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

, of Antioch, priest of that church, and afterwards bishop of Tarsus in the fourth century, was disciple of Sylvanus, and master of St. John Chrysostom, of St. Basil, and of St. Athanasius, who all bestow great praises on his virtues and his zeal for the faith: praises which were confirmed by the first council of Constantinople. St. Cyril, on the contrary, calls him the enemy of the glory of Jesus Christ, and regards him as the fore-runner of Nestorins. Diodorus was one of the first commentators who adhered to the literal sense of Scripture, without expatiating in the fields of allegory; but only some fragments of his writings are come down to us, in the “Catena patrum Grrccorum.” His contemporaries and immediate successors differ very essentially as to his real character, as may be seen in our authorities.

, a celebrated Cynic philosopher, was born in the third year of the ninety-first olympiad, or 413 B.C. at Sinope, a city of Pont us. His father, who was a banker, was convicted of debasing the public coin, and was obliged to leave his country. This circumstance gave the sou an opportunity of visiting Athens, where he offered himself as a pupil of Aniisthenes; but that philosopher happening to be in a peevish humour, refused to receive him. Diogenes still importuning him for admission, Antistheues lifted up his staff to drive him away; upon which Diogenes said, “Beat me as you please; I will be your scholar.” Antisthenes, overcome by his perseverance, received him, and afterwards made him his intimate companion and friend. Diogenes perfectly adopted the principles and character of his master, and renouncing every other object of ambition, he determined to distinguish himself by his contempt of riches and honours, and by his indignation against luxury. He wore a coarse cloak; carried a wallet and a staff; made the porticoes and other public places his habitation; and depended upon casual contributions for his daily bread. A friend, whom he had desired to procure him a cell, not executing his order so soon as he expected, he took up his abode in a tub, or large open vessel, in the Metro urn. It is probable, however, Brucker thinks, that this was only a temporary expression of indignation and contempt, and that he did not make a tub the settled place of residence, although it is mentioned by Juvenal and Seneca. Whether true or not, there is no doubt of his practising rigid abstinence,and depending upon casual charity nor is it less certain that he reproved the luxurious manners of the Athenians with great freedom; and yet his reproofs, though very pungent, manifested so much ingenuity, as to excite even the admiration of those against whom they were directed. He uniformly inculcated patience of labour and pain, frugality, temperance, and an entire contempt of pleasure; and whether praised or blamed, appeared equally indifferent, and preserved on all occasions a perfect self-command.

Diogenes, in his old age, is said to have sailed to the island of Ægina; and having met with pirates, he was carried into Crete, and exposed to public sale. Being asked what he could do? he replied, “I can govern men, and therefore sell me to one who wants a master:” Xeniades, a wealthy Corinthian, being struck by this singular reply, purchased him; upon which Diogenes told him, “I shall be more useful to you as your physician, than as your slave.” Upon their arrival at Corinth, Xeniades gave him his liberty, and committed to his direction the education of his children, and the management of his domestic concerns. Xeniades had so much reason to be satisfied with his judgment and fidelity, that he used to say the gods had sent a good genius to his house. He accustomed his pupils to the discipline of the Cynic sect, and took greater pains to inure them to habits of self-command, than to instruct them in the elements of science. However, he was not negligent in teaching them lessons of moral wisdom, which he inculcated by sententious maxims; and he allowed them the moderate use of athletic exercises and hunting. During his residence at Corinth, he frequently attended the assemblies of the people at the Crancum, a place in its vicinity; and at the Isthmian games, where he appeared under the character of a censor, severely lashing the follies of the times, and inculcating rigid lessons of sobriety and virtue. At one of these assemblies the conference between Alexander the Great and Diogenes is said to have happened. Plutarch relates the story thus: Alexander received the congratulations of all ranks on his being appointed, after the death of his father, to the command of the Grecian army in their projected expedition against the Persians. Diogenes was absent on this occasion, and Alexander expressed his surprise at this circumstance. Wishing to gratify his curiosity by the sight of such a philosopher as Diogenes, he visited the Craneum, where he found the philosopher sitting in his tub in th sun. The king came up to him in the crowd, and said, “I am Alexander the Great;” to which Diogenes replied, in a surly tone, “and I am Diogenes the Cynic.” Alexander, requesting to know if he could render him any service, received for answer, “Yes,” says he, “do not stand between me and the sun.” Alexander surprised at the magnanimity of this reply, said to his friends, “If I were not Alexander, I would be Diogenes.” There are several circumstances in this narrative which suggest some doubts as to its truth yet, from the character of Diogenes, it is not very improbable.

Some writers assert, that after the death of Antisthenes, Diogenes passed his summers in Corinth, and his winters in Athens, for which there seems to be no better foundation than for the whole detail of small anecdotes and jests which have been ascribed to him, and which are entirely contrary to the general scope of his philosophy, and to that authority and respect which he enjoyed with the wise men of his age. If we can pay any credit to the representation of the ancients, Diogenes was a philosopher of a penetrating genius, not unacquainted with learning, and deeply read in the knowledge of mankind. He moreover possessed a firm and lofty mind, superior to the injuries of fortune, hardy in suffering, and incapable of fear. Contented with a little, and possessing within himself treasures, sufficient for his own happiness, he despised the luxuries of the age. From an earnest desire to correct and improve the public manners, he censured reigning follies and vices with a steady confidence which sometimes degenerated into severity. He spared neither the rich nor the powerful; and even ventured to ridicule the religious superstitions of the age. This freedom gave great offence to multitudes, who could not endure such harsh and reproachful lectures from the mouth of a mendicant philosopher. The consequence was, that he suffered much obloquy, and was made the subject of ludicrous and disgraceful calumny. It is wholly incredible, that a man universally celebrated for his sobriety, contempt of pleasure, and indignation against vice, should have been guilty of the grossest indecencies. Brucker has amply refuted the story of his amour with Lais, the celebrated courtesan, by proving that at the time this intrigue is said to have taken place, Lais must have been eighty years old, and Diogenes seventy. Of philosophical pride, however, it is less easy to acquit him; and it was probably to his haughty temper, his coarse invectives, and scurrilous replies, that he owed the hostility which broke out in misrepresentations of his real character. Various accounts are given, concerning the time and manner of his death. It seems most probable that he died at Corinth, of mere decay, in the ninetieth year of his age, and in the hundred and fourteenth olympiad. His friends contended for the honour of defraying the expences of his funeral but the magistrates of Athens settled the dispute, by ordering him an honourable interment at the public expence. A column of Parian marble, terminated by the figure of a dog, was raised over his tomb; and his friends erected many brazen statues from respect to his memory.

