a right which they had long relinquished, and vindicate the privilege of deciding on the guilt or innocence of the accused; and this great point was gained by the powerful eloquence of the prisoner’s counsel. The jury found the prisoner not guilty; and from that time, the right of a Scotch jury to return a general verdict, is acknowledged to be of the very essence of that institution.

, of Arniston, son of the preceding, was born July 18, 1713. He received the earlier parts of his education under a domestic tutor, and afterwards pursued the usual course of academical studies in the university of Edinburgh. In the end of the year 1733, he went to Utrecht, where the lectures on the Roman law were at that time in considerable reputation. He remained abroad for four years; and during the recess of study at the university, he spent a considerable time at Paris, and in visiting several of the principal towns of France and the Low Countries. Returning to Scotland in 1737, he was called to the bar in the beginning of the following year and, in his earliest public appearances, gave ample proof of his inheriting, in their utmost extent, the abilities and genius of his family. His eloquence was copious and animated; in argument he displayed a wonderful fertility of invention, tempered by a discriminating judgment, which gave, even to his unpremeditated harangues, a methodical arrangement; in consultation, he possessed a quickness of apprehension beyond all example; and his memory, which was most singularly tenacious, enabled him to treasure up, and to produce instantaneously, every case or precedent which was applicable to the matter before him.

In the beginning of 1754, Mr. Dundas was elected member of parliament for the county of Edinburgh; and in the following snmmer he was appointed his majesty’s advocate for Scotland. In parliament, the share which Mr. Dundas took in public business, and his appearances on many interesting subjects of discussion, which occurred in that important period during which he sat in the house of commons, were such as fully to justify the character he had already attained for talents and ability. Such was the complexion of the times, and so high the tide of party, that it was perhaps impossible for human wisdom to have pointed out a line of political conduct which could entirely exempt from censure. The lord advocate shared with the rest of his party in the censure of those who followed an pposite plan of politics but of him it may certainly with truth be affirmed, that in no instance was he ever known to swerve from his principles, or to act a part in which he had not the countenance of many of the firmest friends to the interest of their country. He was chiefly censured for the opposition which he gave to the establishment of a militia in Scotland, by a great party in that country, who warmly supported that measure. But when the question is dispassionately viewed, it will appear to be one of those doubtful points, on which the wisest men and the best patriots may entertain opposite opinions.

On June 14, 1760, Mr. Dundas was appointed president of the court of session. This was the aera of the splendour of his public character. Invested with one of the most important trusts that can be committed to a subject, he acquitted himself of that trust, during the twentyseven years in which he held it, with such consummate ability, wisdom, and rectitude, as must found a reputation durable as the national annals, and transmit his memory with honour to all future times. At his first entry upon office, the public, though well assured of his abilities, was doubtful whether he possessed that power of application and measure of assiduity, which is the first duty of the station that he now filled. Fond of social intercourse, and of late engaged in a sphere of life where natural talents are the chief requisite to eminence, he had hitherto submitted but reluctantly to the habits of professional industry. But it was soon seen, that accidental circumstances alone had prevented the developement of one great feature of his character, a capacity of profound application to business. He had no sooner taken his seat as president of the session, than he devoted himself to the duties of his office with an ardour of which that court, even under the ablest of his predecessors, had seen no example, and a perseverance of attention which suffered no remission to the latest hour of his life. He maintained, with great strictness, all the forms of the court in the conduct of business. These he wisely considered as essential, both to the equal administration of justice, and as the outworks which guard the law against those too common, but most unworthy artifices which are employed to prostitute and abuse it. To the bar he conducted himself with uniform attention and rQspect. He listened with patience to the reasonings of the counsel. He never anticipated the arguments of the pleader, nor interrupted him with questions to shew his own acuteness; but left every man to state his cause his own way: nor did he ever interfere, unless to restrain what was either manifestly foreign to the subject, or what wounded, in his apprehension, the dignity of the court. In this last respect he was most laudably punctilious. He never suffered an improper word to escape, either fromthe tongue or pen of a counsel, without the severest animadversion; and so acute was that feeling which he was know n to possess, of the respect that was due to the bench, that there were but few occasions when it became necessary for him to express it.

There were indeed other occasions, on which his feelings were most keenly awakened, and on which he gave vent to a becoming spirit of indignation. He treated with the greatest severity every instance, either of malversation in the officers of the law, or of chicanery in the inferior practitioners of the court. No calumnious or iniquitous prosecution, no attempt to pervert the forms of law to the purposes of oppression, ever eluded his penetration, or escaped his just resentment. Thus, perpetually watchful, and earnestly solicitous to maintain both the dignity and the rectitude of that sup'reme tribunal over which he presided, the influence of these endeavours extended itself to every inferior court of judicature as the motion of the heart is felt in the remotest artery. In reviewing the sentences ui inferior judges, he constantly expressed his desire of supporting the just authority of every rank and order of magistrates; but these were taught at the same time to walk with circumspection, to guard their conduct with the most scrupulous exactness, and to dread the slightest deviation from the narrow path of their duty. With these endowments of mind, and high sense of the duties of his office, it is not surprising, that amidst all the differences of sentiment which the jarring interests of individuals, or the more powerful influence of political faction, give rise to, thete should be but one opinion of the character of this eminent man, which is, that from the period of the institution of that court over which he presided, however conspicuous in particular departments might have been the merit of some of his predecessors, no man ever occupied the president’s chair, who combined in himself so many of the essential requisites for the discharge of that important office. But while we allow the merits of this great man in possessing, in their utmost extent, the most essential requisites for the station which he filled, it is but a small derogation from the confessed eminence of his character when we acknowledge a deficiency in some subordinate qualities. Of these, what was chiefly to be regretted, and was alone wanting to the perfection of his mental accomplishments, was, that he appeared to give too little weight or value to those studies which are properly termed literary. This was the more remarkable in him, that, in the early period of his life, he had prosecuted himself those studies with advantage and success. In his youth he had made great proficiency in classical learning; and his memory retaining faithfully whatever he had once acquired, it was not unusual with him, even in his speeches on the bench, to cite, and to apply with much propriety, the most striking passages of the ancient authors. But for these studies, though qualified to succeed in them, it does not appear that he ever possessed a strong bent or inclination. If he ever felt it, the weightier duties of active life, which he was early called to exercise, precluded the opportunity of frequently indulging it; and perhaps even a knowledge of the fascinating power of those pursuits, in alienating the mind from the severer but more necessary occupations, might have inclined him at last to disrelish from habit, what it had taught him at first to resist from principle. That this principle was erroneous, it is unnecessary to consume time in proving. It is sufficient to say, that as jurisprudence can never hope for any material advancement as a science, if separated from the spirit of philosophy, so that spirit cannot exist, independent of the cultivation of literature. That the studies of polite literature, and an acquaintance with the principles of general erudition, while they improve the science, add lustre and dignity to the profession of the law, cannot be denied. So thought all the greatest lawyers of antiquity. So thought, among the moderns, that able judge and most accomplished man, of whose character we have traced some imperfect features, lord Arniston, the father of the late lord president; of which his inaugural oration, as it stands upon the records of the faculty of advocates, bears ample testimony. His son, it is true, afforded a strong proof, that the force of natural talents alone may conduct to eminence and celebrity. He was rich in native genius, and therefore felt not the want of acquired endowments. But in this he left an example to be admired, not imitated. Few inherit from nature equal powers with his; and even of himself it must be allowed, that if he was a great man without the aids of general literature, or of cultivated taste, be must have been still a greater, had he availed himself of those lights which they furnish, and that improvement which they bestow. His useful and valuable life was terminated on the 13th of December 1787. His last illness, which, though of short continuance, was violent in its nature, he bore with the greatest magnanimity. He died in the seventy-fifth year of his age, in the perfect enjoyment of all his faculties; at a time when his long services might have justly entitled him to ease and repose, but which the strong sense of his duty would not permit him to seek while his power of usefulness continued; at that period, in short, when a wise man would wish to finish his course; too soon indeed for the public good, but not too late for his own reputation.

pains to conquer his native pronunciation, which, as it frequently provoked a smile from his hearers, would have proved of the greatest disadvantage in the heat and acrimony of debate, had he not evinced by the fluency and acuteness of his arguments that he was deserving of serious attention, and was an opponent not to be despised. For declamatory speaking, and addresses to the passions, he had neither taste nor talent; his mind was intent on the practical part of every measure, and in every debate that concerned what maybe termed business, he had few equals, and his speeches were perhaps the more attended to, as he made it a point to reserve them for such occasions. During lord North’s administration he was introduced to no ostensible station; but when that nobleman and his colleagues were obliged to retire in 1782, and a few months after, by the death of the marquis of Rockingham, their successors were obliged to resign, Mr. Dundas joined the young minister, Mr. Pitt, and was sworn into the privy council, and appointed treasurer of the navy. During Mr. Pitt’s first administration the general peace was concluded, which, however necessary, did not add much popularity to the ministry, and lord North and Mr. Fox, with their respective friends, or the greater part of them, having formed what was termed the coalition, Mr. Pitt’s administration was obliged to give way to a host of opponents, which was considered as invincible. On this occasion, in 1783, Mr. Dundas was deprived of his offices as treasurer of the navy, and lord advocate for Scotland.

Mr. Dundas continued in his several offices (with the addition of keeper of the privy seal in Scotland, conferred upon him in 1800,) until 1801, when he resigned along with Mr. Pitt, and in 1802 was elevated to the peerage by the title of Viscount Melville, of Melville in the county of Edinburgh, and Baron Dunira in the county of Perth. On Mr. Pitt’s return to office in May 1804, lord Melville succeeded lord St. Vincent as first lord of the admiralty, and continued so until the memorable occurrence of his impeachment. He had, while treasurer of the navy, rendered jnuch essential advantage to the service, and had been instrumental in promoting the comfort of the seamen by the bills he introduced for enabling them, during their absence, to allot certain portions of their pay to their wives and near relatives; and he also brought forward a bill for regulating the office of treasurer of the navy, and preventing an improper use being made of the money passing through his hands, and directing the same from time to time to be paid into the Bank; but by the tenth report of the commissioners for naval inquiry, instituted under the auspices of the earl ofSt. Vincent, it appeared that large sums of the public money in the hands of the treasurer had been employed directly contrary to the act. The matter was taken up very warmly by the house of commons, and after keen debates, certain resolutions moved by Mr. Whi thread for an impeachment against the noble lord, were carried on the 8th of April, 1805. On casting up the votes on the division, the numbers were found equal, 216 for, and 216 against; but the motion was carried by the casting vote of the right hon. Charles Abbot, the speaker. On the 10th, lord Melville resigned his office of first lord of the admiralty, and on the 6th of May he was struck from the list of privy counsellors by his majesty. On the 26th of June, Mr. Whitbread appeared at the bar of the house of lords, accompanied by several other members, and solemnly impeached lord Melville of high crimes and misdemeanours; and on the 9th of July presented at the bar of the house of lords the articles of impeachment. The trial afterwards proceeded in Westminster-hall, and in the end lord Melville was acquitted of all the articles hy his peers. That lord Melville acted contrary to his own law, in its letter, there can be no doubt; but on the other hand it does not appear that he was actuated by motives of personal corruption, or, in fact, that he enjoyed any peculiar advantage from the misapplication of the monies. Those under him, and whom his prosecutors, the better to get at him, secured by a bill of indemnity, employed the public money to their own use and emolument; nor does it appear that lord Melville ever had the use of any part of it, except one or two comparatively small sums for a short period. The impropriety of his conduct, therefore, was not personally offending against the act, but suffering it to be done by the paymaster and others under him; and, after all, no money was lost to the public by the malversations.

Lord Melville possessed all the natural talents of his relatives and ancestors, but like them was deficient in literary taste or acquirements. He was completely a man of business; in office regular and systematic, and to applicants affable and attentive; he made no parade of professions, and those who sought admittance on business, or courted his patronage, were never deluded by false hopes. With many brilliant examples before him of men who had become great by popularity, or were admired for the refinements of courtesy, he had no ambition to emulate them. His acquisitions from keeping the best company were so few, that he knew little of the language, and nothing of the eloquence of the country in which he was destined to flourish; and although he acquired an unprecedented share of power and patronage, it would be difficult to say whom he courted or pleased. The arts of what is termed popularity, he neither practised, nor understood. He never was at any period of his life, a popular minister, yet few men had more friends, for he could rank among that number many of his public opponents, who, amidst all the bitterness of party spirit, paid homage to the friendly, liberal, and we may add, convivial tenor of his private life; and to his open and undisguised avowal of sentiments and principles to which he adhered without a single breach of consistency. The extent of his patronage was perhaps his misfortune, for while it brought upon him the envy of those who would have had no scruple to share it, it also rendered him liable to more serious censure. A minister who is pestered by solicitations from those whom, he wishes not to refuse, soon loses the power of discrimination; and lord Melville was peculiarly unfortunate in some of the objects of his bounty, whose faults were placed to his account, and whom his friendship led him to screen after they had forfeited their character with the public. Upon the whole, whatever may be thought of his character during the present generation of parties, it cannot, even now, be denied that his great talents for business, both in parliament and in council, his indefatigable industry, and his benevolent and social temper, justly rank him among the most eminent of our political leaders, and will secure for him a large portion of the approbation of future historians.

, a writer of the ninth century, better known by his works than his personal history, is supposed to have been a native of Ireland, who emigrated to France, and there probably died. Cave and Dupin call him deacon, but Dungal himself assumes no other title than that of subject to the French kings, and their orator. In his youth he studied sacred and profane literature with success, and taught the former, and had many scholars, but at last determined to retire from the world. The influence which Valclon or Valton, the abbot of St. Denis near Paris, had over him, with some other circumstances, afford reason to think that if he was not a monk of that abbey, he had retired somewhere in its neighbourhood, or perhaps resided in the house itself. During this seclusion he did not forsake his studies, but cultivated the knowledge of philosophy, and particularly of astronomy, which was much the taste of that age. The fame he acquired as an astronomer induced Charlemagne to consult him in the year 811, on the subject of two eclipses of the sun, which took place the year before, and Dungal answered his queries in a long letter which is printed in D'Acheri’s Spicilegium, vol. III. of the folio, and vol. X. of the 4to edition, with the opinion of Ismael Bouillaud upon it. Sixteen years after, in the year 827, Dungal took up his pen in defence of images against Claude, bishop of Turin, and composed a treatise which had merit enough to be printed, first separately, in 1608, 8vo, and was afterwards inserted in the “Bibliotheca Patrum.” It would appear also that he wrote some poetical pieces, one of which is in a collection published in 1729 by Martene and Durand. The time of his death is unknown, but it is supposed he was living in the year 834.

, Lord Ashburton, an eminent lawyer, was the second son of Mr. John Dunning, of Ashburton, Co. Devon, attorney at law, by Agnes, daughter of Henry Judsham, of Old Port, in the parish of Modbury, in the same county. He was born at Ashburton, Oct. 18, 1731. At the age of seven he was sent to the free grammar-school of his native place, where, during five years, he made an astonishing progress in the classic languages. A book in Homer, or in the Æneid of Virgil, he would get by heart in the course of two hours, and on the top of the school-room, which was wainscotted, he drew out the diagrams of the first book of Euclid, and solved them at the age of ten. He has often been heard to say that he owed all his future fortune to Euclid and sir Isaac Newton. When he left school he was taken into his father’s office, where he remained until his attaining the age of nineteen, at which time sir Thomas Clarke, master of the rolls, (to whom his father had been many years steward) took him under his protection, and sent him to the Temple.

Here he is said to have been admitted an attorney in the court of King’s-bench, but remained for some time in obscurity, until the consciousness of his own powers, as it may be presumed, prompted him to consider his sphere of action as too confined for his genius, and occasioned him to study with a view of being called to the bar. His application to this pursuit was singular and unremitting. He had chambers up two pair of stairs, in Pump-court, Middle-temple, where it was his custom, both then, and some years after he was called to the bar, to read from an early hour in the morning till late in the evening, without ever going out of his chambers, or permitting any visits from his fellow students. He then dined, (or rather made his dinner and supper together,) either at the Grecian or at George’s coffee-house. In this way he accumulated a vast stock of knowledge, which, however, for a considerable time he had no opportunity of displaying. When admitted to the bar, he travelled the western circuit, but had not a single brief; and the historian of Devonshire says, had Lavater been at Exeter in 1759, he must have sent counsellor Dunning to the hospital of idiots. Not a feature marked him for the son of wisdom. Practice came in so slowly, that he was three years at the bar before he received one hundred guineas; but at length he was enabled to emerge from this state of obscurity, and commence that career which led to fame, opulence, and honours.

Few men, in a career requiring the gifts of voice, person, and manner, had ever more difficulties to struggle with than the late lord Ashburton. He was a thick, short, compact man, with a sallow countenance, turned-up nose, a constant shake of the head, with a hectic cough which so frequently interrupted the stream of his eloquence, that to any other man this single defect would be a material impediment in his profession; and yet, with all these personal drawbacks, he no sooner opened a cause which required any exertion of talent, than his mind, like the sun, broke forth in the full meridian of its brightness. His elocution was at once fluent, elegant, and substantial, and partook more of the knowledge of constitutional law than that derived from the old books and reporters; not that he wasdeficient in all the depths of his profession, when an absolute necessity called him out (his praise being that of the best common lawyer as well as the best orator of his time); but his general eloquence partook more of the spirit than the letter of laws. His diction was of the purest and most. classical kind not borrowed from any living model of his time, either in the senate or at the bar it was his own particular formation and if it had any shade, it was perhaps its not being familiar enough, at times, to the common ear: he was, however, master of various kind of styles, and possessed abundance of wit and humour, which often not only '; set the court in a roar," but drew smiles from the gravity of the bench. His more finished speeches in the house of commons, and as a pleader before the bar of the house of lords, were many of them fine models of eloquence: he possessed the copia verbprum so fully that he seldom wanted a word; and when he did, he had great Jinesse in concealing it from his auditory, by repeating some parts of his last sentences by way of illustration: nobody had this management better, as by it he recovered the proper arrangement of his ideas, without any visible interruption in his discourse.

Though in the meridian of this celebrated lawyer’s fame he was far from being deficient in confident boldness, he originally had a very considerable degree of diffidence. Practice, however, and intimacy with the manner of the bar, enabled him to overcome this, as far as it was a hindrance, and perhaps a little farther, for often, in the latitude of cross-examination, he indulged himself in sarcasms on the names and professions of individuals, on provincial characters, &c. together with those of whole nations; all of which were much below his learning, his taste, and general manners: nor can we any other way account for it, than from that contagion which is sometimes caught from mixing with narrow men in the profession, who have no other way of shewing their own importance, than by endeavouring to raise it on the diffidence, the weakness, or modesty, of others. He did not, however, always escape unhurt in these sallies; and one of the poets of that day rallied him on this unmanly practice. He got another rub from his friend counsellor Lee (better known by the name of honest Jack Lee) on this account: he was telling Lee that he had that morning purchased some manors in Devonshire. “I wish,” said the other, “you could bring them to Westminster-hall.”

He preserved the dignity of a barrister very much in court, and frequently kept even the judges in check. When lord Mansfield, who had great quickness in discovering the jut of a cause, used to take up a newspaper by way of amusing himself, whilst Dunning was speaking, the latter would make a dead stop. This would rouse his lordship to say, “Pray go on, Mr. Dunning.” “No, my lord, not till your lordship has finished.” His reputation was as high with his fellow-barristers as with the public; he lived very much with the former, and had their affection and esteem. When lord Thurlow gave his first dinner as lord chancellor, he called Dunning to his right hand at table, in preference to all the great law otBcers; and when he hesitated to take the place, the other called out in his blunt way, “Why will you keep the dinner cooling in this manner?” He had that integrity in his practice, that on the opening of any cause, which he found by the evidence partook of any notorious fraud or chicanery, he would throw his brief over the bar with great contempt, and resort to his bag for a fresh paper. Whilst he was in the height of his practice, his father came to the treasurer’s office in the Middle Temple, to be one of the joint securities for a student performing his terms, <kc. Wh<-n he signed the bond, the clerk, seeing the name, asked him with some eagerness, whether he was any relation to the great Dunning? The old man felt the praise of his son with great sensibility, and modestly replied, “I am John Dunning’s father, Sir.” Few lawyers, without any considerable paternal estate at starting, and dying so young as lord Ashburton did, ever left such a fortune behind him; the whole amounting to no less than one hundred and eighty thousand pounds! Nor was this the hoard of a miser, for he always lived like a gentleman in the most liberal sense of the word, though, from his immense practice, he had no time to indulge in the arrangements of a regular establishment. During his illness, as a last resource he was advised to try his native air, and in going down to Devonshire accidentally met, at the same inn, his old colleague Wallace, lately attorneygeneral, coming to town on the same melancholy errand, to be near the best medical assistance. It was the lot of both to be either legal or political antagonists through the whole course of their lives, in which much keenness, and much dexterity of argument, were used on both sides: here, however, they met as friends, hastening to that goal, where the race of toil, contention, and ambition, was soon to have a final close. They supped together with as much conviviality as the nature of their conditions would admit, and in the morning parted wiih mutual promises of visiting each other early in the winter. These promises, however, were never performed: Dunning died in August, and Wallace in November.

, surnamed Sgotus, an eminent scholastic divine, who flourished in the latter end of the thirteenth and the beginning of the fourteenth century, was born at Dunstance, in the parish of Emildun or Embleton, near Alnwick in Northumberland. Some writers have contended that he was a Scotsman, and that the place of his birth was Duns, a village eight miles from England, and others have asserted that he was an Irishman. He is, however, treated as an Englishman by all the early authors who speak of him; and the conclusion of the ms copy of his works in Merton college, gives his name, country, and the place where he was born, as stated above. When a youth, he joined himself to the minorite friars of Newcastle; and, being sent by them to Oxford, he was admitted into Merton college, of which, in due time, he became fellow. Here, besides the character he attained in scholastic theology, he is said to have been very eminent for his knowledge in the civil and canon law, in logic, natural philosophy, metaphysics, mathematics, and astronomy. Upon the removal of William Varron from Oxford to Paris, in 1301, Duns Scotus was chosen to supply his place in the theological chair; which office he sustained with such reputation, that more than thirty-thousand scholars came to the university to be his hearers, a number which, though confidently asserted by several writers, we admit with great hesitation. After John Duns had lectured three years at Oxford, he was called, in 1304, to Paris, where he was honoured with the degrees, first of bachelor, and then of doctor in divinity. At a meeting of the monks of his order at Tholouse, in 1307, he was created regent; and about the same time he was placed at the head of the theological schools at Paris. Here he is affirmed to have first broached the doctrine of the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary, and to have supported his position by two hundred arguments, which appeared so conclusive, that the members of the university of Paris embraced the opinion; instituted the feast of the immaculate conception; and issued an edict, that no one, who did not embrace the same opinion, should be admitted to academical degrees. In 1308, Duns Scotus was ordered by Gonsalvo, the general of the Minorites, to remove to Cologn, on the road to which he was met in solemn pomp, and conducted thither by the whole body of the citizens. Not long after his arrival in this city, he was seized with an apoplexy, which carried him off, on the eighth of November, 1308, in the forty-third, or, as others say, in the thirty-fourth, year of his age. Paul Jovius’s account of the mode of his death is, that when he fell down of his apoplexy he was immediately interred as dead; but that, afterwards coming to his senses, he languished in a most miserable manner in his coffin, beating his head and hands against its sides, till he died. This story, though generally treated as a fable, is hinted at by Mr. Whavton, who says, “Apoplexia correptus, et festinato nimis, ut volunt, funere elatus,” and whether true or not, gave occasion to the following epitaph:

, “an English musician of the fifteenth century, at an early stage of counterpoint, acquired on the continent the reputation of being its inventor, which, however, Dr. Burney has proved could not belong to him. He was the musician whom the Germans, from a similarity of name, have mistaken for saint Dunstan, and to whom, as erroneously, they have ascribed with others the invention of counterpoint in four parts. He was author of the musical treatise” De Mensurabili Musica,“which is cited by Franchinus, Morley, and Ravenscroft. But though this work is lost, there is still extant in the Bodleian library, a Geographical Tract by this author and, if we may believe his epitaph, which is preserved by Weever, he was not only a musician, but a mathematician, and an eminent astrologer. Of his musical compositions nothing remains but two or three fragments in Franchinus, and Morley. He is very unjustly accused by this last writer of separating the syllables of the same words by rests. Stow calls him” a master of astronomy and music," and says he w;;s buried in the church of St. Stephen, Walbrook, in 1458.

was born of noble parents at Glastonbury, in Somersetshire, in the year 925. Under the patronage of his uncle Aldhelm, archbishop of Canterbury, he was instructed in the literature and accomplishments of those times, and in consequence of his recommendation invited by king Athelstan to court, who bestowed on him lands near Glastonbury, where he is said to have spent some years in retirement. Edmund, the successor of Athelstan, appointed him abbot of the celebrated monastery which he began to rebuild in that place in the year 042, and by the munificence of the king, who gave him a new charter in the year 944, he was enabled to restore it to its former lustre. Among other legendary stories reported of St. Dunstan we are told that he had been represented to the king as a man of licentious manners; and dreading the ruin of his fortune by suspicions of this nature, he determined to repair past indiscretions by exchanging the extreme of superstition for that of licentiousness. Accordingly he secluded himself altogether from the world; and he framed a cell so small that he could neither stand erect in it, nor stretch out his limbs during his repose; and here he employed himself perpetually in devotion or manual labour. In this retreat his mind was probably somewhat deranged; and he indulged chimeras which, believed by himself and announced to the credulous multitude, established a character of sanctity among the people. He is said to have fancied that the devil, among the frequent visits which he paid him, was one day more earnest than usual in his temptations; till Dunstan, provoked hy his importunity, seized him by the nose with a pair of red-hot pincers as he put his head into the cell, and he held him there till the malignant spirit made the whole neighbourhood resound with his bellowings. The people credited and extolled this notable exploit, and it ensured to Dunstan such a degree of reputation, that he appeared again in the world, and Edred, who had succeeded to the crown, made him not only the director of that prince’s conscience, but his counsellor in the most important affairs of government. He was also placed at the head of the treasury; and being possessed of power at court, and of credit with the populace, he was enabled to attempt with success the most arduous enterprizes. Taking advantage of the implicit confidence reposed in him by the king, Dunstan imported into England a new order of monks, the Benedictines, who, by changing the state of ecclesiastical affairs, excited, on their first establishment, the most violent commotions. Finding also that his advancement had been owing to the opinion of his austerity, he professed himself a parti zan of the rigid monastic rules; and after introducing that reformation into the convents of Glastonbury and Abingdon, he endeavoured to render it universal in the kingdom. This conduct, however, incurred the resentment of the secular clergy; and these exasperated the indignation of many courtiers, which had been already excited by the haughty and over-bearing demeanour which Dunstan assumed. Upon the death of Edred, who had supported his prime-minister and favourite in all his measures, and the subsequent succession of Edwy, Dunstan was accused of malversation in his office, and banished the kingdom. But, on the death of Edwy, and the succession of Edgar, Dunstan was recalled and promoted first to the see of Worcester, then to that of London and about the year 959, to the archiepiscopal see of Canterbury. For this last advancement it was requisite to obtain the sanction of the pope; and for this purpose Dunstan was sent to Rome, where he soon obtained the object of his wishes, and the appointment of legate in England, with very extensive authority. Upon his return to England, so absolute was his influence over the king, he was enabled to give to the Romish see an authority and jurisdiction, of which the English clergy had been before in a considerable degree independent. In order the more effectually and completely to accomplish this object, the secular clergy were excluded from their livings, and disgraced; and the monks were appointed to supply their places. The scandalous lives of the secular clergy furnished one plea for this measure, and it was not altogether groundless; but the principal motive was that of rendering the papal power absolute in the English church; for, at this period, the English clergy had not yielded implicit submission to the pretended successors of St. Peter, as they refused to comply with the decrees of the popes, which enjoined celibacy on the clergy. Dunstan was active and persevering, and supported by the authority of the crown, he conquered the struggles which the country had long maintained against papal dominion, and gave to the monks an influence, the baneful effects of which were experienced in England until the era of the reformation. Hence Dunstan has been highly extolled by the monks and partizans of the Romish church; and his character has been celebrated in a variety of ways, and particularly by the miracles which have been wrought either by himself or by others in his favour. During the whole reign of Edgar, Dunstan maintained his interest at court; and upon his death, in the year 975, his influence served to raise his son Edward to the throne, in opposition to Ethelred. Whilst Edward was in his minority, Dunstan ruled with absolute sway, both in the church and state, but on the murder of the king, in the year 979, and after the accession of Ethelred, his credit and influence declined; and the contempt with which his threatenings of divine vengeance were regarded by the king, are said to have mortified him to such a degree, that on his return to his archbishopric, he died of grief and vexation, May 19, 988. A volume of his works was published at Doway, in 1626. His ambition has given him a considerable place in ecclesiastical and civil history; and he appears to have been a man of extraordinary talents. Dr. Burney, in his history, notices his skill in music, and his biographers also inform us that he was a master of drawing, engraved and took impressions from gold, silver, brass, and iron, and that he even practised something like printing. Gervase’s words are, “literas formare,” which however, we think, means no more than that he cut letters on metal.

, bookseller and miscellaneous writer, was born at Graff bam, in Huntingdonshire, the 14th of May, 1659; the son of John Dunton, fellow of Trinity-college, Cambridge, and rector of Graft ham, whose works he published in 8vo, embellished with very curious engravings. Dunton was in business upwards of twenty years, during which time he traded considerably in the Stationers’ company; but, about the beginning of the last century, he failed, and commenced author; and in 1701, was amanuensis to the editor of a periodical paper called the “Post Angel.” He soon after set up as a writer for the entertainment of the public; and projected and carried on, with the assistance of others, the “Athenian Mercury,” or a scheme to answer a series of questions monthly, the querist remaining concealed. This work was continued to about 20 volumes; and afterwards reprinted by Bell, under the title of the “Athenian Oracle,” 4 vols. 8vo. It forms a strange jumble of knowledge and ignorance, sense and nonsense, curiosity and impertinence. In 1710 he published his “Athenianism,” or the projects of Mr. John Dunton, author of the “Essay on the hazard of a deathbed repentance.” This contains, amidst a prodigious variety of matter, six hundred treatises in prose and verse, by which he appears to have been, with equal facility, a philosopher, physician, poet, civilian, divine, humourist, &c. To this work he has prefixed his portrait, engraved by M. Vander Gucht; and in a preface, which breathes all the pride of self-consequence, informs his readers he does not write to flatter, or for hire. As a specimen of this miscellaneous farrago, the reader may take the following heads of subjects: 1. The Funeral of Mankind, a paradox, proving we are all dead and buried. 2. The spiritual hedge-hog; or, a new and surprising thought. 3. The double life, or a new way to redeem time, by living over to-morrow before it comes. 4. Dunton preaching to himself; or every man his own parson. 5. His creed, or the religion of a bookseller, in imitation of Brown’s Religio Medici, which h.is some humour and merit. This he dedicated to the Stationers’ company. As a satirist, he appears to most advantage in his poems entitled the “Beggar mounted” the “Dissenting Doctors;” “Parnassus hoa!” or frolics in verse “Dunton’s shadow,” or the character of a summer friend but in all his writings he is exceedingly prolix and tedious, and sometimes obscure. His “Case is altered, or Dunton’s remarriage to his own wife,” has some singular notions, but very little merit in the composition. For further particulars of this heterogeneous genius, see “Dunton’s Life and Errors,” a work now grown somewhat scarce, or, what will perhaps be more satisfactory, the account of him in our authority. Dunton died in 1733.

, a political writer of much note in France and England, and a citizen of Geneva, was born in 1749, of an ancient family in Switzerland, who had been distinguished as magistrates and scholars. At the age of twenty-two he was appointed, through the interest of Voltaire, professor of belles-lettres at Cassel, and about that time he published two or three historical tracts. He was afterwards concerned with Linguet in the publication of the “Annales Politiques,” at Lausanne. In 1783 he went to Paris, where, during the three years’ sitting of the first French assembly, he published an analysis of their debates, which was read throughout all Europe, and considered as a model of discussion no less luminous than impartial. While he intrepidly attacked the various factions, he neither dissembled the faults nor the exaggerations of their adversaries. In the month of April, 1792, he left Paris on a confidential mission from the king to his brothers, and the emperor of Germany. In consequence of his quitting Paris, his estate in France, and his personal property, were confiscated; and among other losses, he had to regret that of a valuable library, and a collection of Mss. including a work of his own, nearly ready for the press, on the political state of Europe before the French revolution. Whilst resident at Brussels with the archduke Charles, in 1793, he published a work on the French revolution, which was warmly admired by Mr. Burke, as congenial with his own sentiments, and indeed by every other person not influenced by the delusions which brought about that great event. In 1794 he returned to Switzerland, which he was obliged to leave in 1798, the French, to whom he had rendered himself obnoxious by his writings, having demanded his expulsion. The same year he came to England, where he published a well-known periodical journal called the “Mercure Britannique,” which came out once a fortnight, nearly to the time of his death. This event took place at the house of his friend count Lally Tollendal, at Richmond, May 10, 1800. His “Mercure,” and other works, although of a temporary nature, contain facts, and profound views of the leading events of his time, which will be of great importance to future historians, and during publication contributed much to enlighten the public mind.

In addition to Dupin’s other literary labours, he was commissary in most of the affairs of the faculty of theology, was professor of divinity in the royal college, and for many years editor of the “Journal des Scavans,” carried on an extensive correspondence with learned men, and was often requested to prepare editions of works for the press, and to write prefaces. Yet notwithstanding all this, and his more urgent labours in preparing his own works, we are told that he divided his time judiciously, and had leisure to visit and receive the visits of his friends or strangers, whom he entertained with as much apparent ease as if his time was wholly unoccupied. His openness of temper, however, and the general impartiality of his works, procured him many enemies, whom the celebrated “Case of Conscience” afforded an opportunity of bringing him into fresh trouble. This “Case of Conscience” was a paper signed by forty doctors of the Sorbonne, in 1702, the purport of which allows some latitude of opinion with respect to the sentiments of the Jansenists. It occasioned a controversy of some length in France, and most of those who signed it were censured or punished. Dupin, in particular, was not only deprived of his professorship, but banished to Chatellerault, which last gave him most uneasiness, as it removed him from the seat of learning, and the company of learned men, always so delightful to him, and so necessary to the pursuit of his studies. At length he was induced to withdraw his subscription, and by the interest of some friends, was permitted to return; but his professorship was not restored to him. After he resumed his studies at Paris, he published many of those works of which we are about to give a catalogue, all of which had a. quick and extensive sale, although many of them prove that his accuracy was not equal to his diligence, and that by confining himself to fewer subjects, he would have better consuited his reputation. It must, however, be acknowledged that he possessed considerable taste, great freedom from common prejudices, a clear and methodical head, and most extensive reading. He corresponded with eminent men of different communions, and was much censured and threatened for a correspondence he carried on with archbishop Wake, respecting the union of the churches of Rome and England. Dupin and some other doctors of the Sorbonne were the first movers of this plan, although Mosheim, in his first edition, has represented Dr. Wake as offering the first proposals. This matter, however, is placed in a more clear light in the last edition of Mosheim, edited by Dr. Coote (1811) in the Appendix to which (No. IV.) the reader will find the whole correspondence, and probably be of opinion that while we admire the archbishop’s firmness and caution in stipulating for an emancipation from the papal yoke as a sine qua non, we have equal reason to admire the candour of Dupin in his review of the XXXIX Articles, and in the advances he endeavours to make to protestant sentiments. The czar of Muscovy, we are also told, consulted Dupin on an union with the Greek church. Dupin was an eager opponent of the constitution styled Unigenitus, and was the great leader of the opposition to it in the Sorbonne, the deputations, commissions, and memorials, all passing through his hands. At length, exhausted by his uninterrupted labours, and by a regimen too strict for health, he died June 6, 1719, in his sixtysecond year. It is said that, while he was in his last sickness, father Courayer of St. Genevieve came to see him with another of his brethren. Dupin began the conversation at first with mentioning the criticism, which had been published in the “Europe Savante,” upon the first volume of his “Bibliotheque des Auteurs separez de la Communion Romaine,” and spoke of it with great severity, not knowing that Courayer was the author of it. These fathers then went up to the chamber of Le Cointe, who had written in conjunction with Dupin, and was author of the answer to that criticism, which had been erroneously ascribed to Dupin himself. Le Cointe, who likewise knew not that Courayer was their antagonist, began upon the same subject, and told them, that if he lived, he would never desist from writing against those who had attacked Dupin, whom he styled his dear master; and though he had but a very small estate, would at his death leave money for a foundation to support those who should defend his memory; but Le Cointe died about fifteen days after, without performing his promise.