From the numerous maxims and apothegms which have been ascribed to Diogenes, we shall select the following, without staying to inquire what right he has to the credit of them: Diogenes treading upon Plato’s robe, said, “I trample under foot the pride of Plato.” “Yes,” said Plato, “with greater pride of your own.” Being asked in what part of Greece he had seen good men, he answered, “No-where; at Sparta I have seen good boys.” To a friend who advised him in his old age to indulge himself, he said, “Would you have me quit the race when J have almost reached the goal?” Observing a boy drink water out of the hollow of his hand, he took his cup out of his wallet, and threw it away, saying that he would carry no superfluities about him. Plato having defined man to be a two-legged animal without wings, Diogenes plucked off the feathers from a cock, and turned him into the academy, crying out, “See Plato’s man.” In reply to one who asked him at what time he ought to dine he said, “If you are a rich man, when you will; if you are poor, when you can.” “How happy,” said one, “is Callisthenes, in living with Alexander!” “No,” said Diogenes, “he is not happy; for he must dine and sup when Alexander pleases.” Plato, discoursing concerning ideas, spoke of the abstract idea of a table and a cup; Diogenes said, “I see the table and the cup, but not the idea of the table and the cup.” Plato replied, “No wonder, for you have eyes, but no intellect.” His answer to an invitation from Craterus to come and live with him was, “I had rather lick salt at Athens, than sit down to the richest feast with Craterus.” Being asked what countryman he was, he answered, “A citizen of the world.” To one that reviled him he said, “No one will believe you, when you speak ill of me, any more than they would me, if I were to speak well of you.” Hearing one of his friends lament that he should not die in his own country, he said, “Be not uneasy; from every place there is a passage to the regions below.” “Would you be revenged upon your enemy,” said Diogenes, “be virtuous, that he may have nothing to say against you.”

, so called from Laerta, or Laertes, a town of Cilicia, where he is supposed to have been born, is an ancient Greek author, who wrote ten books of the Lives of the Philosophers, still extant. In what age he flourished, is not easy to determine. The oldest writers who mention him are Sopater Alexandrinus, who lived in the time of Constantine the Great, and Hesychius Milesius, who lived under Justinian. Diogenes often speaks in terms of approbation of Plutarch and Phavorinus; and therefore, as Plutarch lived under Trajan, and Phavorinus under Hadrian, it is certain that he could not flourish before the reigns of those emperors. Menage has fixed him to the time of Severus; that is, about the year of Christ 200; and from certain expressions in his works, some have fancied him to have been a Christian; however, as Menage observes, the immoderate praises he bestows upon Epicurus will not suffer us to believe this, but incline us rather to suppose that he was an Epicurean. He divided his Lives into books, and inscribed them to a learned lady of the Platonic school, as he himself intimates in his life of Plato. Montaigne was so fond of this author, that, instead of one Laertius, he wishes we had a dozen; and Vossius says, that his work is as precious as old gold. Without doubt we are greatly obliged to him for what we know of the ancient philosophers; and if he had been as exact in the execution, as he was judicious in the choice of his subject, we had been more obliged to him still. Bishop Burnet, in the preface to his Life of sir Matthew Hale, justly speaks of him in the following manner: “There is no hook the ancients have left us,” says he, “which might have informed us more than Diogenes Laertius’s Lives of the Philosophers, if he had had the art of writing equal to that great subject which he undertook: for if he had given the world such an account of them, as Gassendus has done of Peiresc, how great a stock of knowledge might we have had, which by his unskilfulness is in a great measure lost! since we must now depend only on him, because we have no other and better author who has written on that argument.” He is no where observed to be a rigid affecter or favourer of any sect; which makes it somewhat probable, that he was a follower of Potomon of Alexandria, who, after all the rest, and a little before his time, established a sect which were called Eclectics, from their choosing out of every sect what they thought the best. His books shew him to have been a man of universal reading; but as a writer he is very exceptionable, both as to the disposal and the defect of his materials. Brucker, whose opinion must be of sterling value, in estimating the merits of Diogenes Laertius, says, that “he has collected from the ancients with little judgment, patched together contradictory accounts, relied upon doubtful authorities, admitted as facts many tales which were produced in the schools of the sophists, and has been inattentive to methodical arrangement.” Diogenes also composed a book of epigrams, to which he refers. The best edition is that of Meibomius, Amst. 1692, 2 vols. 4to; yet Rossius, in his “Commentationes Laertianae,” has convicted Meibomius of innumerable errors.

, one of the first French astronomers of the last century, was born at Paris Jan. 11, 1734, and appears to have been educated to the profession of the law, as he became a counsellor of parliament; but his fame is more solidly“established on his astronomical pursuits. In the former capacity, however, he was appointed a deputy from the noblesse of Paris as one of their representatives in the constituent assembly. His conduct here appears to have been moderate, and even praiseworthy, as he incurred the displeasure of the succession of tyrants who ruined their country, and was obliged to escape to some secure place of retirement, where he died in August 1794. During his more prosperous career, he was chosen a member of the royal societies of London (in 1775) and of Stockholm and Gottingen, and contributed many papers to Memoirs of the academy of sciences at Paris, of which he was also a member. His principal works, all of high value, are, 1.” Traite des courbes algebraiques,“1756, 12mo. 2.” Methode generale et directe pour resoudre les problemes relatifs aux eclipses,“read in the academy. 3.” Recherches sur la gnomonique et les retrogradations des Planetes,“1761, 8vo. 4.” Traite“analytique des mouvemens apparens des corps celestes,” 1774, 2 vols. 4to. 6. “Essai sur les Cometes en general, et en particulier sur celles qui peuvent approcher de l'orbite de la terre,” 17“-”, svo; a work, says its reviewer, which deserves undoubtedly to be placed among astronomical productions of the first rank, and in which the learned author has omitted nothing that has the least relation towards the general theory of comets. Accordingly the commissaries, who were appointed by the royal academy of sciences at Paris to examine this work, declared that it contained the most complete theory of comets hitherto given. 6. “Essai sur les phenomenes relatifs aux disparitions periodiques del'anneaude Saturne,” 1776, 8vo. This work amply supported the character which the author had established by his former writings, and it received the unanimous approbation of D'Alembert, Borda, Vandermonde, Bezout, and La Place, the members of the academy who were appointed to examine it.