, a French historian, was born at Condom in 1569, of a noble family originally from Languedoc. His father had served with distinction under marshal de Montluc. Scipio having attracted notice at the court of queen Margaret, then at Nerac, came to Paris in 1605 with that princess, who afterwards made him her master of requests. His next appointment was to the post of historiographer of France, and he employed himself for a long time on the history of that kingdom. In his old age he compiled a work on the liberties of the Gallican. church; but the chancellor Seguier having caused the manuscript, for which he came to apply for a privilege, to be burnt before his face, he died of vexation not long after, at Condom, in 1661, at the age of ninety-two, the greater part of which time he had passed without sicknesses or infirmities. The principal of his works are, 1. “Memoirs of the Gauls,” 1650, folio, forming the first part of his History of France, a work much valued for its information, but ill written. 2. “History of France,” in 5, afterwards in 6 vols. fol. The narration of Dupleix is unpleasant, as well from the language having become obsolete, as from his frequent antitheses and puerile attempts at wit. Cardinal Richelieu is much flattered by the author, because he was living at the time; and queen Margaret, though his benefactress, is described like a Messalina, because she was dead, and the author had nothing farther to expect from her. Matthew de Morgues, and marshal Bassompierre both convicted him of ignorance and insincerity. Dupleix endeavoured to answer them, and after the death of the cardinal he wished to recompose a part of his history, but was presented by declining age. 3. “Roman History,” 3 vols. fol. an enormous mass, without spirit or life. 4. “A course of Philosophy,” 3 vols. 12mo. 5. “Natural Curiosity reduced to questions,” Lyons, 1620, 8vo, publications of which very little can be said in their praise. His “Liberte de la Langue Francaise,” against Vaugelas, does him still less credit; and upon the whole he appears to be one of those authors whose fame it would be impossible to revive, or perhaps to account for.

, whether an ancestor of the preceding, does not appear, was the son of Thomas Duport of Shepshed in Leicestershire, esq. became fellow of Jesus college, and was one of the university proctors in 1580, in which year he was instituted to the rectory of Harleton in Cambridgeshire, and afterwards became rector of Bosworth and Medbourne in his native county of Leicester. In 1583, Dec. 24, he was collated to the rectory of Fulbam in Middlesex, which Mr. Bentham calls a sinecure, and succeeded Henry Hervey, LL. D. April 29, 1585, in the precentorship of St. Paul’s, London; became master of Jesus college, Cambridge, in 1590; was four times elected vice-chancellor of the university, and in 1609 was made a prebendary of Ely. He died about, or soon after Christmas, 1617, and deserves this brief notice here, as being one of the learned men employed by king James I. in translating the Bible.

By his will he bequeathed several sums of money to charitable uses; particularly lands in Pembridge, in Herefordshire, which cost 250l. settled upon an alms-house there begun by his father; 500l. to be paid to the bishop of Sarum, to be bestowed upon an organ in that church, or such other use as the bishop shall think fittest; 500l. to the dean and chapter of Christ-church, in Oxford, towards the new buildings; 200l. to be bestowed on the cathedral church of Chichester, as the bishop and dean and chapter shall think fit; 200l. to the cathedral church at Winchester; 40l. to the poor of Lewisham, in Kent, where he was born; 40l. to the poor of Greenwich; 20l. to the poor of Westham, in Sussex, and 20l. more to provide communion-plate in that parish, if they want it, otherwise that 20l. also to the poor; 20l. to the poor of Witham, in Sussex; 10l. per annum for ten years to William Watts, to encourage him to continue in his studies; 50l. a-piece to ten widows of clergyman; 50l. a-piece to ten loyal officers not yet provided for; 200l. to All-souls’ college, in Oxford; 300l. to the repair of St. Paul’s cathedral; and above 3000l. in several sums to private friends and servants! so that the character given of him by Burnet, who represents him as not having made that use of his wealth that was expected, is not just. He wrote and published a few pieces: as, 1. “The soul’s soliloquies, and conference with conscience;” a sermon before Charles I. at Newport, in the Isle of Wight, on Oct. 25, being the monthly fast, 1648, 4to. 2. “Angels rejoicing for Sinners repenting;” a sermon on Luke xv. 10, 1648, 4to. 3. “A guide for the penitent, or, a model drawn up for the help of a devout soul wounded with sin,” 1660, 8vo. 4. “Holy rules and helps to devotion, both in prayer and practice, in two parts,” 1674, 12mo, with the author’s picture in the beginning. This was published by Benjamin Parry, of Corpus Christi college, in Oxford. The life of archbishop Spotsvvood is likewise said by some to have been written by bishop Duppa but, as Wood justly observes, that could not be, because it was written by a native of Scotland.

, a celebrated French cardinal, sprung of a noble family of Issoire, in Auvergne, appeared first at the bar of Paris. he was afterwards made lieutenant-general of the bailiwic of JMontferrant, then attoiv ney-general at the parliament of Toulouse. Rising from one post to another, he came to be first president of the parliament of Paris in 1507, and chancellor of France in 1515. He set out, it is said, by being solicitor at Cognac for the countess of Angouleme, mother of Francis I. This princess entrusted to him the education of her son, whose confidence he happily gained. Some historians pretend that Duprat owed his fortune and his fame to a bold and singular stroke. Perceiving that the count d'Angouleme, his pupil, was smitten with the charms of Mary, sister of Henry VIII. king of England, the young and beautiful wife of Louis XII. an infirm husband, who was childless; and finding that the queen had made an appointment with the young prince, who stole to her apartment during the night, by a back staircase; just as he was entering the chamber of Mary, he was seized all at once by a stout man, who carried him off confounded and dumb. The man immediately made himself known it was Duprat. “What!” said he sharply to the count, “you want to give yourself a master! and you are going to sacrifice a throne to the pleasure of a moment!” The count d'Angouleme, far from taking this lesson amiss, presently recollected himself; and, on coming to the crown, gave him marks of his gratitude. To settle himself in the good graces of this prince, who was continually in quest of money, and did not always find it, he suggested to him many illegal and tyrannical expedients, such as selling the offices of the judicature, and of creating a new chamber to the parliament of Paris, which, composed of twenty counsellors, formed what was called la Tournelle. By his influence also the taxes were augmented, and new imposts established, contrary to the ancient constitution of the kingdom, all which measures he pursued without fear or restraint Having attended Francis I. into Italy, he persuaded that prince to abolish the Pragmatic Sanction, and to make the Concordat, by which the pope bestowed on the king the right of nominating to the benefices of France, and the king granted to the pope the annates of the grand benefices on the footing of current revenue. While this concordat, which was signed Dec. 16, 1515, rendered him odious to the magistrates and ecclesiastics, he soon reaped the fruits of his devotion to the court of Rome; for, having embraced the ecclesiastical profession, he was successively raised to the bishoprics of Meaux, of Albi, of Valence, of Die, of Gap, to the archbishopric of Sens, and at last to the purple, in 1527. Being appointed legate a latere in France, he performed the coronation of queen Eleonora of Austria. He is said to have aspired to the papacy in 1534, upon the death of Clement VII.; but his biographers are inclined to doubt this fact, as he was now in years and very infirm. He retired, as the end of his days approached, to the chateau de Nantouillet, where he died July 9, 1535, corroded by remorse, and consumed by diseases. His own interests were almost always his only law. He sacrificed every thing to them; he separated the interests of the king from the good of the public, and sowed discord between the council and the parliament; while he did nothing for the dioceses committed to his charge. He was a long time archbishop of Sens, without ever appearing there once. Accordingly his death excited no regret, not even among his servile dependents. However, he built, at the HotelDieu of Paris, the hall still called the legate’s-hall. “It would have been much larger,” said the king, “if it could contain all the poor he has made.”

, not Durand (GiLLEs), Sieur de la Bergerie, an eminent advocate to the parliament of Paris, is supposed, according to Pasquier, book xix. letter 15, to be the same who was one of the nine advocates commissioned by the court to reform the custom of Paris. He was also among the best poets before Malherbe, wrote odes, sonnets, elegies, &c. and translated, or imitated part of the Latin pieces written by his friend John Bounefons the father; under the title of, “Imitations tirees du Latin de Jean Bonnefons, avec autres amours et melanges poetiques,” 1727, 12mo. This work has gone through several editions. “The verses to his godmother on the decease of her ass, who died in the flower of his age during the siege of Paris, Tuesday, Aug. 28, 1590,” are esteemed a masterpiece in the ironical and sportive style. They may be found in the ingenious work, entitled, " Satyre MenipeeY* and in the works of Durant, 1594, 12mo. He was broken on the wheel, July 16, 1618, with two Florentine brothers of the house des patrices, for a libel against the king. Some, however, doubt if this is the same.

, son of a counsellor of the parliament of Toulouse, was advocate general, and afterwards appointed first president of the parliament by Henry III. in 1581, at the time when the fury of the league was at its height. Duranti opposed it with all his might; but was unable to restrain the factious either by threats or caresses. After having many times narrowly escaped death, once, as he was endeavouring to appease a tumult, one of the rebels killed him by a musket ball, on the 10th of February, 1589. While Duranti with uplifted hands was imploring heaven for his assassins, the people stabbed him in a thousand places, and dragged him by the feet to the place of execution. As there was no gibbet prepared, they tied his feet to the pillory, and nailed behind him the picture of king Henry III., accompanying their cruelties with every brutal insult to his lifeless remains. Such was his recompense for the pains he had taken the foregoing year to preserve Toulouse from the plague. To this piece of service may be added the foundation of the college of FEsquille, magnificently constructed by his orders; the establishment of two brotherhoods, the one to portion off poor girls, and the other for the relief of prisoners; and, many other acts of liberality to several young men of promising hopes, &c. The church of Rome too was no less obliged to him for his book “De ritibus ecclesioe,” which was thought so excellent by pope Sixtus V. that he had it printed at Rome, in 1591, folio. It has been falsely attributed to Peter Danes. The life of Duranti was published by Martel, in his Memoirs. The day after his death, Duranti was secretly buried at the convent of the Cordeliers; on which occasion he had no other cerecloth than the picture representing Henry III. that had been hung up with his body to the prllory. His heirs raised a monument to him, when the troubles were appeased.

, a learned divine in the seventeenth century, who wrote several pieces in vindication of the Church of England, was born at St. Helier’s in the Isle of Jersey, in 1625. About the end of 1640, he was entered of Merton-college in Oxford; but when that city came to be garrisoned for king Charles I. he retired into France: and, having studied for some time at Caen in Normandy, took the degree of master of arts, in the Sylvanian college of that place, on the 8th of July 1664. Then he applied himself to the study of divinity, for above two years, at Saumur, under the celebrated Amyrault, divinity reader in that Protestant university. In 1647 he returned to Jersey, and continued for some time until the reduction of that island by the parliament-forces in 1651, when on account of his being in the defence of it for the king, he was forced to withdraw, or rather was expelled thence. He then went to Paris, and received episcopal ordination in the chapel of sir Richard Browne, knt. his majesty’s resident in France, from the hands of Thomas, bishop of Galloway. From Paris, he removed to St. Malo’s, whence the reformed church of Caen invited him to be one of their ministers, in the absence of the learned Samuel Bochart, who was going into Sweden. Not long after, the landgrave of Hesse having written to the ministers of Paris, to send him a minister to preach in French at his highness’s court, he was by them recommended to that prince, but preferred being chaplain to the duke de la Force, father to the princess of Turenne; in which station he continued above eight years. Upon the restoration he came over to England, and was very instrumental in setting up the new episcopal French church at the Savoy in London, in which he officiated first on Sunday, 14 July, 1661, and continued there for some years after, much to the satisfaction of his hearers. In April 1663, he was made prebendary of North Auiton, in the cathedral of Salisbury, being then chaplain in ordinary to his majesty; and, the llth of February following, succeeded to a canonry of Windsor. On the 1st of July, 1668, he was installed into the fourth prebend of Durham, and had a rich donative conferred on him. The 28th of February, 1669-70, he was actually created doctor of divinity, by virtue of the chancellor’s letters. In 1677, king Charles II. gave him the deanery of Windsor, vacant by the death of Dr. Bruno Ryves, into which he was installed July 27. He had also the great living of Witney in Oxfordshire conferred on him, all which preferments he obtained, partly through his own qualifications, being not only a good scholar, but also “a perfect courtier, skilful in the arts of getting into the favour of great men;” and partly through his great interest with king Charles II., to whom he was personally known both in Jersey and France. Mr. Wood thinks, that, had he lived some years longer, he would undoubtedly have been promoted to a bishopric. He published several things; and, among the rest, 1. “The Liturgy of the Church of England asserted, in a Sermon, preached [in French] at the chapel of the Savov, before the French Congregation, which usually assembles in that place, upon the first day that divine service was there celebrated according to the Liturgy of the Church of England.” Translated into English by G. B. doctor in physic, Lond. 1662, 4to. 2. “A View of the Government and public Worship of God in the reformed churches of England, as it is established by the act of uniformity,” Lond. 1662, 4to. Exceptions having been made to this book by the nonconformists, partly m a book called “Apologia pro ministris trt Anglia (vulgo) noneonformistis,” by an anonymous author, supposed to be Henry Hickman, he published, 3. “Sanctae Ecclesise Anglicanao ad versus iniquas atque inverecundas Schismaticorum Criminationes, Vindiciae.” The presbyterians, taking great offence at it, published these answers: 1. “Bonasus Vapulans or some castigations given to Mr. John Durel for fouling himself and others in his English and Latin book,” Loud. 1672, 8vo, reprinted in 1676 under this title, “The Nonconformists vindicated from the Abuses put upon them by Mr. Durel and Mr. Scrivner.” 2. Dr. Lewis Du Moulin published also this answer thereto: “Patronus bonre fidei, in causa Puritanorum,” &c Lond. 1672, 8vo. Besides these, Dr. Durel published his “Theoremata philosophise,” consisting of some theses maintained at the university of Caen; a French and Latin edition of the Common Prayer Book; and a French translation of the Whole Duty of Man, partly written by his wife.

As Durer did not make so much use of the pencil as the graver, few of his pictures are to be met with, except in the palaces of princes. His picture of Adam and Eve, in the palace at Prague, is one of the most considerable of his paintings, and Bullart, who relates this, adds, that there is still to be seen in the palace a picture of Christ bearing his cross, which the city of Nuremberg presented to the emperor; an adoration of the wise men; and two pieces of the Passion, that he made for the monastery at Francfort; an Assumption, the beauty of which was a good income to the monks, by the presents made to them for the sight of so exquisite a piece: that the people of Nuremberg carefully preserve, in the senators -hall, his portraits of Charlemagne, and some emperors of the house of Austria, with the twelve apostles, whose drapery is very remarkable: that he sent to Raphael his portrait of himself done upon canvass, without any colours or touch of the pencil, only heightened with shades and white, but with such strength and elegance, that Raphael was surprised at the sight of it; and that this excellent piece, coming afterwards into the hands of Julio Romano, was placed by him among the curiosities of the palace of Mantua.

The particular account which we find in Vasari of his engravings is curious; and it is no small compliment to him to have this Italian author own, that the prints of Durer, being brought to Italy, excited the painters there to perfect that part of the art, and served them for an excellent model. Vasari is profuse in his praises of Duivr’s delicacy, and the fertility of his imagination. As Durer could not hope to execute all his designs while he worked on copper, he bethought himself of working on wood. One of his best pieces in this style is a Saint Eustachius kneeling before a stag, which has a crucifix between its horns which cut, says Vasari, is wonderful, and particularly for the beauty of the dogs represented in various attitudes. John Valentine Andreas, a doctor in divinity in the duchy of Wirtemberg, sent this piece to a prince of the house of Brunswick; to whom the prince replied by letter, “You have extremely obliged me by your new present; a cut which merits a nobler metal than brass, done by the celebrated painter of Nuremberg, and which, I think, wants nothing, unless Zeuxis or Parrhasius, or some person equally favoured by Minerva, should add colours and the native form.” The praises which this same divine gave to Durer in his answer to the prince’s letter, are remarkable, and worth transcribing: “I could easily guess,” says he, “that the Eustachius of Durer would not prove an unacceptable present to you, from whatever hand a performance of that admirable artist came. It is very surprising in regard to that man, that, in a rude and barbarous age, he was the first of the Germans who not only arrived to an exact imitation of nature by the perfection of his art, but likewise left no second; being so absolute a master of it in all its parts, in etching, engraving, statuary, architecture, optics, symmetry, and the rest, that he had no equal, except Michel Angelo Buonaroti, his contemporary and rival; and left behind him such works as were too much for the life of one man. He lived always in a frugal manner, and with the appearance of poverty. The Italians highly esteem him, and reproach us for not setting a due value on the ornaments of our own country.” We learn from the same authority, that the emperor Rodolphus II. ordered the plate of St. Eustachius to be gilded; and that Durer, at the intimation of his friend and patron Bilibaldus Pirkheimer, corrected an error in it, which was, that the stirrups of the horse on which Eustachius was to ride, were too short.

Albert Durer wrote several books in the German language, which were translated into Latin by other persons, and published after his death, viz. 1. His book upon the rules of painting, entitled “De Symmetria Partium in rectis formis Humanorum Corporum,” printed in folio, at Nuremberg, in 1532, and at Paris in 1557. An Italian Version also was published at Venice, in 1591. 2. “Institutiones Geometries,” Paris, 1532. 3. “De Urbibus, Arcibus, Castellisque condendis & muniendis,” Paris, 1531. 4. <c De Varietate Figurarum, et Flexuris Partium, et Gestibus Imaginum," Nuremberg, 1534. The figures in these books, which are from wooden plates, are very numerous, and most admirably well executed, indeed, far beyond any thing of the kind done in our own days. Some of them also are of a very large size, as much as 16 inches in length, and of a proportional breadth, which being exquisitely worked, must have cost great labour. His geometry is chiefly of the practical kind, consisting of the most curious descriptions, inscriptions, and circumscriptions of geometrical lines, planes, and solids. We here meet, for the first time, with the plane figures, which folded up make the five regular or platonic bodies, as well as that curious construction of a pentagon, being the last method in prob. 23 of Hutton’s Mensuration.

The incidents of Albert Durer’s life have been variously represented, and modern critics have entertained various opinions of his skill. Referring to our authorities for some of these, we shall conclude this article with what has been advanced by his latest critic, Mr. Fuseli. He seems, says this artist, to have had a general capacity, not only for every branch of his art, but for every science that stood in some relation with it. He was perhaps the best engraver of his time. He wrote treatises on proportion, perspective, geometry, civil and military architecture. He was a man of extreme ingenuity, without being a genius. He studied, and as far as his penetration reached, established rtain proportions of the human frame, but he did not invent or compose a permanent standard of style. Every work of his is a proof that he wanted the power of imitation; of concluding from what he saw, to what he did not see; that he copied rather than imitated the forms of individuals, and tacked deformity and meagreness to fulness, and sometimes to beauty. Such is his design. In composition, copious without taste, anxiously precise in parts, and unmindful of the whole, he has rather shewn us what to avoid than what to follow: in conception he sometimes had a glimpse of the sublime, but it was only a glimpse. Such is the expressive attitude of his Christ in the Garden, and the figure of Melancholy as the Mother of Invention. His Knight attended by Death and the Fiend, is more capricious than terrible, and his Adam and Eve are two common models, hemmed in by rocks. If he approached genius in any part of the art, it was in colour. His colour went beyond his age, and in easel-pictures, as far excelled the oil-colour of Raphael for juice and breadth, and handling, as Raphael excels him in every other quality. His drapery is broad, though much too angular, and rather snapt than folded. Albert is called the Father of the German school, and if numerous copyists of his faults can confer that honour, he was. That the exportation of his works to Italy should have effected a temporary change in the principles of some Tuscan artists, in Andrea del Sarto and Jacopo da Pontormo, who had studied Michel Angelo, is a fact which proves that minds at certain periods may be as subject to epidemic influence, as bodies.

, born of a noble family at Beaug6-laville, in Brescia, then belonging to the duke of Savoy, in 1527, was among the most famous physicians of his time, and practised his art at Paris with great reputation, during the reigns of Charles IX. and Henry III. to whom he was physician in ordinary. He came to Paris very young, without money or friends, yet soon acquired distinction in his studies of the belles Jettres and medicine, and when he had taken his doctor’s degree in the latter faculty, acquired great practice; a very advantageous marriage served to introduce him at court, and to the appointment of professor of medicine. Henry Til who had a singular esteem and affection for him, granted him a pension of four hundred crowns of gold, with survivance to his five sons; and, as a mark of his condescension, was present at the marriage of his daughter, to whom he made presents to a considerable amount. Duret died Jan. 22, 1586, at the age of fifty-nine. He was firmly attached to the doctrine of Hippocrates, and treated medicine in the manner of the ancients. Of several books that he left, the most esteemed is a “Commentaire sur les Coaques d'Hippocrate,” Paris, 1621, Gr. and Lat. folio. He died before he had put the finishing hand to this work. John Duret, his son, revised it, and gave it to the public under this title, “Hippocratis magni Coacte praenotiones: opus admirabile, in tres libros distributum, interprete et enarratore L. Dureto.” John Duret followed his father’s profession with great success, and died in 1629., aged sixty-six.

Durham, Simon or Simeon of. See Simon.

, a French writer of distinguished taste and talents, was born at Chartres, Dec. 28, 1728, of a family which made a considerable figure in the profession of the law. He appears to have first served in the army under the marechal Richelieu, and was noted for his courage. On his return to Paris, by the advice of the learned professor Guerin, he devoted his time to literature, and was in 1776 admitted a member of the academy of inscriptions. On the breaking out of the revolution, although chosen into the convention, he was too moderate for the times, and was imprisoned, and probably would have ended his days on the scaffold, had not Marat obtained his pardon by representing him as an old dotard, from whom nothing was to be feared. In 1797 he was chosen a member of the council of ancients, and on that occasion delivered a long speech against the plan of a national lottery. He died March 16, 1799. His principal works are, 1. A French translation of Juvenal, by far the best that ever appeared in that language, and which he enriched with many valuable notes. It was first published in 1770, 8vo, in a very correct and elegant manner, and was reprinted in 1796. 2. “De la passion du Jeu,” 1779, 8vo. The author had been once fond of play, but renounced it in consequence of witnessing the many miseries it occasions, which he has displayed in this treatise. He was afterwards, in 1793 or 1794, charged by the committee of public instruction to draw up, in conjunction with M. Mercier, a report on the suppression of games of chance, which produced a treatise from him, “Sur la suppression des Jeux de Hazard,” probably a repetition of what he had advanced before. 3. “Eloge de l'abbe Blanches,” prefixed to his works. 4. “Memoire sur les Satiriques Latins,” in the 43d vol. of the Memoirs of the academy of inscriptions. 5. “Voyage a Barrege et dans les hautes Pyrenees,” 1796, 8vo, an amusing tour, which would not have been less so if he had avoided an affected imitation of Sterne. 6. “Mes rapports avec J. J.Rousseau,” 1798, 8vo, in which there are some curious particulars of the Genevan philosopher. From the Memoirs of the National Institute we learn that when M. Dussaulx was in the army he married a lady who survived him, and to whom he appears to have been attached with extraordinary fidelity and unremitted affection. He declared, towards the close of his life, that she had been his first and his last love; and it was to her he was indebted for nearly the whole of his literary reputation. Madame Dussaulx, from the casual effusions of his pen, conceived him to be capable of spirited as well as elegant versification, and proposed to him to translate particular passages of Juvenal. These he executed with so much success, that he was incited by degrees to make a complete version of the whole of his satires, and thereby produced a performance which secured to him a very large acquaintance and friendship with the literary world.

, a man of extraordinary talents, and who by their means was enabled to emerge from poverty and obscurity, was born in 1695 in the little village of Artonay in Champagne. At the age rjf ten years he lost his father, a poor labourer, who left his wife poor, and burthened with children, at a time when war and famine desolated France. In this state Duval accustomed himself from his infancy to a rude life, and to the privation of almost every necessary. He had scarcely learned to read, when, at the age of twelve years, he entered into the service of a peasant of the same village, who appointed him to take care of his poultry, but at the commencement of the severe winter of 1709, he quitted his native place, and travelled towards Lorraine. After a few days journey he was seized by an excessive cold, and even attacked by the small-pox, but by the humane care of a poor shepherd in the environs of the village of Monglat, aided by the strength of his constitution, he recovered, and quitted his benefactor to continue his route as far as Clezantine, a village on the borders of Lorraine, where he entered into the service of another shepherd, with whom he remained two years; but taking a disgust to this kind of life, chance conducted him to the hermitage of La llochette, near Deneuvre. The hermit, known by the name of brother Palemon, received him, made him partake his rustic labours, and when obliged to resign his place to a hermit sent to brother Palemon by his superiors, he got a letter of recommendation to the hermits of St. Anne, at some distance from La Rochette, and a mile or two beyond Luneville, where he arrived in 1713, and was entrusted with the care of six cows. The hermits also taught him to write; and as he had a great ardour for books, he engaged in the business of the chase, and with the money he procured for his game, was already enabled to make a small collection of books, when an unexpected occasion furnished him with the means of adding to it some considerable works. Walking in the forest one day in autumn, he found a gold seal, with a triple face well engraved on it. He went the following Sunday to Luneville, to entreat the vicar to publish it in the church, that the owner might recover it by applying to him at the hermitage. Some weeks after, a Mr. Foster, or Forster, an Englishman, knocked at the gate of St. Anne’s, and inquired for his. seal. In the course of the conversation which passed between him and Duval, he was surprized to find that the latter had picked up some knowledge of heraldry, and being much pleased with his answers, gave him two guineas as a recompense. Desirous of being better acquainted with this young lad, he made him promise to come and breakfast with him at Luneville every holiday. Duval kept his word, and received a crown-piece at every visit. This generosity of Mr. Foster continued during his abode at Luneville, and he added to it his advice respecting the choice of books and maps. The application of Duval, seconded by such a guide, could not fail of being attended with improvement, and he acquired a considerable share of various kind of knowledge.

Tin number of his books had gradually incivased to four hundred volumes, but his wardrobe continued the same. A coarse linen coat for summer, and a woollen one for winter, with his wooden shoes, constituted nearly the whole of it. His frequent visits at Luneville, the opulence and luxury that prevailed there, and the state of ease he began to feel, did not tempt him to quit his first simplicity; and he would have considered himself as guilty of robbery if he had spent a farthing of what was given him, or what he gained, for any other purpose than to satisfy his passion for study and books. Economical to excess as to all physical wants, and prodigal in whatever could contribute to his instruction and extend his knowledge, his privations gave him no pain. In proportion as his mind ripened, and the circle of his ideas enlarged, he began to reflect upon his abject state. He felt that he was not in his proper place; and he wished to change it. From this instant a secret inquietude haunted him in his retreat, accompanied him in the forest, and distracted him in the midst of his studies.

He shortly after read public lectures on history and antiquities, which were attended with the greatest success, and frequented by a number of young Englishmen, among whom was the immortal Chatham. Duval, struck with the distinguished air, as well as with the manly and sonorous voice of this young man, predicted more than once a part of his fate. The generosity of DuvaPs pupils, added to his own economy, soon enahled him to shew his gratitude to the hermits of St. Anne. He formed the project of building a:iew this hermitage, the cradle of his fortune, and of consecrating to it all his savings. A handsome square buuding, with a chapel in the middle of it, and surrounded with a considerable quantity of land, consisting of a garden, an orchard, a vineyard, a nursery of the best fruit-trees, and some arable ground, were the result of this generous intention. His principles of beneficence and humanity led him to render this institution useful to the public. The hermits of St. Anne were ordered to furnish gratuitously, and at the distance of three leagues round, the produce of their nursery, and every kind of tree that should be demanded of them, and to every person without exception. They were further obliged to go and plant them themselves, if it were required, without exacting any reward, or even taking refreshment, unless they found themselves at too great a distance from the hermitage to return to dinner.

, a poet of the Elizabethan age, was of the same family with those of his name in Somersetshire, and was born probably about 1540. He was educated at Oxford, either in Baliol college or Broadgate’s hall, when he discovered a propensity to poetry, and polite literature, but left it without a degree, and travelled abroad. On his return, having the character of a well-bred man, ho was taken into the service of the court. He now obtained considerable celebrity as a poet, and was a contributor to the “English Helicon,” and not to the “Collection of Choice Flowers and Descriptions,” as Wood says, in which last his name does not appear. Queen Elizabeth had a great respect for his abilities, and employed him in several embassies, particularly to Denmark in 1589; and on his return from thence, conferred on him the chancellorship of the garter, on the death of sir John WoHey, 1596, and at the same time she knighted him; but like other courtiers, he occasionally suffered by her caprices. He was at one time reconciled to her, by her majesty’s being taught to believe that he was sinking to the grave under the weight of her displeasure. Sir Edward partook of the credulity of the times, studied chemistry, and was thought to be a Rosicrusian. He was at least a dupe to the famous astrologers Dr. Dee and Edward Kelly, of whom he has recorded, that in Bohemia he saw them put base metal in a crucible, and after it was set on the fire, and stirred with a stick of wood, it came forth in great proportion pure gold.

, an English poet, was born in 1700, the second son of Robert Dyer, of Aberglasney, in Caermarthenshire, a solicitor of great capacity and note. He passed through Westminster-school under the care of Dr. Freind, and was then called home to be instructed in his father’s profession. His genius, however, led him a different way; for, besides his early taste for poetry, having a passion no less strong for the arts of design, he determined to make painting his profession. With this view, having studied awhile under his master, he became, as he tells his friend, an itinerant painter, and wandered about South Wales and the parts adjacent; and about 1727 printed “Grongar Hill,” a poem which Dr. Johnson says, “is not very accurately written but the scenes which it displays are so pleasing, the images which they raise so welcome to the mind, and the reflections of the writer so consonant to the general sense or experience of mankind, that when it is once read, it will be read again.” Being probably unsatisfied with his own proficiency, he made the tour of Italy; where, besides the usual study of the remains of antiquity, and the works of the great masters, he frequently spent whole days in the country about Rome and Florence, sketching those picturesque prospects with facility and spirit. Images from hence naturally transferred themselves into his poetical compositions; the principal beauties of the “Ruins of Rome,” are perhaps of this kind, and the various landscapes in the “Fleece” have been particularly admired. On his return to England, he published the “Ruins of Rome,” 1740; but soon found that he could not relish a town life, nor submit to the assiduity required in his profession; his talent indeed, was rather for sketching than finishing; so he contentedly sat down in the country with his little fortune, painting now and then a portrait or a landscape, as his fancy led him. As his turn of mind was rather serious, and his conduct and behaviour always irreproachable, he was advised by his friends to enter into orders; and it is presumed, though his education had not been regular, that he found no difficulty in obtaining them. He was ordained by the bishop of Lincoln, and had a law degree conferred on him.

About the same time he married a lady of Coleshill, named Ensor; “whose grandmother,” says he, “was a Shakspeare, descended from a brother of every body’s Shakspeare.” His ecclesiastical provision was a long time but slender. His first patron, Mr. Harper, gave him in 1741, Calthorp in Leicestershire, of 80l. a year, on which he lived ten years; and in April 1757, exchanged it for Belchford, in Lincolnshire, of 75l. which was given him by lord-chancellor Hardwicke, on the recommendation of a friend to virtue and the muses. His condition now began to mend. In the year 1752 sir John Heathcote gave him Coningsby, of 140l. a-year; and in 1756, when he was LL. B. without any solicitation of his own, obtained for him, from the chancellor, Kirkby-on-Bane, of 110l. “I was glad of this,” says Mr. Dyer, in 1756, “on account of its nearness to me, though I think myself a loser by the exchange, through the expence of the seal, dispensations , journies, &c. and the charge of an old house, half of which I am going to pull down” The house, which is a very good one, owes much of its improvement to Mr. Dyer. His study, a little room with white walls, ascended by two steps, had a handsome window to the church-yard, which he stopped up, and opened a less, that gave him a full view of the fine church and castle at Tateshall, about a mile off, and of the road leading to it. He also improved the garden. In May 1757 he was employed in rebuilding a Lirge barn, which a late wind had blown down, and gathering materials for re-building above half the parsonage-house at Kirkby. “These,” he says, “some years ago, I should have called trifles but the evil days are come, and the lightest thing, even the grasshopper, is a burden upon the shoulders of the old and fickly.” He had then just published “The Fleece,” his greatest poetical work; of which Dr. Johnson relates this ludicrous story: Dodsley the bookseller was one day mentioning it to a critical visitor, with more expectation of success than the other could easily admit. In the conversation the author’s age was asked: and being represented as advanced in life, “he will,” said the critic, “be buried in woollen.” He did not indeed long outlive that publication, nor long enjoy the increase of his pre; ments; for a consumptive disorder, with which he had long struggled, carried him off at length, July 24, 1758. Mr. Gough, who visited Coningsby Sept.5, 17S2, could find no memorial erected to him in the church. Mr--. Dyer, on her husband’s decease, retired to her friends in Caernarvonshire. In 17.56 they had four children living, three girls and a boy. Of these, Sarah died single. The son, a youth of the most amiable disposition, heir to his father’s truly classical taste, and to his uncle’s estate of 300l. or 400l. a year in Suffolk, devoted the principal part of his time to travelling; and died in London, as he was preparing to set out on a tour to Italy, in April 1782, at the age of thirty-two. This young gentleman’s fortune was divided between two surviving sisters; one of them married to alderman Hewitt, of Coventry; the other, Elizabeth, to the rev. John Gaunt, of Birmingham. Mr. Dyer had some brothers, all of whom were dead in 1756, except one, who was a clergyman, yeoman of his majesty’s almonry, lived at Marybone, and had then a numerous family.

Sir John Hawkins, in his life of Johnson, has given a very unfavourable sketch of Mr. Dyer’s character, representing him as an infidel and a sensualist. These charges Mr. Malone, in a long note on his Life of Dryden, has minutely examined, with a view to refute them, but in our opinion is more to be praised for the intention than the execution of this desirable purpose. Sir John Hawkins seems to have drawn his facts from personal knowledge of Dyer. Mr. Malone does not pretend to this, and while he expresses a just indignation at sir John’s charging Mr. Dyer with infidelity (supposing the charge to be false) he tells us that he himself had no means of knowing what Mr. Dyer’s religious sentiments were. There is nothing conclusive, therefore, to be expected from one who is led, from whatever motive, to deny assertions without being able to prove that they are untrue. Mr. Malone is the first, if we mistake not, who himself asserted what he has not in the least attempted to prove, viz. that Dyer was the author of Junius’s letters. This indeed he qualifies among his errata, by saying that Dyer was not the sole author, but the principal author but even here he offers no kind of proof, nor, since the publication of the late edition of those celebrated letters will it probably be thought that he had any to offer, more worthy of attention than the conjectures which have ascribed these letters to a Boyd or a Wilmot.

, master of Catharine-hall, in the university of Cambridge, and author of several ingenious works, was descended from a good family in the county of Suffolk, and born about 1636. Having been carefully instructed in grammar and classical literature, he was sent to Catharine-hall, in the university of Cambridge, where he was admitted on the 10th of May, 1653. He took the degree of B. A. in 1656, was elected fellow of his college 1 in 1658, and in 1660 became M. A. We meet with no farther particulars about him till 1670, when he published, but without his name, “The Grounds and Occasions of the Contempt of the Clergy and Religion enquired into. In a letter to R. L.” This piece had a very rapid sale, and passed through many editions. It was attacked by an anonymous writer the following year, in “An Answer to a Letter of Enquiry into the Grounds,” &c. and by Barnabas Oley, and several others; particularly the famous Dr. John Owen, in a preface to some sermons of W. Bridge. Eachard replied to the first of his answerers in apiece entitled “Some Observations upon the Answer to an Enquiry into the Grounds and Occasions of the Contempt of the Clergy: with some additions. In a second letter to R. L.” In 1671 he published, “Mr. Hobbes’s State of Nature considered: in a dialogue between Philautus and Timothy. To which are added, five letters from the author of The Grounds and Occasions of the” Contempt of the Clergy.“In these letters he animadverted, with his usual facetiousness, on several of the answerers of his first performance. He soon after published some farther remarks on the writings of Hobbes, in” A second Dialogue between Philautus and Timothy." On the death of Dr. John Lightfoot, in 1675, Mr. Eachard was chosen in his room master. of Catharine-hall; and in the year following he was created D. D. by royal mandamus. It does not appear that he produced any literary works after being raised to this station; but it is said that he executed the trust reposed in him, of master of his college, with the utmost care and fidelity, and to the general satisfaction of the whole university. He was extremely desirous to have rebuilt the greatest part, if not the whole, of Catharine-hall, which had fallen ipto decay: but he died before he could accomplish any part of that design, except the master’s lodge. He contributed, however, largely towards rebuilding the whole; and was very assiduous in procuring donations for it from his learned or wealthy friends. He died on the 7th of July, 1697, and was interred in the chapel of Catharine-hall, with an elegant Latin inscription, said to have been more recently added by the late Dr. Farmer.

In the catalogue of the printed books in the British museum, a piece is attributed to Dr. Eachard, which was published in 1673, in 12mo, under the following title: “A free and impartial enquiry into the causes of that very great esteem and honour that the Nonconforming Preachers are generally in with their followers. In a letter to his honoured friend, H. M. By a lover of the church of England and unfeigned piety.” But if written by Dr. Eachard, it certainly has not his wit, or his manner.