, was an ancient poet and geographer, concerning whom we have no certain information but what we derive from the elder Pliny. Pliny, speaking of the Persian Alexandria, afterwards called Antioch, and at last Charrax, could not miss the opportunity of paying his respects to a person who had so much obliged him, and whom he professes to follow above all men in the geographical part of his work. He tells us, that *' Dionysius was a native of this Alexandria, and that he had the honour to be sent by Augustus to survey the eastern part of the world, and to make reports and observations about its state and condition, for the use of the emperor’s eldest son, who was at that time preparing an expedition into Armenia, Parthia, and Arabia.“This passage, though seemingly explicit enough, has not been thought sufficient by the critics to determine the time when Dionysius lived, whether under the first Augustus Caesar, or under some of the later emperors, who assumed his name: Vossius and others are of opinion, that the former is the emperor meant by Pliny; but Scaliger and Salmasius think he lived under Severus, or Marcus Aurelias, about A. D. 130 or 150. Dionysius wrote a great number of pieces, enumerated by Suidas and his commentator Eustathius: but his” Periegesis," or survey of the world, is the only one we have remaining; and it would be superfluous to say, that this is one of the most exact systems of ancient geography, when it has been already observed, that Pliny himself proposed it for his pattern. It is written in Greek hexameters; but some think that Dionysius is no more to be reckoned a poet, than any of those authors who have included precepts in numbers, for the sake of assisting the memory. Yet, although his book is more valuable for matter than manner, it has been thought that he had a genius capable of more sublime undertakings, and that he constantly made the Muses the companions, though not the guides, of his travels. As proofs of this, we are referred to his descriptions of the island of Lucca, inhabited by departed heroes; of the monstrous and terrible whales in Taprobana; of the poor Scythians that dwelt by the Meotic lake; to the account of himself, when he comes to describe the Caspian sea, and of the swans and bacchanals on the banks of Cayster, which shew him to have possessed no small share of poetic spirit.

, a historian and critic of antiquity, was born at Halicarnassus, a town in Caria; which is also memorable for having before produced Herodotus. He came to Rome soon after Augustus had put an end to the civil wars, which was about 30 years before Christ; and continued there, as he himself relates, twentytwo years, learning the Latin tongue, and making all necessary provision for the design he had conceived of writing the Roman history. To this purpose he read over, as he tells us, all the commentaries and annals of those Romans who had written with any reputation about the antiquities and transactions of their state; of such as old Cato, Fabius Maximus, Valerius Antias, Licinius Macer, and others; but owns, after all, that the conferences he had with the great and learned men at Rome upon this subject, were almost as serviceable to him as any thing he had read. His history is entitled “Of the Roman antiquities,” and was comprised in twenty books, of which only the first eleven are now extant. They conclude with the time when the consuls resumed the chief authority of the republic, after the government of the decemviri; which happened 312 years after the foundation of Rome. The entire work extended to the beginning of the first Punic war, ending where Polybius begins his history, which is about 200 years later. Some have imagined that Dionysius never ended his work, but was prevented by death from composing any more than eleven books out of the twenty which he had promised the public; but this is contrary to the express testimony of Stepbanus, a Greek author, who quotes the 16th and 17th books of Dionysius’ s Roman antiquities; and Photius, in his Bibliotheca, says, that he had read all the twenty, and had seen the compendium or abridgment which Dionysius made of his own history into five books, but which is now lost. The reputation of this historian stands very high on many accounts, notwithstanding the severe attacks made on him by Mr. Hooke, in his “Observations, &c.” on Middleton and Chapman, &c. 1750, 4to. As to what relates to chronology, all the critics have been apt to prefer him even to Livy himself: and Scaliger declares, in his animadversions upon Eusebius, that we have no author remaining, who has so well observed the order of years. He is no less preferable to the Latins on account of the matter of his history; for his being a stranger was so far from being prejudicial to him, that on this single consideration he made it his business to preserve an infinite number of particulars, most curious to us, which their own authors neglected to write, either because, by reason of their familiarity, they thought them below notice, or that all the world knew them as well as themselves. His style and diction, however, although pure, insomuch that many have thought him the best author to be studied by those who would attain a perfect knowledge of the Greek tongue, is not so elegant or lively as that of Livy, to whom he has been compared in historic merit.

, junior, flourished, according to Suidas, under the emperor Adrian, and wrote twenty-six books of the “History of Musicians,” in which he celebrated not only the great performers on the flute and cithara, but those who had risen to eminence by every species of poetry. He was, likewise, author of five books, written in defence of music, and chiefly in refutation of what is alleged against it in Plato’s Republic. Aristides Quintilianus has also endeavoured to soften the severity of some animadversions against music in the writings of Cicero; but though time has spared the defence of this author, yet it does not indemnify us for the loss of that which Dionysius junior left behind him; as testimonies are still remaining or his having been a much more able writer than Aristides Quintilianus.

The loss of the entire works of this writer is severely felt by all musical historians, but particularly by those who seek information concerning the music and musicians of the ancient Greeks.

was born at Athens, and educated there. He went afterwards to Heliopolis in Ægypt where, if we may believe some writers of his life, he saw that wonderful eclipse which happened at our Saviour’s passion, and was urged by some extraordinary impulse to cry out, “Ant Deus patitur, aut cum patiente dolet;” Either God himself suffers, or condoles with him who does. At his return to Athens he was elected into the court of Areopagus, from whence he derived his name of Areopagite. About the year 50 he embraced Christianity, and, as some say, was appointed first bishop of Athens by St. Paul, and consecrated by his hands. Of his conversion we have this account in Acts xvii.: Paul, preaching at Athens, was brought before the Areopagus, to give account of himself and his doctrine. He harangued in that court, taking occasion to speak against the prevailing idolatry of the place, from an altar which he found with this inscription, “To the unknown God.” The event of which preaching was, as the sacred historian tells us, that “certain men clave unto him, and believed; among the which was Dionysius the Areopagite, a woman named Damaris, and others with them.” He is supposed to have suffered martyrdom; but whether under Domitian, Trajan, or Adrian, is not certain.

, bishop of Corinth, flourished under the reigns of Marcus Antoninus and Commodus; and is supposed to have suffered martyrdom about the year 178. We know little more of him than what appears from some of his epistles, preserved by Eusebius: from which we learn, that he was not only very diligent in his pastoral care over the flock committed to him, but that he extended this care likewise to the inhabitants of all other countries and cities. He wrote a letter to the Lacedaemonians, in which he exhorts them to peace and concord; another to the Athenians, in which he recommends purity of faith and evangelical holiness; a third to the Nicomedians, to guard them against the heresy of Marciou; a fourth to the churches of Crete; a fifth to the churches of Pontus; a sixth to the Gnossians, in which he admonishes Pinytus, their bishop, not to impose too severely upon the brethren the heavy burden of continence, but to consider the frailties and infirmities of the flesh; a proof that monastic austerities were beginning at this early period of the church. He wrote also a seventh letter to the Romans, in which he mentions the famous epistle of Clemens to the Corinthians; which, as we learn from him, was wont at that time to be publicly read in their churches. He recommends to them also to continue a charitable custom, which, from their first plantation, they had always practised; namely, to send relief to divers churches throughout the world, and to assist particularly those who were condemned to the mines; a strong proof, says a recent historian, both that the Roman church continued opulent and numerous, and that they still partook much of the spirit of Christianity. None of these epistles are now extant, but Eusebius has preserved some fragments of them.

, bishop of Alexandria, a man of great renown in the church, was born a heathen, and of an ancient and illustrious family. He was a diligent inquirer after truth, which he looked for in vain among the sects of philosophers; but at last found it in Christianity, in which he was probably confirmed by his preceptor Origen. He was made a presbyter of the church of Alexandria in the year 232; and in the year 247 was raised to that see upon the death of Heracles. When the Decian persecution arose, he was seized by the soldiers and sent to Taposiris, a little town between Alexandria and Canopus; but he escaped without being hurt, of which there is an extraordinary account in the fragments of one of his letters, which Eusebius has preserved. He was less fortunate under the Valerian persecution, which began in the year 257, being then forcibly hurried off in the midst of a dangerous illness, and banished to Cephrus, a most desert and uncultivated region of Libya, in which terrible situation he remained for three years. Afterwards, when Gallienus published an edict of toleration to the Christians, he returned to Alexandria, and applied himself diligently to the offices of his function, as well by converting heathens, as by suppressing heretics. To the Novatian heresy he laboured to put a stop; he endeavoured to quiet the dispute, which was risen to some height, between Stephen and Cyprian, concerning the re-baptization of heretics: both which he attempted with Christian moderation and candour, and it must be acknowledged to his credit, that he seems to have possessed more of that spirit of gentleness and meekness than was usually to be found in those zealous times. He does not indeed appear to have been quite so moderate in the next congress which he had with Sabellius, who had asserted, that “the substance in the trinity was nothing more than one person distinguished by three names;” which Dionysius opposed with such zeal and ardour, as to fall into the Arian opinion, and maintain, that there was “not only a distinction of persons, but of essence or substance also, and even an inequality of power and glory in them.” Cave, however, excuses this error, or “blindness,” as he calls it, in him, because it flowed from his intemperate zeal and hatred of heretics, and because Dionysius was in all other respects a very sound and orthodox bishop. A little before his death he was called to a synod at Antioch, to defend the divinity of Jesus Christ against Paul of Samosata, bishop of Antioch: but he could not appear by reason of his great age and infirmities. He wrote a letter, however, to that church, in which he explained his own opinion of the matter, and refuted Paul, whom he thought so very blameable for advancing such an error, that he did not deign to salute him even by name. He died in the year 267; and though his writings were very numerous, yet scarce any of them are come down to us, except some fragments preserved by Eusebius.

, surnamed Exiguus, or Little, on account of his stature, was a monk by profession, and born in Scythia, where he is supposed to have died about the year 540, as Dupin reckons, or 556, according to Cave. He understood Greek and Latin, and was well acquainted with the holy scriptures. Cassiodorus, who was intimate with him, wrote his panegyric in the 23d chapter of his book on divine learning. At the desire of Stephen, bishop of Salone, he made a collection of canons, which contains, besides those which were in the code of the universal church, the fifty first canons of the apostles, those of the council of Sardica, and 138 canons of the council of Africa. This code of canons was approved and received by the church of Rome, and France, and by the Latin churches; and was printed by Justel in 1628, with a version of the letter of St. Cyril, and of the council of Alexandria against Nestorius, which is also the translation of Dionysius Exiguus. He afterwards joined these with the decretals of the popes from Syricius to Anastasius, to which have been, since added those of Hilary, Simplicius, and other popes, to St. Gregory. This second collection was printed by Justel in his Bibliotheca of Canon law. Dionysius was the first who introduced the way of counting the years from the birth of Jesus Christ, and who fixed it according to the epocha of the vulgar sera. He wrote also two letters upon Easter in the years 525 and 526, which were published by Petavius and Buchevius; and made a cycle of 95 years. Father Mabillon published a letter of his written to Eugippius, about the translation which he made of a work of Gregory Nyssen, concerning the creation of man. With respect to the epoch which he invented, he began his account from the conception or incarnation, usually called the Annunciation, or Lady-day which method obtained in the dominions of Great Britain till 1752, before which time the Dionysian was the same as the English epoch but in that year the Gregorian calendar having been admitted by act of parliament, they now reckon from the first of January, as in the other parts of Europe, except in the court of Rome, where the epoch of the Incarnation still obtains for the date of their bulls.

, a Greek poet and musician, was the author of the words and music of three hymns, of which the first is addressed to Calliope, the second to Apollo, and the third to Nemesis. Of these the music has been preserved and published by Dr. Fell, bishop of Oxford, in 1672. This precious manuscript, which was found in Ireland, among the papers of the famous archbishop Usher, was bought, after his decease, by Mr. Bernard, fellow of St. John’s college, who communicated it to the editor, together with remarks and illustrations by the rev. Mr. Edmund Chilmead, of Christ church, who likewise redueed the ancient musical characters to those in common, use. It appears by the notes, that the music of these hymns was composed in the Lydian mode, and diatonic genus. Vincenzo Galilei, father of the great Galileo, first published these hymns with their Greek notes, in his “Dialogues upon Ancient and Modern Music,” printed at Florence, 1581, folio. He assures us, that he had them from a Florentine gentleman, who copied them very accurately from an ancient Greek manuscript, preserved in th library of cardinal St. Angelo, at Rome, which ms. likewise contained the treatises of music by Aristides Quintilianus, and Bryennius, since published by Meibomius and Dr. Wallis. The Florentine edition of these hymns entirely agrees with that printed at Oxford. In 1602, Hercules Bottrigari mentioned the same hymns in his harmonical discourse, called “Melone,” printed at Ferrara, in 4to. But he derived his knowlege of these pieces only from the Dialogues of Galilei; however, he inserted, in the beginning of his book, some fragments of them in common notes; but they were disfigured by a number of typographical errors. At length, in 1720, M. Burette published these three hymns in the “Memoirs of the Academy of Inscriptions,” ton), v. from a copy found at the end of a Greek manuscript in the king of France’s library at Paris, No. 3221, which likewise contained the musical treatises of Aristides Quintilianus, and of Bacchius senior'. But though the words were confused, and confounded one with another, they appeared much more complete in this manuscript than elsewhere, particularly the hymn to Apollo, which had six verses more at the beginning; and that to Nemesis, which, though deficient at the end in all the other editions, was here entire, having fourteen verses, exclusive of the six first.

, a celebrated mathematician of Alexandria, has been reputed to be the inventor of algebra; at least his is the earliest work extant on that science. It is not certain when he lived. Some have placed him before Christ, and some after, in the reigns of Nero and the Antonines; Saxius places him in the fourth century. He appears to be the same Diophantus who wrote the “Canon Astronomicus, which Suidas says was commented on by the celebrated Hypatia, daughter of Theon of Alexandria. His reputation must have been very high among the ancients, since they ranked him with Pythagoras and Euclid in mathematical learning. Bachet, in his notes upon the 5th book” De Arithmeticis," has collected, from Diophantus’s epitaph in the Anthologia, the following circumstances of his life; namely, that he was married when he was thirty-three years old, and had asonbornfive years after; that this son died when he was forty-two years of age, and that his father did not survive him above four years; from which it appears, that Diophantus was eighty-four years old when he died.