, or Edmer, the faithful friend and historian of archbishop Anselm, was an Englishman, who flourished in the twelfth century, but we have no information respecting his parents, or the particular time and place of his nativity. He received a learned education, and very early discovered a taste for history, by recording every remarkable event that came to his knowledge. Being a monk in the cathedral of Canterbury, he had the happiness to become the bosom friend and inseparable companion of the two archbishops of that see, St. Anselm, and his successor Ralph. To the former of these he was appointed spiritual director by the pope; and that prelate would do nothing without his permission. In 1120 he was elected bishop of St. Andrew’s, by the particular desire of Alexander I. king of Scotland; but on the very day after his election, an unhappy dispute arose between the king and him respecting his consecration. Eadmer would be consecrated by the archbishop of Canterbury, whom he regarded as primate of all Britain, while Alexander contended that the see of Canterbury had no pre-eminence over that of St. Andrew’s. After many conferences, their dispute becoming more warm, Eadmer abandoned his bishopric, and returned to England, where he was kindly received by the archbishop and clergy of Canterbury, who yet thought him too precipitate in leaving his bishopric. Eadmer at last appears to have been of the same opinion, and wrote a long and submissive letter to the king of Scotland, but without producing the desired effect. Whartort fixes his death in 1124, which was not long after this affair, and the very year in which the bishopric of St. Andrew’s was tilled up. Eadmer is now best known for his history of the affairs of England in his own time, from 1066 to 1122, in which he has inserted many original papers, and preserved many important facts that are nowhere else to be found. This work has been highly commended, both by ancient and modern writers, for its authenticity, as well as for regularity of composition and purity of style. It is indeed more free from legendary tales than any other work of this period, and affords many proofs of the learning, good sense, sincerity and candour of its author. The best edition is that by Selden, under the title of “Eadmeri monachi Cantuarensis Historiac Novorum, give sui Saeculi, Libri Sex,” Lond. 1623, fol. His other works are, 1. A Life of St. Auselm, from 1093 to 1109, often printed with the works of that archbishop, and by Wharton in the “Anglia Sacra.” 2. The Lives of St. Wilfrid, St. Oswald, St. Dunstan, &c. &c. and others inserted in the “Anglia Sacra,” or enumerated by his biographers, as in print or manuscript.

, a dissenting minister of considerable note, was born about 1676, and educated among the dissenters. Of his personal history we have little information. He officiated in the meetings in London between sixty and seventy years, and died in 1768. During this long life, he had never experienced a moment’s ill health. He would scarcely have known what pain was, had he not once broke his arm. He preached to the last Sunday of his life, and died suddenly in his chair, without a ^roan or sigh. All his faculties continued in great perfection, excepting his eye-sight, which failed him some time before his death. He was remarkable for a vivacity and cheerfulness of temper, which never forsook him to his latest breath; and he abounded in pleasant stories. He had published in his earlier days several occasional sermons, some of them preached at Sailers’-hall meeting, a “Treatise on the Sacrament,” 1707, 8vo, and a small collection of poems, in Latin and English. His chief excellence, as a scholar, was in classical learning. When he was above ninety years old, he would repeat, with the greatest readiness and fluency, a hundred verses or more from Homer, Virgil, . Horace, Juvenal, or others of the ancient poets, upon their being at any time occasionally mentioned.

, successively bishop of Worcester and Salisbury, was born at York in the year 1601, and entered of Merton-college, Oxford, in 1620, where hebecame M. A. in 1624, was senior proctor in 1631, and about that time was created chaplain to Philip earl of Pembroke, who presented him with the living of Bishopston, in Wiltshire. He was afterwards appointed chaplain and tutor to prince Charles, and chancellor of the cathedral of Salisbury. For his steady adherence to the royal cause, he was deprived of every thing he possessed, and at length was compelled to fly into exile with Charles II. who made him his chaplain, and clerk of the closet. He was intimate with Dr. Morley, afterwards bishop of Winchester, and lived with him a year at Antwerp, in sir Charles Cotterel’s house, who was master of the ceremonies; thence he went into France, and attended James, duke of York. On the restoration he was made dean of Westminster, and on Nov. 30, 1662, was consecrated bishop of Worcester, and in Sept of the following year, was removed to the see of Salisbury, on the translation of Dr. Henchman to London. In 1665 he attended the king and queen to Oxford, who had left London on account of the plague. Here he lodged in University-college, and died Nov. 17, of the same year. He was buried in Mertoncollege chapel, near the high altar, where, on a monument of black and white marble, is a Latin inscription to his memory. Walton sums up his character by saying that since the death of the celebrated Hooker, none have lived “whom God hath blest with more innocent wisdom, more sanctified learning, or a more pious, peaceable, primitive temper.” When the nonconformist clergy stepped forward to administer to the relief of the dying in the great plague, what is called the Five-mile Act was passed, forbidding them, unless they took an oath against taking up arms on any pretence whatever, &c. to come within five miles of any city or town. Our prelate before his death declared himself much against this act. Burnet, who informs us of this, adds, that “he was the man of all the clergy for whom the king had the greatest esteem.”

Bishop Earle wrote an “Elegy upon Mr. Francis Beaumont,” afterwards printed at the end of Beaumont’s Poems, London, 1640, 4to. He translated also from the English into Latin, the “Eikon Basilike,” which he entitled “Imago regis Caroli, in illis suis Ærumnis et Solitudine,” Hague, 1649, and Hooker’s Ecclesiastical Polity, which was destroyed by the carelessness of his servants. But his principal work, of which a very neat and accurate edition was lately superintended by Mr. Philip Bliss, fellow of St. John’s college, Oxford, and published in 1811, is his “Microcosmographie, or a Peece of the World discovered, in essays and characters,” a work of great humour and knowledge of the world, and which throws much light on the manners of the times. It appears to have been in his life-time uncommonly popular, as a sixth edition was published in 1630. As his name was not to it, Langbaine attributed it to Edward Blount, a bookseller in St. Paul’s Church-yard, who was only the publisher.

, a Swedish divine, who became professor of philosophy at the university of Halle, and died at Stockholm, Jan. 6, 171)6, in the sixty-ninth year of his age, was a member of several learned societies, and owed much of his reputation to a work he published in German, called “An Inquiry into the doctrine respecting the salvation of Heathens,” or “The New apology for Socrates,” which was translated from German into French by Dumas, and published at Amsterdam in 1773, 8vo. It contains also a defence of Marmontel’s “Belisarius,” which at that time had occasioned a controversy in Holland and Germany. Eberhard had among his countrymen the reputation of a man who was a powerful advocate for revealed religion in its original simplicity.

, from whom the sect of the Ebionites are called, lived about the year 72, and against him, as some say, St. John wrote his gospel. Others are of opinion, that they did not derive their name from the head of their sect, but from the Hebrew word ebion, which signifies a poor despicable man; either because they were poor themselves, or because they had low and dishonourable sentiments of Jesus Christ. Irenscus, in describing the heresy of the Ebionites, takes no notice of Ebion: and the silence of this father, together with the testimonies of Eusebius and Origen, make it probable that Ebion is only an imaginary name, or might possibly belong to Cerinthus. For Epiphanius, speaking of Ebion, tells the same story of him that is told of Cerinthus, viz. that of St. John’s hastening out of the bath when Cerinthus came in, for fear the building should fall upon him; and assures us also of his preaching in Palestine and Asia, which likewise agrees with Cerinthus’s history.

, a German historian and antiquary, was born at Duingen in the duchy of Brunswick, Sept. 7, 1674. Alter studying for some time at Brunswick and Helmstadt, where he made very distinguished progress in the belles lettres and history, he became secretary to the count de Flemming in Poland; and there became acquainted with the celebrated Leibnitz, by whose interest he was appointed professor of history at Helmstadt. After Leibnitz’s death, he was appointed professor at Hanover, where he published some of his works. Although this place was lucrative, he here contracted debts, and his creditors having laid hold of a part of his salary to liquidate some of these, he privately quitted Hanover in 1723, where he left his family, and the following year embraced the religion of popery at Cologne. He then passed some time in the monastery of Corvey in Westphalia; and the Jesuits being very proud of their convert, sent him advantageous offers to settle at Vienna, Passau, or Wurtzbourg. He chose the latter, and was appointed the bishop’s counsel, historiographer, and keeper of the archives and library, and the emperor afterwards granted him letters of nobility. Pope Innocent XIII. seems also to have been delighted with his conversion, although his embarrassed circumstances appear to have been the chief cause of it. He died in the month of February 1730; and whatever may be thought of his religious principles, no doubt can be entertained of his extensive learning and knowledge of history. He wrote, 1. “Historia studii etymologici linguae Germanicas,” Hanover, 1711, 8vo. 2. “De usu et pr&stantia studii etymologici linguae Gerjnanicse.” 3. “Corpus historicum medii aevi,” Leipsic, 1723, 2 vols. fol. a work on which the abbé Lenglet bestows high praise, as very curious and well -digested. 4. “Origines Habsburgo-Austriacae,” Leipsic, 1721, folio. 5. “Leges Francorum et Hipuariorum,” &c. ibid. 1730, fol. 6. “Historia genealogica principumSaxonite superioris, necnon origines Aulialtiiue et Sabaudicae,” ibid. 1722, fol. 7. “Caihechesis theotisca monachi Weissenburgensis, interpretatione illustrate.” 8. “Leibnitzii collectanea etymologica.” 9. “Brevis ad historian! Germanise introductio.” 10. “Programma de antiquissimo Helmstadiistatu,” Helmstadt, 1709. 11. “De diplomate Caroh magui pro scholis Osnaburgensibus Grsecis et Latinis.” 12. “Animadversiones historical et criticae in Joannis Frederic! Schannati dicecesim et hierarchiam Fuldeusem.” 13. “Annales Franciae orientalis et episcopatus Wurceburgensis,” 2 vols. 1731. 14. “De origine Germanorum,” Gottingen, 1750, 4to. He wrote also some numUtnatical tracts, &c.

was the son of the preceding, and from the instructions of his father became an eminent and popular composer for the theatre, furnishing it with act tunes, dance tunes, and incidental songs, in most of the new comedies, after the death of Purcell. The air which he set to “A Soldier and a Sailor,” sung by Ben, in Congreve’s comedy of “Love for Love,” is so truly original and characteristic, that it can never be superseded for any other air. He set an ode> written by Congreve for St. Cecilia’s day in 1701. He likewise set Congreve’s “Judgment of Paris,” when there was a contention for prizes, and gained the second, of 50 guineas. Several of his single songs were the best of the time, and have still the merit of originality. In his slightest compositions, whether catch, ballad, or rope-dancing tune, there is some mark of genius. Upon the death of Dr. Staggins, about 1698, Eccles, at a very early period of his professional life, was appointed master of queen Amir’s band; and after the decease of Dr. Crofts, in 1727, he seems only to have set the odes, and to have retired from all other professional employments to Kingston, for the convenience of angling, in which amusement he appears to have been as much delighted as Walton. He died in 1735, and was succeeded as master of the king’s band, and composer to his majesty, by Dr. Green.

Eccles had two brothers: Henry, a performer on the violin, said to have been in the king of France’s band, and to have been the author of twelve excellent solos for his own instrument, printed at Paris, 1720; and Thomas, who bad been taught the violin by Henry, and had the character of a very fine player, but preferred the life of a strolling fuller at taverns to that of a regular professor, and was more fond of drinking than either of good company or clean linen. He seems to have been one of the last vagrant bards, who used to inquire at taverns if there were any gentlemen in the house who wished to hear music Since smoking has been discontinued, few evenings are spent in taverns, which has diminished the number of modern minstrels, particularly such as are as well qualified to amuse good company and lovers of music as Tom Eccles, who used to regale his hearers with Corelli’s solos and Handel’s best opera songs, which he executed with precision and sweetness of tone, equal to the most eminent performers of the time. He survived his brother, John, more than twenty years; and continued to officiate as a priest of Bacchus to the last.

In 1707, when he was become prebendary of Lincoln, and chaplain to the bishop of that diocese, he published, in one volume folio, “The History of England: from the first entrance of Julius Csesar and the Romans to the end of the reign of king James the First,” dedicated to the duke of Ormond; by whom, he informs us in the dedication, he was excited to engage in the undertaking. In his preface, he gives some account of the materials and authors from which his work was collected. He particularly enumerates the Roman, Saxon, English, and monkish historians together with Hall, Grafton, Polydore Vergil, Holinshed, Stow, Speed, Baker, Brady, and Tyrrell and, among the writers of particular lives and reigns, he mentions Barnes, Howard, Goodwin, Camden, Bacon, Herbert, and Habington. “From all these several writers,” says be, “and many others, I have collected and formed this present history; always taking the liberty either to copy or to imitate any parts of them, if I found them really conducing to the usefulness or the ornament of my work. And, from all these, I have compiled an history as full, comprehensive, and complete, as I could bring into the compass of the proposed size and bigness. And, that nothing might be wanting, I have all the way enriched it with the best and wisest sayings of great men, that I could find in larger volumes, and likewise with such short moral reflections, and such proper characters of men, as might give life as well as add instruction tothe history.”

In 1712, Mr. Echard was installed archdeacon of Stowe; and, in 1718, he published the second and third volumes of his History of England, which brings it down to the revolution. To these volumes he prefixed a dedication to king George the First. The same year, Dr. Edmund Calamy' published, in 8vo, “A Letter to Mr. archdeacon Echard, upon occasion of his History of England: wherein the true principles of the Revolution are defended, the Whigs and Dissenters vindicated, several persons of distinction cleared from aspersions, and a number of historical mistakes rectified.” In this piece the author has made a variety of what he reckons remarks on the misrepresentations in Echard’s History; though he acknowledges it to be, in several respects, a work of considerable merit. “When I became your reader,” says he, “I was ready to make all the candid allowances you can desire. According to your own motion, I perused your work in order as it was written; and not by leaps, and starts, and distant parcels. And, now I have gone through the whole, am so little inclined to detract from you, that I can freely say a great deal in your commendation. The clearness of your method, and the perspicuity of your language, are two very great excellencies, which 1 admire. I am singularly pleased with the refreshing divisions of your matter, and the chronological distinction of the several parts of your history. I neither make any objections against the form of it as irregular or disproportionate, nor the general method as intricate and confused, nor the colouring as weak and unaffecting, nor the style as mean, flat, and insipid; which are the things about which you appear peculiarly concerned. And yet I thought a public animadversion both proper and necessary, and can meet with none of your readers, how different soever in their sentiments, views, and principles, but what herein agree.” Dr. Calamy also speaks of the “smooth and poliie way” in which Mr. Echard’s History is written; and says, that it has several beauties above many that had gone before him. But he adds, that he reckons his first volume to be by much the best of the three. It was also attacked, but with less candour, by Oldmixon in his “Critical History of England,” and his “History of the Stuarts.”

In 1719 he published, in a thin volume, 8vo, “Maxims and Discourses, moral and divine: taken from the works of archbishop Tillotson, and methodized and connected.” He was presented by king George I. to the livings of Rendlesham, Sudborn, and Alford, in Suffolk; at which places be lived about eight years; but in a Continual ill state of health. Finding himself grow worse, and being advised to go to Scarborough for the benefit of the waters, he set out, but, declining very fast, he was unable to proceed farther than Lincoln, where soon after his arrival, going out to take the air, he died in his chariot, on the 16th of August, 1730, and was interred in the chancel of St. Mary Magdalen’s church, but without any monument or memorial of him. He was a member of the Society of Antiquaries. He married two wives; first, Jane, daughter to the rev. Mr. Potter, of Yorkshire; and, "Secondly, a daughter of Mr. Robert Wooley, a gentleman of Lincolnshire: but he had no children by either of them.

Besides the works already mentioned, Mr. Echard was also the author of “A History of the Revolution in 1688,” one volume, 8vo; of “The Gazetteer’s or Newsman’s Interpreter, being a Geographical Index of all the considerable cities, &c. in Europe,” &c. of which the eleventh edition, in i-'iiu), was published in 1716; and of “A Description of Ireland,” Lond. 1691, 12mo. He likewise published a translation of three comedies of Piauius, being the Amphitryon, Epidicns, and Rudens. Of this the second edition was published in 1716. He had also some share in a translation of Terence, but the language of this and of his Plautus is vulgar and degrading. The ninth edition of the translation of Terence, which is said to be “by Mr. Lawrence Echard, and others,” was published in 12mo, in 174-1.

, an eminent antiquary and medallist, was born at Entzesfield in Austria, Jan. 13, 1737, and in 1751 entered the order of the Jesuits at Vienna, with whom he studied philosophy, mathematics, divinity, and the learned languages. His skill in medals, which appeared very early, induced his superiors to give him the place of keeper of their cabinet of medals and coins. In 1772, he was sent to Rome, where Leopold II. grand duke of Florence, employed him to arrange his collection, and on his return in 1774, he was appointed director of the imperial cabinet of medals at Vienna, and professor of antiquities. In 1775 he published his first valuable work, under the title of “Nummi veteres anecdoti ex museis Csesareo Vindobonensi, Florentine magni Ducis Etruriw, Granelliaho nunc Ceesareo, aliisque,” Vienna, 4to, in which he arranges the various articles according to the new system which he had formed, and which promises to be advantageous from its simplicity, although it has some trifling inconveniencies. This was followed by his “Catalogus Musei Caesarei Vindobonensis Nummorum veterum,” Vienna, 1779, 2 vols. fol. This has only eight plates, containing such articles as had never been published, or were not noticed in his preceding work. In 1786 he published “Sylloge nnmmorum veterum anecdotorum thesauri Cbb­sarei,” Vienna, 4to, and “Descriptip nuinmorum Antiochae Syriae, sive specimen artis criticse numerariff,” ibid. In 1787 he published, in German, a small elementary work on coins for the use of schools, but which has been thought better adapted to give young persons a taste for the science than to initiate them in it. This was followed, in 1788, by his “Explanation of the Gems” in the Imperial collection, a very magnificent book. In 1792 he published the first volume of his great work on numismati­<:al history, entitled “Doctrina munmorum veterum,” and the eighth and last volume in 1798; the excellent method and style of this work, and the vast erudition displayed, place aim at the head of modern writers on this subject, and have occasioned the remark that he is the Linnæus of his science. This very eminent antiquary died May 16, 1798.

The principal publications of Ecluse are, 1. “Rariorum' aliquot Stirpium per Hispanias observatarum Historia,” Antwerp, 1576, 8vo, with above 220 wooden cuts, admirably executed. 2. “Rariorum aliquot Stirpium per' Pannoniam, Austrian!, et vicinas quasdam Provincias observatarum Historia,” Antwerp, 1583, 8vo, with above 350 wooden cuts. 3. The foregoing were republished with the title of “Rariorum Piantarurn Historia,” in folio, at Antwerp, in 1601. This is the edition in common use, and most generally quoted. 4. “Exoticorum Libri decem,” Antwerp, 1605, folio, with numerous cuts of animals, exotic fruits, and gums. 5. “Curse Posteriores,” Antwerp., 1611, folio. This posthumous work is generally bound with the last. It consists of a few excellent figures and descriptions of rare plants. The funeral oration of Ecluse, with various poetical tributes to his memory, am commonly annexed to this volume, and among them, a short account of his life, from Boissard’s “Portraits of Illustrious Men.” To this list may be added various translations and editions of other writers on Botany, or Materia Medica. A manuscript of Ecluse on fungi is said to exist in the library at Leyden.