He wrote thirteen books of arithmetic, or algebra, which, Regiomontanus in his preface to Alfraganus tells us, are still preserved in manuscript in the Vatican library. Indeed Diophantus himself tells us that his work consisted of thirteen books, viz. at the end of his address to Dionysius, placed at the beginning of the work; and from hence Regiomontanus might be led to say the thirteen books were in that library. No more than six whole books, with part of a seventh, have ever been published; and it is probable there are no more in being; indeed Bombelli, in the preface to his Algebra, written in 1572, says there were but six of the books then in the library, and that he and another were about a translation of them. Those six books, with the imperfect seventh, were first published at Basil by Xylander in 1575, but in a Latin version only, with the Greek scholia of Maximus Planudes upon the two first books, and observations of his own. The same books were afterwards published in Greek and Latin at Paris in 1G2I, by Bachet, an ingenious and learned Frenchman, who made a new Latin version of the work, and enriched it with very learned commentaries. Bachet did not entirely neglect the notes of Xylander in his edition, but he treated the scholiast Planudes with the utmost contempt. He seems to intimate, in what he says upon the 28th question of the second book, that the six books which we have of Diophantus may be nothing more than a collection made by some novice, of such propositions as he judged proper, out of the whole thirteen but Fabricius thinks there is no just ground for such a supposition. From him certain questions relating to square and cubic numbers, and to right-angled triangles, have been called Diophantine problems, because the nature of them was first and chiefly treated of by him in his arithmetic, or rather algebra.

, an eminent physician of Anaxarba, since called Ceesarea, in Cilicia, flourished in the reign of Nero, in the first century, and composed five books of the Materia Medica. Fabricius is certain, that he composed these books before Pliny wrote his Natural History, although he supposes Pliny might reach the age of Dioscorides. Pliny has indeed made no mention of him, and yet relates many things of a very similar nature; which circumstances Fabricius imputes to their both having collected their materials from the same store-house, and to Pliny’s not having seen the books of Dioscorides. This physician tells us, in the preface of his first book, that he had consulted all who had written upon the Materia Medica before him; that to the information he had received from others, he had joined great application of his own; that he had travelled over many countries, for the sake of confirming by observation what he had learned from books; that he had corrected many errors of others, added many new things of his own, and digested the whole into a regular order. Salmasius considers all this as so much boasting, and treats Dioscorides as merely a laborious compiler, or pillager of others; but Galen has pronounced these books of Dioscorides to be the best that had been written upon the subject, and it is evident that in the early stages of botanical science he was looked up to with a reverence which is no longer paid. His object being solely the Materia Medica, he discusses each subject specifically, and in a separate chapter, dividing the whole into five books; in which, as far as any order takes place, they arrange into aromatic, alimentary, and medicinal plants. His descriptions are chiefly taken from colour, size, mode of growing, comparison of the leaves and roots, with other plants well known, and therefore left undescribed. In general they are short, and frequently insufficient to determine the species; and hence arise the endless and irreconcileable contentions among his commentators. In this manner, however, he has described near 700 plants; to which he subjoins the virtues and uses; and to him all posterity have appealed as decisive on the subject.

, an author famous for his extravagancies, and who styled himself in his writings Christianus Democritus, was born Aug. 10, 1672, at Frankenstein, near Darmstadt, where he commenced his studies. He afterwards studied philosophy and theology at Giessen, where he took his master’s degree in 1693. He began his literary career by a controversy with the pietists, a sect against which he declaimed publicly at Strasburg. Being obliged, for some irregularities, to quit that city, he returned to Giessen, and shewed himself as zealous in behalf of pietism as he had been before in opposition to it. Having failed in his views of getting a wife, and a professor’s chair, he threw off the mask, and openly attacked the reformed religion, in his “Papismus Protestantium vapulans.” This book having incensed the protestants against him, he abandoned theology for chemistry; and gave out, that, after a process of eight months, he had succeeded in making a sufficient quantity of gold to enable him to keep a country house, which he bought for 50,000 florins; but he was at that time actually in the utmost indigence; and could think of no better expedient for avoiding the pursuit of his creditors than by commencing his travels. After having run over various countries, Berlin, Copenhagen, Francfort, Leyden, Amsterdam, Altona, Hamburgh, and having experienced the discipline of the prison in every one, he was invited to Stockholm in 1727 to prescribe for the king of Sweden. The clergy of that kingdom, pleased with the hope of the king’s recovery, but unwilling to owe it to a man that openly derided their religion, procured an order for the medical alchemist to quit the kingdom. Dippel returned to Germany, without having changed either his opinions or his conduct. The report of his death having been several times falsely propagated, he in 1733 published a sort of certificate, in which he affirmed that he should not die till the year 180$; a prophecy which was not fulfilled: for he was found dead in his bed at the castle of Witgenstein, the 25th of April, 1734, at the age of 62.

, a learned doctor of the Sorbonne, was at first a friend to the society of Port-royal, but afterwards disagreed with them on account of the formulary, which he defended in several of his writings. He was very intimate with Richard Simon, and died canon of Avranches at the end of the seventeenth century. Besides his works in favour of the formulary, he left a treatise, entitled *‘ Preuves et Prejuges pour la Religion Chretienne et Catholique, contre les fausses Religions, et l’Atheisme," 4to, much esteemed by his Roman catholic brethren. It was Dirois who inserted the ecclesiastical history of each century in Mezeray’s History of France.

, a learned English divine and magistrate, was born at Lincoln in 1677. At the grammar school in that city he received the early part of his education, and afterwards studied at a private academy among the dissenters, to whom his father was attached. He was next entered at the Middle Temple with a view of making himself so far acquainted with the law as to enable him to become respectable as a magistrate and an author. The former character he sustained with dignity and much reputation: he was diligent, disinterested, and impartial in his decistons: he took an active part with those who formed themselves into a society for the suppression of vice and immorality. His regard to duty gained him the respect of the wise and good, and on some occasions he was singled out as meriting the thanks of the judges of the circuit for services that he had rendered his country. As he advanced in life, and after he had acted as a magistrate more than twenty years, he conceived the design of becoming a minister in the church of England, with which he had communicated from the time that he had attained to manhood. He was accordingly first ordained a deacon, and afterwards, in 1719, a priest. In the same year he was presented with the vicarage of Croft, and to the rectory of Kirby-superBaine, both in his native county. In the year 1722, he was instituted to the vicarage of St. Mary in Nottingham, to which town he removed; and here he remained till his death, Feb. 3, 1729-30, in the 53d year of his age. He was buried, according to his own request, in the chancel of his church, near to the communion-table, having no other inscription over his grave than the initial letters of his name, and the year of his death. He left a widow, who afterwards lived at her own family-seat, Flintham-hall, in Nottinghamshire, and died there May 20, 1763, in the 86th year of her age, by whom he had five sons and three daughters.

, professor of the law of nature and nations, and of history, at Francfort on the Oder, and a member of the royal society of Berlin, was born March 13, 1677, at Rottenburgh, in Hesse. His father was rector of that place, and became afterwards minister and dean. His son was at first educated under his care, which he amply repaid by a proficiency far beyond his years. In his seventeenth year he went to Marpurg, and studied under Otto, the celebrated orientalist, and Tilemann, professor of divinity, with whom he lodged, and who afterwards procured him the appointment of tutor to the two young barons of Morrien. Dithmar executed this office with general satisfaction, and when he went afterwards to prosecute his studies at Leyden, he was maintained at the expence of the landgrave of He^r Cusstl. He afterwards travelled over some parts of Germany and Holland, as tutor to the son of M. the great president Dancklemann. The learned Perizonius, with whom he became acquainted at Leyden, and who had a great esteem for him, procured him the offer of a professorship at Leyden, with a liberal salary but Dithmar thought himself obliged first to return M. Dancklemann’s sun to his father, who was so sensible of the value of his services, as to procure him a settlement at Francfort on the Oder. Here he was appointed professor of history, then of the law of nature and nations, and lastly, gave lectures on statistics and finance. He had been before this admitted a member of the royal society of Berlin, and was created a counsellor of the order of St. John. His situation at Francfort was in all respects so agreeable, that he refused many offers to remove, and in 1715 again declined a very honourable opportunity of settling at Leyden. He died at Francfort March 13, 1737, after a short illness; and with the reputation of one of the most learned men of his time.

, an eminent mathematician, was born at Salisbury, on the 29th of May, 1675, being the fourteenth of that name in a direct line. His father was a gentleman possessed of a small estate in the county of Wilts. His mother was of the family of the Luttrells of Dunstercastle, near Taunton, in Somersetshire, whose fortune made a considerable increase to the family income. Mr. Ditton’s father being of the sect of nonconformists, and extremely tenacious of his opinions, entered much into the religious controversifs of those times, and in supporting such contentions impaired his fortune, almost to the ruin of his family. Mr. Humphrey Ditton was the only son; and his father, observing in him an extraordinary good capacity, was desirous that he should not want the advantage of a good education. Accordingly, he placed him in a private academy, under the direction of Dr. Olive, a clergyman of the established church, who, notwithstanding his religious sentiments were different from those of Mr. Ditton’s family, was much esteemed by them for his candour and moderation in those troublesome times. When Mr. Ditton had finished his studies under Dr. Olive, he at the desire of his father, although contrary to his own inclination, engaged in the professioa of divinity, and began to exercise his function at Tunbridge, in Kent, where he continued to preach some years during which time he married Miss Ball, a lady at that place.

Mr. Ditton published many mathematical and other tracts. His first works were a paper on the Tangents of Curves, and a treatise on Spherical Catoptrics, both which were published in the “Philosophical Transactions.” This last was written in the Latin language, and was so highly approved, that it was republished in a foreign periodical work, called the “Acta Eruditortim,” in 1707; and was afterwards printed in the “Memoirs of the Academy of Sciences at Paris.” In 1706 he published a treatise, entitled, “An Institution of Fluxions, containing the first principles, operations, and applications of that admirable method, as invented by sir Isaac Newton.” This work, with additions and alterations, was again published by Mr. John Clarke, in 1726, some years after Mr. Ditton’s death. The same year, 1 706, Mr. Ditton also published a treatise on the laws of nature and motion. Of this the celebrated Wolfius makes mention, and asserts, that it illustrates and renders easy the writings of Galileo, Huygens, and the “Principia” of sir Isaac Newton. It is also noticed by De la Roche, in “The Memoiresde Literature,” vol. VIII. p. 46. In 1709 he published the “Synopsis Algebraicum” of John Alexander Bernatus Helvetius; with many additions and corrections. His treatise on Perspective was published in 1712. In this work he explained the principles of that art mathematically; and besides teaching the methods then generally practised, gave the first hints of the new method afterward enlarged upon and improved by Dr. Brook Taylor; and which was published in 1715. Several publications of Mr. Ditton’s appeared in 1714, one of which was a “Discourse upon the Resurrection of Jesus Christ;” the truth of which he here endeavoured to demonstrate. This work went through four editions, and was translated into several of the modern languages. Tindal, Collins, and some other authors, opposed it, and endeavoured to confute the reasoning; to whom Ditton had begun an answer, but died before it was finished; and his friends, upon revising it, found it too incomplete to hazard its publication. Another of his works that appeared in the same year, was, “The new law of Fluids; or, a Discourse concerning the ascent of liquids, in exact geometrical figures, between two nearly contiguous surfaces.” To this was annexed a tract, to demonstrate the impossibility of thinking or perception being the result of any combination of the parts of matter and motion; a subject much agitated in those days by the free-thinkers and their opponents. There was also adjoined to this work an advertisement from him and Mr. Whiston, concerning a method for discovering the longitude; which, it appears, they had published about half a year before. This attempt, it is thought, cost Mr. Ditton his life; for, although it was approved and countenanced by sir Isaac Newton, previously to its being presented to the Board of longitude, and the method lias been since successfully put in practice, in finding the longitude between Paris and Vienna, yet that board then determined against it. Such a disappointment, together with the public ridicule incurred, is supposed to have affected his health, but this we think unlikely, as his death was occasioned by a putrid fever, which proved fatal Oct. 15, 1715, in the fortieth year of his age. He was much regretted by the philosophical literati of that time, who expected from his assiduity, learning, and penetrating genius, many useful and ingenious discoveries. In an account of Mr. Ditton, prefixed to the German translation of his Discourse on the Resurrection, it is said, that he had published, in his own name only, another method for finding the longitude; but which Mr. Whiston denied. However, Raphael Levi, a learned Jew, who bad studied under Leibnitz, informed the German editor that he well knew that Ditton and Leibnitz hud corresponded upon the subject; and that Ditton had sent to Leibnitz a delineation of a machine he had invented that purpose; which was a piece of mechanism con with many wheels, like a clock, and which Leibnitz highly approved of for land use, but doubted whether it wouldanswer on ship-board, on account of the motion of the ship.