, residentiary and chancellor of Wells, was born at Holt-castle, on the borders of Wales. He went to Oxford about 1503, took a degree in arts in 1507, and the year after was elected fellow of Oriel-college, on the foundation of bishop Smyth, being the first elected to that fellowship, and was himself a benefactor to this college at the time of his death. Afterwards he took orders, and was reputed a noted preacher in the university and elsewhere. In 1519 he was admitted to the reading of the sentences, and was promoted afterwards to be canofi of Salisbury, Wells, and Bristol, and residentiary, and in 1554 chancellor of Wells. He was also vicar of St. Cuthbert’s church, in Wells, to which he was admitted Oct. 3, 1543. During the commencement of the reformation in the reigns of Henry VIII. and Edward VI. he behaved with singular moderation; but when queen Mary succeeded, he threw off the mask, and appeared what he really was, a violent Roman catholic. He died in the beginning of 1560, and was buried in the cathedral of Wells. He published a volume of “Sermons fruitful, godly, and learned,” Loud. 1557, 4to, or according to Herbert, 8vo. He wrote also, which may be seen among the records to Burnet’s History of the Reformation, “Resolutions concerning the Sacraments,” and “Resolutions of some questions relating to bishops and priests, and of other matters tending to the reformation of the church made by king Henry VIII.”

, knt. memorable for his embassies at several courts, was born at Plymouth, in Devonshire, about 1563. He was the fifth and youngest son of Thomas Edmondes, head customer of that port, and of Fowey, in Cornwall, by Joan his wife, daughter of Antony Delabare, of Sherborne, in Dorsetshire, csq. who was third son of Henry Edmondes, of New Sarum, gent by Juliana his wife, daughter of William Brandon, of the same place. Where he had his education is nut known. But we are informed that he was introduced to court by his name-sake, sir Thomas Edmonds, comptroller of the queen’s household; and, being initiated into public business under that most accomplished statesman, sir Francis Walsingham, secretary of state, he was, undoubtedly through his recommendation, employed by queen Klizabcth in several embassies. In 1592, she appointed him her resident at the court of France, or rather agent for her affairs in relation to king Henry IV. with a salary of twenty shillings a day, a sum so ill paid, and so insufficient, that we find him complaining to the lord treasurer, in a letter dated 1593, of the greatest pecuniary distress. The queen, however, in May 1596, made him a grant of the office of secretary to her majesty for the French tongne, “in consideration of his faithful and acceptable service heretofore done.” Towards the end of that year he returned to England, when sir Anthony Mild may was sent ambassador to king Henry; but he went back again to France in the beginning of May following, and in less than a month returned to London. In October, 1597, he was dispatched again M agent for her majesty to the king of France and returned to EngJand about the beginning of May 1598, where his stay Was extremely short, for he was at Paris in the July following. But, upon sir Henry Neville being appointed ambassador to the French court, he was recalled, to his great satisfaction, and arrived at London in June 1597. Sir Henry Neville gave him a very great character, and recommended him to the queen in the strongest terms. About December the 26th of that year, he was sent to archduke Albert, governor of the Netherlands, with a letter of credence, and instructions to treat of a peace. The archduke received him with great respect; but not being willing to send commissioners to England, as the queen desired, Mr. Edmondes went to Paris, and, having obtained of king Henry IV. Boulogne for the place of treaty, he returned to England, and arrived at court on Sunday morning, February 17. The llth of March following, he embarked again for Brussels and, on the 22d, had an audience of the archduke, whom having prevailed upon to treat with the queen, he returned home, April 9, 1600, and was received by her majesty with great favour, and highly commended for his sufficiency in his negotiation. Soon after he was appointed one of the commissioners for the treaty of Boulogne, together with sir Henry Neville, the queen’s ambassador in France, John Herbert, esq. her majesty’s second secretary, and Robert Beale, esq. secretary to the council in the North; their commission being dated the 10th of May, 1600. The two last, with Mr. Edmondes, left London the 12th of that month, and arrived at Boulogne the 16th, as sir Henry Neville did the same day from Paris. But, after the commissioners had been above three months upon the place, they parted, July 28th, without ever assembling, owing to a dispute about precedency between England and Spain. Mr. Edmondes, not long after his return, was appointed one of the clerks of the privy-council; and, in the end of June 1601, was sent to the French king to complain of the many acts of injustice committed by his subjects against the English merchants. He soon after returned to England but, towards the end of August, went again, and waited upon king Henry IV. then at Calais to whom he proposed some measures, both for the relief of Ostend, then besieged by the Spaniards, and for an offensive alliance against Spain. After his return to England he was appointed one of the commissioners for settling, with the two French ambassadors, the depredations between England and France, and preventing them for the future. The 20th of May, 1603, he was knighted by king James I; and, upon the conclusion of the peace with Spain, on the 18th of August, 1604, was appointed ambassador to the archduke at Brussels. He set out for that place the 19th of April, 1605; having first obtained a reversionary grant of the office of clerk of the crown and, though absent, was chosen one of the representatives for the Burgh of Wilton, in the parliament which was to have met at Westminster, Nov. 5, 1605, but was prevented by the discovery of the gunpowder-plot. During his embassy he promoted, to the utmost of his power, an accommodation between the king of Spain and the States-General of the United Provinces . He was recalled in 1609, and came back to England about the end of August, or the beginning of September. In April 1610, he was employed as one of the assistant-commissioners, to conclude a defensive league with the crown of France; and, having been designed, ever since 1608, to be sent ambassador into that kingdom , he was dispatctyed thither in all haste, in May 1610, upon the new of the execrable murder of king Henry IV. in order to learn the state of affairs there. He arrived at Paris, May 24th, where he was very civilly received; and on the 27th of June, had his audience of Mary de Medicis, queen regent; the young king (Lewis XIII.) being present. In November following he caused an Italian to be apprehended at Paris for harbouring a treasonable design against his master, king James I. There being, in 1613, a competition between him and the Spanish ambassador about precedency, we are told that he went to Home privately, and brought a certificate out of the pope’s ceremonial, shewing that the king of England is to precede the king of Castile. He was employed the same year in treating of a marriage between Henrv prince of Wales and the princess Christine, sister of Lewis XIII. king of France; but the death of that prince, on the 6th of November 1612, put an end to this negotiation. And yet, on the 9th of the same month, orders were sent him to propose a marriage between the said princess and our prince Charles, but he very wisely declined opening such an affair so soon after the brother’s death. About the end of December 1613, sir Thomas desired leave to return to England, but was denied till he should have received the final resolution of the court of France about the treaty of marriage; which being accomplished, he came tp England towards the end or' January 1613-14. Though- the privy-council strenuously opposed this match because they had not sooner been made acquainted with so important an affair, yet, so zealous was the king for it, that he sent sir Thomas again to Paris with instructions, dated July 20, 1614, for bringing it ta a conclusion. But, after all, it appeared that the court of France were not sincere in this affair, and only proposed it to amuse the protestants in general. In 1616 sir Thomasassisted at the conference at Loudun, between the protestants and the opposite party; and, by his journey to liochelle, disposed the protestants to accept of the terms offered them, and was of great use in settling the pacification. About the end of October, in the same year, he was ordered to England; not to quit his charge, but, after he should have kissed the king’s hand, and received such honour as his majesty was resolved to confer upon him, in acknowledgment of his long, painful, and faithful services, then to go and resume his charge; and continue in France, till the affairs of that kingdom, which then were in an uncertain state, should be better established. Accordingly he came over to England in December; and, on the 21st of that month, was made comptroller of the king’s household; and, the next day, sworn a privy-counsellor. He returned to the court of France in April 1617; but took his leave of it towards the latter end of the same year. And, on the 19th of January, 1617-18, was advanced to the place of treasurer of the household; and in 1620 was appointed clerk of the crown in the court of king’s bench, and might have well deserved the post of secretary of state that he had been recommended for, which none was better qualified to discharge. He was elected one of the burgesses for the university of Oxford, in the first parliament of king Charles I. which met June 18, 1623, and was also returned for the same in the next parliament, which assembled at Westminster the 26th of February following; but his election being declared void, he was chosen for another place. Some of the speeches which he made in parliament are primed. On the 11th of June 1629, he was commissioned to go ambassador to the French court, on purpose to carry king Charles’s ratification, and to receive Lewis the XIIIth’s oath, for the performance of the treaty of peace, then newly concluded between England and France: which he did in September following, and with this honourable commission concluded all his foreign employments. Having, after this, enjoyed a creditable and peaceful retreat for about ten years, he departed this life, September 20, 1639. His lady was Magdalen, one of the daughters and co-heirs of sir John Wood, knight, clerk of the signet, by whom he had one son, and three daughters. She died at Paris, December 31, 1614, with a character amiable and exemplary in all respects. Sir Thomas had with her the manor of Albins, in the parishes of Stapleford-Abbot, and Navestoke in Essex, where Inigo Jones built for him a mansion ­house, delightfully situated in a park, now the seat of the Abdy family. Sir Thomas was small of stature, but great in understanding. He was a man of uncommon sagacity, and indefatigable industry in his employments abroad; always attentive to the motions of the courts where he resided, and punctual and exact in reporting them to his own; of a firm and unshaken resolution in the discharge of his duty, and beyond the influence of terror, flattery, or corruption. The French court, in particular, dreaded his experience and abilities; and the popish and Spanish party there could scarcely disguise their hatred of so zealous a supporter of the protestant interest in that kingdom. His letters and papers, in twelve volumes in folio, were once in the possession of secretary Thurloe, and afterwards of the lord chancellor Somers. The style of them is clear, strong, and masculine, and entirely free from the pedantry and puerilities which infected the most applauded writers of that age. Several of them, together with abstracts from the rest, were published by Dr. Birch in a work entitled “An historical view of the Negotiations between the Courts of England, France, and Brussels, from the year 1592 to 1617. Extracted chiefly from the ms State-papers of sir Thomas Edmondes, kt. ambassador in France, &c. and of Anthony Bacon, esq. brother to the lord chancellor Bacon,” London, 1749, 8vo. Several extracts of letters, written by him in the early part of his political life, occur in Birch’s “Memoirs of queen Elizabeth,” and other letters are in Lodge’s “Illustrations of British History.”

, son to sir Thomas Edmondes, mentioned as the patron of the preceding sir Thomas, was born in Shropshire in 1566 and in 1585 became either clerk or chorister of All Souls’ college took one degree in arts, and then was chosen fellow of the house in 1590. Four years after, he proceeded in that faculty; and then leaving the college, was, mostly by his father’s endeavours, made successively secretary, as it is said, for the French tongue to queen Elizabeth about 1601, remembrancer of the city of London, master of the requests, muster-master at Briel, in Zealand, one of the clerks of the council, and in 1617, a knight. He was a learned person, was generally skilled in all arts and sciences, and famous as well for military as for politic affairs; and therefore esteemed by all an ornament to his degree and profession. He published “Observations on the five first books of Caesar’s Commentaries of the civil wars,” London, 1600, folio; “Observations on the sixth and seventh books of Caesar’s Commentaries,” &c. London, 1600, folio; “Observations on Caesar’s Commentaries of the civil wars, in three books,” London, 1609, folio. On which, or the former observations, Ben Jonson has two epigrams. All, or most, of these observations, are reprinted with an addition of an eighth commentary by Hirtius Pansa, with our author’s (Edmondes) short observations upon them, London, 1677, fol. Before which edition is the Life of Caesar, &c.

, Mowbray herald extraordinary, F. S. A. and an able heraldic writer, was a man who raised himself by dint of ingenuity and perseverance from a very humble station to considerable celebrity. He was originally an apprentice to a barber, but discovering some knowledge of the art, became an herald painter, and was much employed in emblazoning arms upon carriages. This led him to study heraldry as a science, which imperceptibly led him also to genealogical researches, and his progress hi both was rapid and successful. When the baronets of England wished for some augmentation to their privileges, as appendages to their titles (in which, however, they were flot successful), they chose Mr. Edmoudson their secretary. In 1764 he was appointed Mowbray herald extraordinary. He died in Warwick-street, Golden -square, Feb. 17, 1786, and was buried in the church-yard of St. James’s, Piccadilly. He was a man of good sense as well as skill in his profession, and maintained an excellent private character. His works, which will convey his name to posterity with great credit, were, 1. “Historical account of the Grevillc Family, with an account of Warwick Castle,” Lond. 1766, 8vo. 2. “A Companion to the Peerage of Great Britain and Ireland,” ibid. 1776, 8vo. 3. “A Complete Body of Heraldry,” ibid. 1780, 2 vols. folio; and 4. his very magnificent work, entitled “Buronagium Genealogicum, or The Pedigree of English Peers,” 176 84, 6 vols. folio.

Many authors have preserved accounts of this prince’s writings. Cardan talks much of his parts and learning. Holland affirms that he not only wrote notes from the lectures or sermons he heard, but composed a comedy, entitled “The Whore of Babylon,” in Latin. It is more certain, howevar, that he wrote “The Sum of a conference with the Lord Admiral,” which, in his own hand, is extant among the Ashmolean Mss.; “A method for the proceedings in the council,” in the Cottonian library; and “King Edward VIth’s own arguments against the pope’s supremacy, &c.” translated out of the original, written with the king’s own hand in French, and still preserved. To which are added some remarks upon his life and reign, in vindication of his memory from Dr. Heylin’s severe and unjust censure, Lond. 1682. He drew himself the rough draught of a sumptuary law, which is preserved by Strype; and an account of a progress he made, which he sent to one of his particular favourites, called Barnahy Fiupatrick, then in France. The same author has given some specimens of his Latin epistles and orations, and an account of two books written by him; the first before he was twelve years of age, called “L'Encontre les Abus du Monde,” a tract of thirty-seven leaves in French, against the abuses of popery; it is dedicated to the protector, his uncle; is corrected by his French tutor, and attested by him to be of the king’s own composition. An original copy of this tract is noiv in the British Museum. The other, preserved in the library of Trinity college, Cambridge, is, “A Translation into French of several passages of Scripture, which forbid idolatry, or worshipping of false gods.” Tanner giresa list of Edward’s letters that are extant; and there is a large folio ms. in the British Museum, containing his exercises in Greek, Latin, and English, with his signature to each of them, as king of England. Cardan says that at die age of fifteen, our prince had learned seven languages, and was perfect in English, French, and Latin. Cardan adds, " he spoke Latin with as much readiness and elegance as myself. He was a pretty good logician; he understood natural philosophy and music, and played upon the lute. The good and the learned had formed the highest expectations of him, from the sweetness of his disposition, and the excellence of his talents. He had begun to favour learning before he was a great scholar himself, and to be acquainted with it before he could make use of it. Alas! how prophetically did he once repeat to me,

Bishop Burnet adds to this high character the following pleasing anecdote. King Edward VI. gave very early indications of a good disposition to learning, and of a most wonderful probity of mind, and above all, of great respect to religion, and every thing relating to it; so that when he was once in one of his childish diversions, somewhat beingto be reached at, that he and his companions were too low for, one of them laid on the floor a great Bible that was in the room, to step on, which he beholding with great indignation, took up the Bible himself, and gave over his play for that time. The same historian has printed a new service, which was translated by the young monarch from English into Latin, with a view to abolish certain superstitious ceremonies used at the installation of the knights of the garter. Burnet has also published, what does Edward most credit of all, his “Diary or Journal.” In this we have a clear proof of his sense, knowledge, and goodness, far beyond what could have been expected at his years. It gives, says lord Orford, hopes of his proving a good king, as in so green an age he seemed resolved to be acquainted with his subjects and his kingdom. The original of this is in the Cottonian library, with the paper already mentioned, in the king’s hand-writing, which contains hints and directions delivered to the privy council, Jan. 19, 1551. Mr. Park has reprinted this curious paper in his edition of the “Royal and Noble Authors,” to which this article is considerably indebted.

Of Mr. Edwards’s commissions after this, we shall only notice his picture of a hunting party for Mr. Estcourt, in 1786 a collection of etchings, fifty-two in number, published by Leigh and Sotheby in 1799 his “Commemoration of Handel in Westminster-abbey” and his picture from the “Two Gentlemen of Verona,” for the Shakspeare gallery. To enumerate further would be only an account of various small commissions which always gave satisfaction, but were not attended by the fame or profit of his more successful brethren. In 1788, he was appointed teacher of perspective in the royal academy, and was continued in that situation during the remainder of his life. For this he had qualified himself by long study, the fruits of which were given to the public in a “Treatise on Perspective,” 1803, 4to, with forty plates, a work, not certainly without defects, but upon the whole, judicious, comprehensive, and useful.

In July 1718, he embarked for England, and soon after his arrival, retired to his native place, where he spent the winter. But being desirous of visiting France, he went thither in 1719, and after viewing the curiosities of Paris, took a lodging in a village situated in the great park of Versailles. His view was to enlarge his knowledge of natural history, but, to his great mortification, there was not at that time a living creature in the menagerie. As the court, during the king’s minority, did not reside at Versailles, the famous collection of animals had been so totally neglected, that they were all either dead or dispersed. To relieve his disappointment, Mr. Edwards amused himself in surveying the several churches and religious houses, and especially the statues and pictures in the public buildings. While he resided in France, he made two journeys of a hundred miles each. The first was to Chalons in Champagne, in May 1720; the second was on foot, to Orleans and Blois. This was performed in a disguised habit that he might avoid being robbed, but the scheme happened to be peculiarly hazardous; for an edict had recently been issued to secure vagrants, in order to transport them to America, the banks of the Missisippi standing in need of population; and our philosopher narrowly escaped a western voyage.

On his return to England, he closely pursued his favourite study of natural history; applying himself to the drawing and colouring of such animals as fell under his notice. His earliest rare was rather to preserve natural than picturesque beauty. Birds first engaged his particular attention; and some of the best pictures of these subjects being purchased by him, he was induced to make a few drawings of his own. These were admired by the curious, who, by paying a good price for them, encouraged him in labours- which now procured him a decent subsistence and a large acquaintance. In 1731 he was enabled to remit his industry, and, in company with two of his relations, made an excursion to Holland and Brabant, where he collected several scarce books and prints, and had an opportunity of examining the original pictures of various great masters, at Antwerp, Brussels, Utrecht, and other large cities. In December 1733, by the recommendation of sir Hans Sloane, president of the college of physicians, he was chosen their librarian, and had apartments assigned him in the college. This, which was the principal epocha of his private life, fixed him in an office that was particularly agreeable to his taste and inclination. He had now an opportunity of a constant recourse to a valuable library, filled with scarce and curious books on those subjects of natural history which he most assiduously studied. By degrees he became one of the most eminent ornithologists in our own or any other country, and in acquiring this character, such was his scrupulous industry, that he never trusted to others what he could perform himself; and when he found it difficult to give satisfaction to his own mind, frequently made three or four drawings to delineate the object in its most lively character, attitude, and representation.