, a Polish historian, was born in Ml 5, at Brzeznich, a town in Poland, of which his father was governor. In his sixth year, his father being appointed governor of Korczyn, he was removed thither with the family, and began his education, which was continued in the different places of which his father was successively appointed governor, until he was sent to Cracow. Here and at other places he pursued his studies, with very little encouragement from his father, but found a friend in Zbigneus, bishop of Cracow, who was a patron of learned men. This prelate first placed him at the head of his chancery, after that of his house, and at last made him general manager of his affairs; and he acquitted himself so much to the satisfaction of the bishop, that on his death-bed he appointed him one of his executors. He had also ordained him priest at the age of twenty-five, and gave him some church preferment, particularly the living of St. Martin of Klobuczk, and a canonry of Cracow. He was afterwards promoted to be chanter, and treasurer of the church of Vissicza, canon of Sendomir, and got some other preferments less considerable. The only use he made of the wealth arising from these benefices, was to share it with poorer clergymen of talents and character;. or to bestow it on the poor, on the repairs of churches, and other pious purposes. Eugene IV. having appointed Zbigneus to the dignity of cardinal, and several impediments being thrown in the way of this preferment, Dlugoss went to Rome in 1449, and had these difficulties removed. Pope Nicholas V. employed him to carry the cardinal’s cap to the bishop, which he had the honour to put on his head in the cathedral of Cracovr, in the same year. In 1450 he took a journey to the land of Palestine, where he contemplated with veneration the places dignified by being the site of Scripture history. On his return to Poland, king Casimir IV. appointed him tutor to his sons, which office he filled for many years with great reputation. On the death of his early patron, cardinal Zbigneus, in April 1455, Dlugoss was accused by the brother of the deceased for having abused his confidence, a charge which he had little difficulty in repelling, but was less successful with the king, whose displeasure he incurred by espousing the cause of an ecclesiastic whom the pope had nominated bishop of Cracow, while the king had nominated another; and for this slight reason Dlugoss was exiled for the space of three years; at the end of which, however, he was recalled, and his majesty restored him to his favour, and not only consulted him on many public affairs of importance, but employed him to negociate in various parts of Europe, on matters respecting the interests of Poland. At length he was appointed archbishop of Leopold, but died before his consecration, May 29, 1480. His principal historical work is entitled “Historia Polonica,” the first volume of which was printed in 1615, fol. This edition, which is of rare occurrence, is one of the few scarce books which proceed from the private press of Herburt of Dobromil, It contains, however, only the first six books, bringing the history down to 1240; the rest remained in manuscript until 1711, when they were printed at Francfort, along with the preceding, under the title “J. Dlugossi historiie Polonicoe Hbri duodecim, &c.” This hrings the history down to 1444, but a continuation was published by J. G. Krause, which he called the thirteenth book, at Leipsic, 1712, folio, and which extends to 1480, the year of the author’s death. He is esteemed a very correct historian, although not free from the barbarism of his age. His other works are, 1. “Vita St. Stanislai episcopi et martyns,” Cracow, 1611 and 1666. 2. “Plocensium episcoporuin vita 1” which is inserted in “Stanislai Lubienski opera posthum^,” Antwerp, 1643, fol. 3.“Vitae episcoporum Postnajiiensium,” 1G'24, 4to and some other lives of bishops.

, an English painter, was born in London, in 1610. His father was master of the Alienation office; but “spending his estate upon women, necessity forced his son to be the most excellent painter that England hath yet bred.” He was put out early an apprentice to one Mr. Peake, a stationer and trader in pictures, with whom he served his time. Nature inclined him very powerfully to the practice of painting after the life, in which he had some instructions from Francis Cleyne; and, by his master’s procurement, he had the advantage of copying many excellent pictures, especially some of Titian and Van Dyck. How much he was beholden to the latter, may easily be seen in all his works; no painter having ever so happily imitated that excellent master, who was so much pleased with his performances, that he presented him to Charles I. This monarch took him into his immediate protection, kept him in Oxford all the while his majesty continued in that city, sat several times to him for his picture, and obliged the prince of Wales, prince Rupert, and most of the lords of his court, to do the like. Dobson \\as a fair, middle-sized man, of a ready wit and pleasing conversation; but somewhat loose and irregular in his way of living; and, notwithstanding the opportunities he had of making his fortune, died poor at his house in St. Martin’s-lane, in 1647. Although it was his misfortune to want suitable helps in beginning to apply himself to painting, and he was much disturbed by the commotions of the unhappy times tie nourished in, yet he shone out through all disadvantages; and it is universally agreed, that, had his education and encouragement been answerable to his genius, England might justly have been as proud of her Dobson, as Venice of her Titian, or Flanders of her Van Dyck. He was both a history and portrait painter; and there are in the collections of the dukes of Marlborough, Devonshire, Northumberland, and the earl of Pembroke, several of his pictures of both kinds.