But with this work it soon appeared that he did not mean to discontinue his labours; his mind was too active, and his love of knowledge too ardent, for him to rest satisfied with what he had already done. Accordingly, in 1758, he published his first volume of “Gleanings of Natural History,” exhibiting seventy different birds, fishes, insects, and plants, most of which were before non-descripts, coloured from nature, on fifty copper-plates. This work much increased his fame as a natural historian, and as an artist. In 1760, a second volume appeared, dedicated to the late earl of Bute, whose studious attachment to natural history, particularly to botany, was then well known. The third part of the “Gleanings,” which constituted the 7th and last volume of Mr. Edwards’s works, was published in 1763, and was dedicated to earl Ferrers, who, when captain Shirley, had taken in a French prize, a great number of birds, intended for madame Pompadour, mistress of Louis XV. These he communicated to our naturalist, who was hence enabled more completely to add to the value of his labours. Thus, after a long series of years, the most studious application, and a very extensive correspondence with every quarter of the world, Mr. Edwards concluded a work, which in 7 vo!s. 4to, contains engravings and descriptions of more than an hundred subjects in natural history, not before described or delineated, and all the productions of his own hand. We have already mentioned his scrupulous exactness, and may now confirm it in his own words. In the third volume of his “Gleanings” he says, “It often happens that my figures on the copper-plates differ from my original drawings for sometimes the originals have not altogetherpleased me as to their attitudes or actions. In such cases I have made three or four, sometimes six sketches, or outlines, and have deliberately considered them all, and then fixed upon that which I judged most free and natural, to be engraven on my plate.” He added to the whole a general index in English and French, which is now perfectly completed, with the Linna-an names, by Li mums himself, who frequently honoured him with his friendship and correspondence. Upon Mr. Edwards’ completing his great work, we find him making the following singular declaration, or rather petition, in which he seems afraid that his passion for his favourite subject of natural history, should get the better of a nobler pursuit, viz. the contemplation of his Maker.

“My petition to God (if petitions to God are not presumptuous) is, that he would remove from me all desire of pursuing natural history or any other study, and inspire me with as much knowledge of his divine nature as my imperfect state is capable of; that I may conduct myself, for the remainder of my days, in a manner most agreeable to his will, which must consequently be most happy to myself. What my condition may be in futurity, is known only to the wise disposer of all things; yet my present desires are (perhaps vain, and inconsistent with the nature of 'things!) that 1 may become an intelligent spirit, void of gross matter, gravity, and levity; endowed with a voluntary motive-power, either to pierce infinitely into boundless ethereal space, or into solid bodies; to see and know how the parts of the great universe are connected with each other, and by what amazing mechanism they are put and kept in regular and perpetual motion. But, O vain and daring presumption of thought; I most humbly submit my future existence to the supreme will of the One Omnipotent.”

With regard to his person, he was of a middle stature, rather inclining to corpulence. The turn of his mind was liberal and cheerful. The benevolence of his temper was experienced by all his acquaintance, and his poor neighbours frequently partook of his bounty. From the diffidence and humility which were always apparent in his behaviour, he was not calculated for shining in general conversation; but to persons who had a taste for studies congenial to his own, he was a most entertaining as well as communicative companion. How much his works continue to be held in estimation, is apparent from the high price at which they are commonly sold. His proper and distinct character is, that he far excelled all the English ornithologists who had gone before him. The immense accessions which, since 1763, have been made to natural knowledge, and the higher degree of taste and elegance to which the art of engraving has been carried, may give to future productions an eminence and reputation superior to what our author has attained. But that he should be exceeded by those who come after him, will be no diminution to his just fame, or prevent his memory from being handed down to posterity with honour and applause.

, a famous presbyterian writer in the seventeenth century, and a bitter enemy to the independents, who then bore sway in this kingdom, was educated in Trinity-college, in Cambridge, where he took the degree of B. A. in 1605, and that of M. A. in 1609. He was incorporated M. A. at Oxford, July 14, 1623. Where and what his preferments were, we do not find; but we learn from himself, that though he conformed, yet he was always a puritan in his heart. He exercised his ministry, chiefly as a lecturer, at Hertford, and at several places in and about London; and was sometimes brought into trouble for opposing the received doctrines, or not complying duly with the established church. When the long parliament declared against Charles I. our author espoused their cause, and by all his actions, sermons, prayers, praises, and discourses, earnestly promoted their interest. But, when the independent party began to assume the supreme authority, he became as furious against them as he had been against the royalists, and wrote the following pieces against them: 1. “Reasons against the Independent Government of particular Congregations,” &c. Lond. 1641, 4to which was answered the same year by a woman called Catherine Chidley. 2. “Antapologia,” or a full answer to the “Apologeticall Narration of Mr. Goodwin, Mr. Nye, Mr. Simpson, Mr. Burroughs, Mr. Bridge, members of the assembly of divines. Wherein is handled many of the controversies of these times; viz. I. Of a particular visible church. II. Of classes and synods. III. Of the Scriptures, how farre a rule for church government. IV. Of formes of prayer. V. Of the qualifications of church members. 6.” Of submission and noncommunion. VII. Of excommunication. VIII. Of the power of the civill magistrate in ecclesiasticals. IX. Of separation and schisme. X. Of tolerations, and particularly of the toleration of independencie. XI. Of suspension from the Lord’s supper. XII. Of ordination of ministers by the people. XIII. Of church covenant. XIV. Of non-residencie of church-members,“Lond. 1644, 4to. 3.” Gangnrna: or a catalogue and discovery of many of the errours, heresies, blasphemies, and pernicious practices of the sectaries of this time, vented and acted in England in these four last years as also a particular narration of divers stories, remarkable passages, letters an extract of many letters, concerning the present sects together with some observations upon, and corollaries from, all the forenamed premisses,“Lond. 1G46, 4to, reprinted afterwards. 4.” The second part of C'angrjena,“&c. Lond. 1646, 4to. 5.” The third part of Gangracna; or, A new and higher discovery of the errors, heresies, blasphemies, and insolent proceedings of the sectaries of these times; with some animadversions, by way of confutation, upon many of the errors and heresies named.“In these three parts of Gangrsena, he gives catalogues of the errors of the independents, and exposes the errors of the other sectaries of his time, in a manner which could not fail to render him particularly obnoxious to them, but at the same time in such a spirit of bitter invective, as must render many of his facts doubtful. He also published,' 6.” The casting down of the last and strongest hold of Satan; or, a Treatise against Toleration,“Part I. Lond. 1647, 4to. 7.” Of the particular visibility of the Church.“8.” A treatise of the Civil Power of Ecclesiasticals, and of suspension, from the Lord’s supper,“Lond. 1642, 1644. He promised several other pieces, but it does not appear that he published them; particularly, 1. A fourth Part of his Gangracna. 2. An Historical Narration of all the proceedings and ways of the English Sectaries. 3. Catalogue of the Judgments of God upon the Sectaries within these four years last past. 4. Many Tractates against the errors of the times. He promised likewise to resemble that tree spoken of in the Revelation, to yield fruit every month i. e. to be often setting forth one tractate or other but we do not hear of more than have been enumerated. As for his character, he professes himself” a plain, open-hearted man, who hated tricks, reserves, and designs;" zealous for the assembly of divines, the directory, the use of the Lord’s Prayer, singing of Psalms, &c. and so earnest for what he took to be truth, that he was usually called in Cambridge, young Luther.

Soon after Mr. Edwards’s marriage, his friend sir Robert Carr, generously offered him the presentation of two considerable benefices then vacant in Norfolk, which he as generously declined, being willing that those livings should be bestowed upon some other person or persons who needed them. About the same time he accepted a preferment less valuable, that of St. Peter’s church in Colchester, merely from the prospect of extensive usefulness. Thither he accordingly removed with his family, and was highly acceptable to his parishioners, but quitted the place at the end of three years, and removed to Cambridgeshire. To this he was induced by the unkind usage which (as he thought) he met with from the clergy of the town, by the sickly habit of his wife, and by an apoplectic and convulsive fit with which he was himself visited. Upon his removal into the county of Cambridge, being afflicted with bodily pains and weaknesses, and especially the gout, which prevented him from appearing in public, he employed himself in presenting a succession of publications to the world. About 1697, he removed with his family to Cambridge, for the convenience of the university library. Our author had often been solicited by his friends to take his degree of D. D. but he did not comply with their motion till 1699. Upon this occasion he had not the opportunity of keeping an act, there being none, on account of the illness of the divinity professor, to moderate and determine. He only preached an English sermon at the commencement, and a Concio ad Clerum; besides which he made a determination in Latin, in the schools, on a theological question. In 1701, Dr. Edwards lost his lady, and, after a decent time, married again, a niece of alderman Lane, who had been brought up several years under Mrs. Edwards before her marriage to the doctor. It is remarkable, that, notwithstanding his numerous; publications, he was never possessed of a library; some bibles, lexicons, dictionaries, and other works of a similar nature and constant use, excepted. The university and college libraries furnished him with all the classic authors, and Greek and Latin fathers, and indeed with whatever related to ancient learning. These he either perused in the places where they were kept, or had them brought to his chamber; and his method was, from the early part of his life, to make adversaria and collections out of the books which he read, and all along to frame notes, observations, inferences, and reflections, from and on them, and to reduce them to the particular heads and subjects on which he designed to treat. He never had a commonplace book. With regard to modern authors, his practice was to procure the loan of them from the booksellers, at the price of sixpence for an 8vo, a shilling for a 4to, and two shillings for a folio. By this good husbandry, he was forced to read the works which he borrowed within the time prefixed; whereas, otherwise he might perhaps never have perused them thoroughly. Dr. Edwards continued in his course of diligent study and repeated publications till near the period of his decease, April 16, 1716, in the seventy-ninth year of his age.

Besides several single sermons, Mr. Edwards published 1. “An enquiry into four remarkable texts of the New Testament,” 1692, 8vo. 2. “A farther enquiry into several remarkable texts of the Old and New Testament,” 1692, 8vo. 3. “Of the truth and authority of Scripture,” 1693. 4. “Of the Style of Scripture,” 1694. 5. “Of the excellency and perfection of Scripture,” 1695. & “Thoughts concerning the causes and occasions of Atheism,” 1695. 7. “A Demonstration of the Existence and Providence of God,” 1696. 8. “Socinianism unmasked; or the unreasonableness of the opinion concerning one article of faith only.” 9. “A brief Vindication of the fundamental Articles of the Christian faith;” and a discourse, entitled “The Socinian Creed,” 1696 and 1697: These three pieces, together with some part of the treatise concerning “The causes and occasions of Atheism,” were occasioned by Mr. Locke’s publication of “The Reasonableness of Christianity, as delivered in the Scriptures,” and by the writings of some professed Socinians. Mr. Edwards was the first person that encountered what he apprehended to be Mr. Locke’s dangerous notions of the “One sole Article of Faith.” This he did, in the beginning of the dispute, in a manner very respectful to Mr. Locke’s person and parts. But Mr. Locke, in his two Vindications of his doctrine, having treated our author with severity, he assumed, in his replies, an air of mirth and pleasantness, and chastised his antagonist with some smartness, and his attack upon Mr. Locke was approved and applauded by a number of learned men, both at home and abroad. He published also, 10. “Remarks on Mr. Whiston’s Theory of the Earth,” 1697. 11. “Twelve Sermons on special occasions and subjects,” 1698, 8vo. 12. “A Survey of the different dispensations of Religion, from the beginning of the world to the consummation of all things,” in two volumes, 1699. 13. “Exercitations, critical, philosophical, historical, theological, on several important places in the Old and New Testament,” in two parts, 1702, 8vo. 14. “The Preacher,” the first part, 1705; the second part, 1706. 15. “Veritas redux, or evangelical truths restored,” 1707. 16. “Treatise of Faith and Justification,” 1708. 17. “The Preacher,” the third part, 1709. 18. “Remarks on the archbishop of Dublin’s sermon,” 1710. 19. “An Answer to Dr. Whitby, concerning the Arminian doctrines,” 1711. 20. “Observations and reflections on Mr. Winston’s Primitive Christianity,” 1712. 21. “Animadversions on Dr. Clarke’s Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity,” 1712, with a Supplement, 1713. 22. “Theologia Reformata, or the substance and body of the Christian religion,” 1713, 2 vols. folio. A third volume, in folio, was published in 1726, ten years after our author’s decease. 23. “Remains,” 1713, 8vo. The writings which Dr. Edwards left behind him in manuscript/ were nearly as many as those which have already been named. By some of his contemporaries he was censured for appearing too frequently from the press, while others said, that those who were just estimators of things cleared him of the imputation of writing too often, when they observed, that what he continually published exceeded rather than fell short of his former performances.

, president of the college of New Jersey, and a divine of very considerable fame in America, was descended from English parents who emigrated in the reign of queen Elizabeth, and was born, Oct. 5, 1703, at Windsor, in the province of Connecticut in North- America. In 1716 he became a student of Yale college, and received the degree of B. A. in 1720, before he had completed his seventeenth year. His mental powers are said to have opened themselves so early and so strong, that he read Locke’s “Essay on the Human Understanding” with delight, in his second year at this college. After taking his bachelor’s degree he remained two years more at college preparing himself for the ministry, and after the usual trials, was licensed to preach. In August 1722 he was invited to preach to the English presbyterians at New York, where he continued with approbation above eight months; but as this society was too small to maintain a preacher, he returned in the spring of 1723 to his father’s house at Connecticut, where, for some time, he applied to his studies with great industry and perseverance; and severe application became habitual to him, although he was of a delicate constitution. In the spring of 1724, having taken his master’s degree, he was appointed tutor of Yale college, and notwithstanding his youth, and the time necessary to be devoted to his own improvement, he filled this office for two years in a manner which afforded his superiors no reason to repent of their choice. He would probably have remained longer here, had he not received, in Sept. 1726, an invitation from the people of Northampton in Connecticut, to become assistant to his mother’s father, Mr. Stoddard, who was the settled minister of the town. Having accepted this offer, he was ordained colleague to Mr. Stoddard, Feb. 15, 1727, when only in his twenty-fourth year, and continued pastor of this congregation until June 1750, at which time his congregation dismissed him with every mark of contempt and insult. This, however, will appear to reflect no discredit on Mr. Edwards, when the reader is told that the first cause of complaint against him was, his having detected and endeavoured to expose a combination of youths who had imported obscene books, and were corrupting one another’s principles with great eagerness. So many of these young men were connected with the best families, that the parents declared their children should not be called to an account, and all inquiry was stifled. Still, however, they could not have proceeded to expel their preacher, if they had not soon afterwards laid hold of another pretext, which arose from Mr. Edwards’s refusing to administer the sacrament to persons of notoriously loose lives. Meetings were held, in which he endeavoured to justify his opinions; but upon a decision, on the question of continuing him their pastor, he was left in a minority of 180, after a residence among them of twenty-four years, and a character of unimpeachable integrity and piety. As it is impossible to suppose that all his hearers joined in the above decision, he appears to have been supported for some time, by the kindness of those who admired his character, until sent on a mission to the Indians at Stockbridge, in the western part of Massachusett’s bay, about sixty miles from his former residence. Here he arrived in 1751, and enjoying a quiet retirement, employed himself at his leisure hours in composing the principal part of his works, until 1757, when, on the death of Mr. Aaron Burr, he was chosen president of New Jersey college. He had not, however, long commenced the business of his new office when the small-pox raging with great virulence, he caught the infection, although after inoculation, and died of the disorder March 22, 1758. Mr. Edwards was a man of extensive learning, principally in theology, and his avidity for knowledge was insatiable. He commonly spent thirteen hours a day in his study, and yet did not neglect the necessary exercises of walking and riding. He read all the books, especially in divinity, that he could procure, from which he could hope to get any help in his pursuit of knowledge. And in this, he did not confine himself to authors of any particular sect or denomination; but took much pains to procure the works of the most noted writers who advanced a scheme of divinity most contrary to his own, which was nearly that termed Calvinistic.

, one of our ancient English poets, was born in Somersetshire in 1523, and admitted scholar of Corpus Christi college, Oxford, under the tuition of George Etheridge, May 11, 1540, and probationer fellow Aug. 11, 1514. In 1547, when Christ church was founded by Henry VIII. he was admitted student of the upper table, and the same year took his master’s degree. Warton cites a passage from his poems to prove that in his early years, he was employed in some department about the court. In the British Museum there is a small set of manuscript sonnets, signed with his initials, addressed to some of the beauties of the courts of queen Mary and queen Elizabeth. He therefore probably did not remain long at the university. In the beginning of Elizabeth’s reign, he was made one of the gentlemen of her chapel, and master of the children there, having the character of not only being an excellent musician, but an exact poet, as many of his compositions in music and poetry testify. For these he was highly valued, by those who knew him, especially his associates in Lincoln’s- Inn (of which he was a member), and much lamented by them when he died. This event, according to sir John Hawkins, happened Oct. 31, 1556, but others say in 1566. He wrote “Damon and Pythias,” a comedy, acted at court and in the university, first printed in 1570, or perhaps’ in 1565, and “Palamon and Arcyte,” another comedy in two parts, probably never printed, but acted in Christ-church hall, 1566, before queen Elizabeth, of which performance Wood gives a curious account. Warton thinks it probable that he wrote many other dramatic pieces now lost. He is mentioned by Puttenham, as gaining the prize for comedy and interlude. Besides being a writer of regular dramas, he appears to have been a contriver of masques, and a composer of poetry for pageants. In a word, he united all those arts and accomplishments which ministered to popular pleasantry, in an age when the taste of the courtiers was not of a much higher order than that of the vulgar in our time. His English poems, for he wrote also Latin poetry, are for the most part extant in “The Paradise of Dainty Devises,” Lond. 1578, 4to, lately reprinted in the “Bibliographer,” where, as well as in our other authorities, are some farther notices of Edwards. It is justly observed by Warton, that his popularity seems to have altogether arisen from those pleasing talents, of which no specimens could be transmitted to posterity, and which prejudiced his partial contemporaries in favour of his poetry.

, a critic and poetical writer, was born in 1691), in or near the city of London, and was a younger son of Edwards, esq. a gentleman in the profession of the law. His grandfather had been of the same profession. The principal part of his grammatical education he is said to have received at a private school, and never was a member of either of the universities. At a proper age he was entered of Lincoln’s Inn and, in due time, was called to the bar but, having a considerable hesitation in his speech, he was discouraged from engaging much in the practice of the law. Although he never appears to have fallen into that dissipation which is sometimes chargeable upon young gentlemen of the inns of court, it may be conjectured, from his subsequent publications, that he applied himself more assiduously to the cultivation of the belles lettres than to the severer studies belonging to his profession. Shakspeare, in particular, was the object of his warmest admiration and most sedulous attention; and to this circumstance Mr. Edwards is principally indebted for his literary reputation. His first appearance from the press was in a pamphlet published, in 1744, and entitled “A Letter to the author of a late Epistolary Dedication, addressed to Mr. Warburton.” This was the beginning of our author’s attack upon that famous writer; which was followed, in 1747, by “A Supplement to Mr. Warburton’s edition of Shakspeare,” a performance so well received, that two impressions of it were printed in the same year. A third edition of it appeared in 1748, under the title of “The Canons of Criticism, and a Glossary, being a Supplement to Mr. Warburton’s edition of Shaky speare. Collected from the notes in that celebrated work, and proper to be bound up with it. By the other gentleman of Lincoln’s Inn;” which title the book has ever since retained. The expression of “the other gentleman of Lincoln’s Inn,” refers to a previous controversy of Warburton’s, upon a different topic, with another member of that society. Mr. Warburton, in the preface to his edition of Shakspeare, declares that it had been once his design to give the reader a body of canons for literary criticism, drawn out in form, together with a glossary; but that he had laid aside his purpose, as these uses might be well supplied by what he had occasionally said upon the subject in the course of his remarks. This idea Mr. Edwards humourously took up, and from the notes and corrections of Warburton’s Shakspeare, has framed a set of canons ridiculously absurd, each of which is confirmed and illustrated by examples taken from the edition in question; and it cannot be denied that Mr. Edwards has perfectly succeeded in his attempt, and that through the whole of his work he has displayed his wit, his learning, and his intimate acquaintance with Shakspeare; but such an attack upon Warburton, though conducted with pleasantry rather than ill-nature, was too formidable to avoid exciting resentment. Accordingly, Warburton introduced Mr. Edwards into the next edition of Pope’s “Dunciad” in a note under the following lines in the fourth book of that work:

“111,” says our annotator, “would that scholiast discharge his duty, who should neglect to honour those whom Dulness has distinguished; or suffer them to lie forgotten, when their rare modesty would have left them nameless. Let us not, therefore, overlook the services which have been done her cause, by one Mr. Thomas Edwards, a gentleman, as he is pleased to call himself, of Lincoln’s Inn; but, in reality, a gentleman only of the Dunciad; or, to speak him better, in the plain language of our honest ancestors to such mushrooms, a gentleman of the last edition: who, nobly eluding the solicitude of his careful father, very early retained himself in the cause of Dulness against Shakspeare, and with the wit and learning of his ancestor Tom Thimble in the ‘ Rehearsal,’ and with the ?ir of good-nature and politeness of Caliban in the `Tempest,' hath now happily finished the Dunce’s progress, in personal abuse. For, a libeller is nothing but a Grubstreet critic run to seed.”

In 1770, he was presented by the crown to the valuable vicarage of Nuneaton in Warwickshire; which preferment he is understood to have obtained through the interest of the corporation of Coventry, and some private friends, with the earl of Hertford, lord lieutenant of the county. Our author, in 1773,. published a sermon, entitled “The indispensable Duty of contending for the Faith which was once delivered to the Saints,” preached before the university of Cambridge, on the 29th of June, 1766, being commencement Sunday. In 1779, he resigned the mastership of the free grammar-school of Coventry, and the rectory of St. John’s, and retired to Nuneaton, where he resided during the remainder of his life. His last publication was given to the world in the same year. The title of it is “Selecta quaedam Theocrki Idyllia. Recensuit, variorum notas adjecit, suasque animadversiones, partim Latine, partim Anglice, scriptas immiscuit, Thomas Edwards, S. T. P.” 8vo. This work reflects honour on the accuracy and extent of our author’s classical literature. Though, the original text of what is selected from Theocritus consists only of about three hundred and fifty lines, the notes are extended through upwards of two hundred and fifty pages, besides more than twenty pages, consisting of addenda, corrigenda, collationes, &c. Dr. Ed wards’ s reason for his being so minute and particular in many of his animadversions, was, that he might- give every possible kind of assistance to young persons, for whom the book was principally intended. Having written the notes sometimes in Latin, and sometimes in English, as chance or inclination directed, he thought proper to publish them in that promiscuous form. It would, however, undoubtedly have been preferable uniformly to have composed them in the Latin language. There are two appendiculae at the end of the volume; one containing the editor’s reasons for not prefixing the accentual marks to his own and Mr. Warton’s notes; and the other affording hints of a new method which he had discovered, of scanning Greek and Latin hexameters, the usual mode of doing it being, as he thought, erroneous. A fuller explanation of his system was intended to be given by him in avork which he had in contemplation, designed to be entitled “Miscellanea Critica,” but which was not carried into execution. He had also made collections for an edition of Quintus Curtius. 1 In May 1784, Dr. Edwards lost his wife, a lady of distinguished good sense, and of the most engaging manners; and he, who had passed his life in his study, and was totally unacquainted with domestic concerns, and indeed with worldly affairs of every kind, never enjoyed himself after this event. What aggravated his distress was, that, previously to Mrs. Edwards’s death, he had been afflicted with a stroke of the palsy, from which, however, he so far recovered as to be capable of discharging part of his parochial duties. But, within a few months after her decease", he had a second stroke, for which he was advised to go to Bath, but received no benefit from his journey. He departed this life at Nuneaton, on the 30th of June, 1785, in the fifty -sixth year of his age; and on the 7th of July, was interred in the church-yard belonging to the parish of Foleshill, in the same grave with his wife. An inscription on a mural marble, contains nothing of moment excepting the dates already specified.

, a very skilful architect, and one of that class of geniuses who are usually said to be self-taught, was the son of a farmer in the parish of Eglwysilan, in the county of Glamorgan, where he was born in 1719. In his fifteenth year he appears to have manifested his skill in repairing the stone fences so common in that country, and executed his work with such peculiar neatness, that his talents became in great request From this humble beginning, he aspired to be a builder of houses; and his first attempt was to build a small workshop for a neighbour, in the performance of which he gave great satisfaction. He was then employed to erect a mill, which was admired by good judges as an excellent piece of masonry; and while employed on this he became first acquainted with the principles of an arch, which led him to get higher undertakings. In 1746 he undertook to build a new bridge over the river Taff, which he executed in a style superior to any thing of the kind in any part of Wales, for neatness of workmanship and elegance of design. It consisted of three arches, elegantly light intheir construction. The hewri stones were excellently well dressed, and closely jointed. But this river runs through a very deep vale, that is more than usually woody, and crowded about with mountains. It is a'lso to be considered, that many other rivers of no mean capacity, as the Crue, the Bargoed Taff, and the Cunno, besides almost numberless brooks that run through long, deep; and well-wooded vales or glens, fall into the Taffiii its progress. The descents into these vales from the mountains being in general very steep, the water in long and heavy rains collects into these rivers with great rapidity and force; raising floods that in their descriptions would appear absolutely incredible to the in. habitants of open and flat countries. Such a flood unfortunately occurred after the completion of this undertaking, which tore up the largest trees by the roots, and carried them down the river to the bridge, where the arches were not sufficiently wide to admit of their passage, and in consequence of the obstruction to the flood, a thick and strong dam, as it were, was thus formed, and the streams being unable to get any farther, rose here to a prodigious height, and carried the bridge entirely away. As Edwards had given the most ample security for the stability of the bridge during the space of seven years, he was obliged to erect another, which was of one arch, for the purpose of admitting freely under it whatever incumbrances the floods might bring down. The span or chord of this arch was one hundred and forty feet its altitude thirty-five feet; the segment of a circle whose diameter was one hundred and seventy feet. The arch was finished, but the parapets not yet erected, when such was the pressure of the unavoidable ponderous work over the haunches, that it sprung up in the middle, and the key-stones were forced out. This was a severe blow to a man who had hitherto met with nothing but misfortune in an enterprize which was to establish or ruin him in his profession. Edwards, however, engaged in it the third time; and by means of three cylindrical holes through the work over the haunches, so reduced the weight over them, that there was no longer any danger from it. These holes or cylinders rise above each other, ascending in the order of the arch, three at each end, or over each of the haunches. The diameter of the lowest is nine feet of the second, six feet and of the uppermost, three feet. They give the bridge an air of uncommon elegance. The second bridge fell in 1751. The third, which has stood ever since, was completed in 1755.

Hitherto the Ilialto was esteemed the largest arch in Europe, if not in the world. Its span or chord was ninetyeight feet. But New Bridge is forty-two feet wider; and is said to be the largest arch in the world, of which we have any authentic account. The fame of this bridge introduced Edwards to public notice; and he was employed to build many other bridges in South Wales. One of the next bridges that he constructed was Usk Bridge, over the river Usk, at the town of Usk in Monmouthshire. It was a large and handsome work. He afterwards built the following bridges, in the order of succession which is here assigned them. A bridge of three arches over the river Tawy Pont ar Tawy, over the same river, about ten miles above the town of Swansea. This was of one arch its chord eighty feet, with one cylinder over the haunches. Bettws Bridge in Caermarthenshire, consisting of one arch, forty-five feet in the span. Llandovery Bridge in the same county, consisting of one arch, eighty-four feet in the span, with one cylinder over the haunches. Wychbree Bridge, over the river Tawy, about two miles above Morriston: this has one arch, ninety-five feet in span, twenty feet in altitude, with two cylinders over each of the haunches to relieve them. He built Aberavon Bridge in Glamorganshire, consisting of one arch, seventy feet in span, fifteen feet in altitude, but without cylinders. He likewise built Glasbury Bridge, near Hay, in Brecknockshire, over the river Wye: it consists of five arches, and is a light, elegant bridge. The arches are small segments of large circles on high piers, as best adapted to facilitate the passage of floods under the bridge, and travellers over it.

The literary knowledge of William Edwards was at first confined to the Welsh language, which he could read and write from early youth. He was supposed to be rather obstinate when a boy; an imputation which generally rests on genius, that sees beyond the scope of those by whom it is controlled. His own account of this alleged temper was, that he always considered whether any thing that was proposed to him, or any principle that he was required to act upon, coincided with his own ideas of rectitude. If he found that it did, he firmly persisted in it. His general character was that of uncommon resolution and inflexibility. He was very wild, as it is commonly reported of him, till about eighteen years of age. After that period, he became very steady and sedate. A neighbour instructed him a little in arithmetic. About the age of twenty or twenty-one, he undertook the building of a large iron forge at Cardiff, and lodged with a person namedWalter Rosser, a baker, and blind. This man taught English reading. William Edwards was alive to every opportunity of improvement, and rapidly acquired what he eagerly pursued.

, a celebrated painter, was born at Brussels in 1656, but it is not ascertained from what master he learned the art. He travelled to Italy with his brother-in-law Lewis Deyster, a very eminent artist, with whom he painted in conjunction, during the whole time of his continuance abroad, Deyster executing the figures, and Eeckhout the fruit and flowers, and with such perfect harmony and union, that the difference of their pencils was quite imperceptible. When he returned to Brussels, he received many marks of respect and distinction, and also an appointment to a very honourable station; yet he soon forsook friends, honours, and a certainly of being enriched, and embarked for Italy, where he wished to spend the remainder of his days. But chance conducted him to Lisbon, where his pictures sold for an exceeding high price, as he painted all his subjects in the Italian taste, and, during his residence in Italy, he had taken pains to sketch so many elegant forms of fruits and flowers, that he had a sufficient number for all his future compositions. He had lived at Lisbon about two years, when he married a young lady of quality, and extremely rich. This splendid fortune probably raised him rivals, who were jealous of his prosperity. Being out one day in his coach, he was shot with a ball, of which he instantly died, in 1695; but the cause of this assassination, or who were the authors and perpetrators of it, was never disf covered.

, lord Ellesmere, an eminent English statesman and lawyer, the son of Richard Egerton, of Ridley, in Cheshire, was born in Cheshire, about the year 1540. In 1556 he was admitted a commoner of Brasencse college, in Oxford, where he continued about three years; and having laid a good foundation of classical and logical learning, he removed thence to Lincoln’s-inn, and applied himself with such success to the study of the law, that he soon became a noted counsellor. The superior abilities he displayed in the line of his profession, and his distinguished eminence at the bar, attracted the notice of queen Elizabeth, and on June 28, 1581, she appointed him her solicitor-general: the year after he was chosen Lent reader of the society of Lincoln’s-inn, and was made also one of the governors of that society, in which office he continued for twelve years successively. His conduct and proficiency in the law, promoted him on June 2, 1594, to the office of attorney-general, and he was knighted soon after. On the 10th of April, 1593, he was appointed master of the rolls, when he shewed his great friendship to Mr. Francis Bacon, afterwards lord Verulam, by assisting him with his own observations in regard to the office of solicitor-general, then likely to become vacant by the advancement of Mr. Edward Coke to that of attorneygeneral, which was acknowledged by sir Robert Cecil as a favour done personally to himself. Upon the death of sir John Puckering, he had the great eal of England delivered to him at Greenwich on the 6th of May, 1596, with the title of lord keeper, by the special choice and favour of the queen, without any mediator or competitor, and even against the interest of the prime minister and his son; and at the same time he was sworn of her majesty’s privycouncil. He was permitted to hold the mastership of the rolls till May 15, 1603, when James I. conferred it on Edward Bruce, afterwards baron of Kmloss.

The integrity and abilities of the lord keeper so conciliated the favour and confidence of the queen, that she. employed him in her most weighty emergencies. In 1598^ tye was in corpmission for treating with the Putch, and, jointly with the lord Buckhurst, Cecil, and others, signed a new treaty with their ambassadors in London, hy which the queen was eased of an annual charge of 120,000l. In 1600, he was again in commission with the lord treasurer Buckhurst and the earl of Jlsscx, for negotiating affairs with the senate of Denmark. His conduct in regard to the unfortunate earl of Essex, whose name will for ever distinguish yet disgrace the annals of Elizabeth, exhibits his character both as a wise and loyal subject, and a siacere and honest friend. These illustrious men filled two of ttie highest and most important offices of state at the same time, and with the most perfect harmony, although their characters were very different. Sensible, however, of Essex’s great merit as a soldier, and of his constitutional infirmity as a man, the lord keeper took every opportunity tq soften the violence and asperity of his disposition, and to reclaim him to the -dictates of reason and duty. An instance of his friendly interference, in the year 1598, is given by Mr. Camden by which the high and fesentful spirit of Essex, which disdained to brook an insult from a queen, who, our readers will remember, struck him, was at length softened into a due submission to his royal benefactress; in consequence of which he was pardoned, and again received into her favour. (See Devereux). From this unfortunate affair, however, his friends took an omen of his future ruin, under the conviction that princes, once offended, are seldom thoroughly reconciled. When on his hasty and unexpected return from the Irish expedition, he was summoned before the privy council, suspended from his offices, and committed to the custody of the lord keeper, the latter rendered him every kind and friendly office and, in all his future condu?t to this unfortunate man, tempered justice with compassion preserving a proper medium between the duty of the magistrate, and the generosity of the friend. By the most popular and well-timed measures, he appeased the minds of a, prejudiced people, who then became tumultuous from, the injuries and indignities 'which they supposed were done to the person of their favourite general; asserting the queen’s authority, and justifying the conduct of the public counsels, without heightening or exaggerating the misconduct of the unfortunate earl. Still as the minds of the people remained dissatisfied, under a persuasion of his innocence, to remove the grounds of these suspicions, the queen resolved that his cause should have an open hearing, not in the star-chamber, but in the lord keeper Egerton’s house, before the council, four earls, two barons, and four judges, in order that a censure might be formally passed upon him, but without charge of perfidy. On this occasion, when he began to excuse and justify his conduct, the lord keeper interrupted him in the most friendly manner, and advised him to throw himself upon the mercy and goodness of the queen, and not, by an attempt to alleviate his offences, to extenuate her clemency. The issue of this trial it is unnecessary here to relate, as it may be found in our account of this unfortunate nobleman. As far as the subject of the present article is concerned, it may be sufficient to add, that after the execution of Essex, with Cuffe, Jvlerrick, Danvers, and Blunt, principal confederates, the lord keeper was in a special commission, with others of the first dignity, to summon all their accomplices, in order to treat and compound with them for the redemption of their estates; and, on security being given for the payment of the fines assessed, their pardon and redemption were obtained. The next year, 1602, he was again commissioned with others of the privy council, to reprieve all such persons/convicted of felony as they should think convenient, and to send them, for a certain time, to some of the queen’s galleys. And again, in the forty-fifth year of Elizabeth, for putting the laws in execution against the Jesuits and seminary priests, ordained according to the rites of the church of Rome. In March 1603, after the queen, oppressed with the infirmities of age, had retired from Westminster to Richmond, the lord keeper and the lord admiral, accompanied by the secretary, were deputed by the rest of the privy council to wait upon her there, in order to remind her majesty of her intentions, in regard to her successor to the crown, whom she appointed to be her nearest kinsman, James of Scotland. After the queen’s death, the care and administration of the kingdom devolved upon the lord keeper and the other ministers of state, till the arrival of king James, her successor, from Scotland, who, by his sign manual, dated at Holy-rood house, Sth of April, 1603, signified to the privy council, that it was his royal pleasure that sir Thomas Egerton should exercise the office of lord keeper till farther orders. On the 3d of May he waited upon the king at Broxbourne in Hertfordshire, and resigned the great seal to his majesty, who delivered it back again, confirming his office, and commanding him to use it as he had done before. On the 19th of July, king James caused the great seal to be broken, and put a new one into his hands, accompanied with a paper of his own writing, by which he created him “Baron, of Kllesmere for his good and faithful services, not only in. the administration of justice, but also in council, both to the late queen and himself;” the patent for which title he caused to be dispatched the 2 1st of the same month. On the 24th, the day before his coronation, he constituted him lord high chancellor of England, which high and important office of state he supported for more than twelve years, with equal dignity, learning, and impartiality. On the 25th and 26th of November, Henry lord Cobham, and Thomas lord Grey de Wilton, were tried by their peers, the lord chancellor sitting as lord high steward. In 1604, he was, with certain other commissioners, authorized by act of parliament, to bring about an union between England and Scotland, it being the king’s desire, that, as the two crowns were united in one person, an union of the nations might be effected by naturalization. But, differences arising between the house of lords and house of commons upon this point of the naturalization of the Scotch, he was one of the lords appointed of the committee of conference between the two houses. The whole of this transaction, and the causes of its failure, are stated at large in the fifth volume of the Parliamentary History. In 1605, he was appointed high steward of the city of Oxford, and in 1609, he was in commission to compound with all those, who, holding lands by knight’s service, &c. were to pay the aid for making the king’s son a knight.

The lord chancellor, having repelled, with credit and success, this extraordinary attack, and being recovered from his indisposition, was, on the 12th of May 1616, constituted lord high steward for the trial of Robert earl of Somerset and Frances his wife, for poisoning sir Thomas Overbury, who were both convicted. After their conviction the chancellor resolutely and consistently refused to affix the great seal to the very extraordinary pardon granted, and already signed by the too indulgent lenity of the king, which was copied from one granted by the pope to cardinal Wolsey, and which ran in these words: “That the king, of his mere motion and special favour, did pardon all and all manner of treasons, misprisions of treasons, murders, felonies, and outrages whatsoever, by the said Robert Carre, earl of Somerset, committed, or hereafter to be committed.”