, usually styled the Decalogist, from his Commentary on the commandments, and called by Fuller, the “last of the Puritans,” was a native of Shotledge, in. Cheshire; in which county there were several ancient families of the Dods; but to which of them he belonged, we have not been able to ascertain. He was born, the youngest of seventeen children, in 1547, and sent to school at WestChester, but Mr. Cole says he was educated at Winchester, a name which he probably transcribed hastily for the other. In 1561, when he was fourteen years of age, he was entered of Jesus college, Cambridge, of which he was chosen fellow in 1585, according to a ms note of Mr. Baker; and Mr. Cole adds, that he was junior proctor in 1614; both which dates must belong to some other person, as it does not appear that he remained in all more than sixteen years at college. At what time he took his master’s degree is uncertain, but a few years after, being appointed to oppose in the philosophy act at the commencement, he exhibited such a display of talents, as highly gratified his hearers, and in consequence, he had liberal offers to remove to Oxford. These he declined, but was incorporated M. A. in that university in 1585. Associating much with Drs. Fulke, Chaclerton, and Whitaker, he imbibed the principles and strictness for which they were famous, and conceived an early dislike to some of the ceremonies or discipline of the church, but to what we are not told. After taking orders, he first preached a weekly lecture at Ely, until invited by sir Anthony Cope to be minister of Hanwell, in Oxfordshire, in 1577, where he became a constant and diligent preacher, and highly popular. Nor was his hospitality Jess conspicuous, as he kept an open table on Sundays and Wednesdays lecture days, generally entertaining on these occasions from eight to twelve persons at dinner. At Hanwell he remained twenty years, in the course cf which he married, and had a large family; but, owing to his nonconformity in some points, he was suspended by Dr. Bridges, bishop of Oxford. After this, he preached for some time at Fenny-Compton, in Warwickshire, and from thence was called to Cannons Ashby, in Northamptonshire, where he was patronized by sir Erasmus Dryden but here again he was silenced, in consequence of a complaint made by bishop Neale to king James, who commanded archbishop Abbot to pronounce that sentence. During this suspension of his public services, he appears to have written his Commentary on the Decalogue and Proverbs, which he published in conjunction with one Robert Cleaver, probably another silenced puritan, of whom we can find no account. At length, by the interest of the family of Knightley, of Northamptonshire, after the death of king James, he was presented in 1624, to the living of Fawesley, in that county. Here he recommended himself as before, not more by his earnest and affectionate services in the pulpit, than by his charity and hospitality, and particularly by his frequent visits and advice which last he delivered in a manner peculiarly striking. A great many of his sayings became almost proverbial, and remained so for above a century, being, as may yet be remembered, frequently printed in a small tract, or on a broad sheet, and suspended in every cottage. On the commencement of the rebellion he suffered considerably, his house being plundered, as the house of a puritan, although he was a decided enemy to the proceedings of the republicans. When they were about to abolish the order of bishops, &c. Dr. Brownrig sent to Mr. Dod, for his opinion, who answered, that “he had been scandalized with the proud and tyrannical practises of the Marian bishops; but now, after more than sixty years’ experience of many protestant bishops, that had been worthy preachers, learned and orthodox writers, great champions for the protestant cause, he wished all his friends not to be any impediment to them, and exhorted all men not to take up arms against the king; which was his doctrine, he said, upon the fifth commandment, and he would never depart from it.” He died in August, 1645, at the very advanced age of ninety-seven, and was buried on the I9th of that month, at Fawesley, in Northamptonshire. Fuller says, “with him the Old Puritan seemed to expire, and in his grave to be interred. Humble, meek, patient, charitable as in his censures of, so in his alms to others. Would I could truly say but half so much of the next generation!” “He was,” says the same author, “a passive nonconformist, not loving any one the worse for difference in judgment about ceremonies, but all the better for their unity of affections in grace and goodness. He used to retrench some hot spirits when inveighing against bishops, telling them how God under that government had given a marvellous increase to the gospel, and that godly men might comfortably comport therewith, under which learning and religion had so manifest an improvement.” He was an excellent scholar, particularly in the Hebrew language, which he taught to the celebrated John Gregory, of Christchurch, Oxford. The no less celebrated Dr. Wilkins was his grandson, and born in his house at Fawesley, in 1614, a date which seems to interfere with that given above as the date of Mr. Dod’s presentation to Fawesley, which we have taken from the register in Bridges’s Northamptonshire, but he might probably have resided there previous to the living becoming vacant. Of his works we know only that which conferred on him the name of the Decalogist, “A plain and familiar Exposition of the Ten Commandments,” London, 1606, 4to; and “A plain and familiar Exposition” of certain chapters of the Book of Proverbs, 1606, 4to, published at different times; and the prefaces signed by Dod and Cleaver. There are some original letters by Dod in the British Museum, (Ayscough, No. 4275), addressed to lady Vere. They consist chiefly of pious exhortations respecting the confused state of public affairs. In one of them, dated Dec. 20, 1642, he says, he is “not far off ninety-five years old,” which has enabled us to ascertain his age, hitherto incorrectly given by his biographers.

, a Roman catholic historian, deserves a fuller memorial than can now be recovered. All we know of him is derived from Mr. Berrington, who informs us that he was a clergyman of the Roman church, resided at Harvington in Worcestershire, and died there about the year 1745. His virtues and talents were eminent, and his labours in the range of literature were incessant and manifold. The work that has principally given celebrity to his name is a “Church History of England,” 1737 1742, 3 vols. folio, with the place of Brussels, but evidently from the type, &c. printed in England. Having had repeated occasion to consult it, we are ready to acknowledge our obligations for information derived from this history, which cost the author the labour of thirty years; and we agree with Mr. Berrington, that it contains much curious matter, collected with great assiduity, and many original records. The author’s style, when the subject admits expression, is pure and unincumbered, his narration easy, and his reflections just and liberal, at least as much so as can be expected from an undisguised zeal for a certain train of opinions, and certain views of history. His materials are perhaps not well arranged, and he was himself, we are told, so dissatisfied, as, with his own hand, to copy this voluminous work into two or three different forms. This history remained for many years almost unknown, and we can remember when it was sold almost at the price of waste-paper. Its worth is now better ascertained, and the last copy offered for sale, belonging to the marquis Tenvnshend’s library, was sold for ten guineas.

, an ingenious divine, of unfortunate memory, was born in 1729, at Bourne in Lincolnshire; of which place his father, of the same names, was many years vicar. After being educated at a private school in classical learning, he was admitted a sizar of Clare-hall in Cambridge in 1745, where he gave early proofs of parts and scholarship, and so early as in 1747 began to publish little pieces of poetry. In this year he published (without his name) “A Pastoral on the Distemper among the horned cattle;” in 174y, “The African prince, now in England, to Zara at his father’s court,” and “Zara’s answer;” in 1750, “A day in Vacation at College,” a mock-heroic poem in blank verse abridgments of Grotius “De jure belli et pacis,” and of Clarke on the being and attributes of God, with sir Jeffrey Gilbert’s Abstract of Locke on the human understanding, all inscribed to Dr. Keene, then vice-chancellor of the university, and afterwards bishop of Ely, under the title “Synopsis compendiaria Librorum H. Gfotii de jure belli et pacis, S. Clarkii de Dei existentia et attributes, et J. Lockii de intellectu humano.” He published also, while at Cambridge, “A new Book of the Dunciad, occasioned by Mr. Warburton’s edition of the Dunciad complete,” in which “Warburton is made the hero. About the same time he published proposals for a translation, by subscription, of the Hymns of Callimaehus, the fragments of Orpheus, &c. from the Greek; and wrote a tragedy, with choruses, called” The Syracusan.“He continued to make frequent publications in this light way, in which there were always marks of sprightliness and ingenuity; but at the same time imbibed that taste for expence and dissipation which finally proved his ruin. In January 1750 he took the degree of 13. A. with reputation; and that of master in 1757. Before he was in orders he had begun and finished his selection of 4< The Beauties of Shakspeare,” which he published soon after in 2 vols. 12mo, and, at the conclusion of the preface, tells us, as if resigning all pursuits of the profane kind, that “better and more important things henceforth demanded his attention:” nevertheless, in 1755, he published his translation of the hymns of Callimachus, in English verse; in the preface to which he was assisted by Mr. (afterwards Dr.) Home, bishop of Norwich. Happy would it have been, had he remained longer in the friendship of that excellent man, whom, however, he soon disgusted by his vanity and unbecoming conduct. His “Callimachus” was dedicated to the duke of Newcastle, by tile recommendation of Dr. Keene, bishop of Chester; who, having conceived a good opinion of Dodd at the university, was desirous of bringing him forward into the world.

In 1753 he received orders; and, being now settled in London, soon became a very popular and celebrated preacher. He obtained several lectureships that of West- Ham and Bow, that of St. James Garlickhithe, and that of St. Olave Hart-street; and was appointed to preach a course of lady Moyer’s lectures and he advanced his theological character greatly, by an almost uninterrupted publication of sermons and tracts of piety. And farther to keep up the profession of sanctity, and increase his popularky, he was very zealous in promoting and assisting at charitable institutions, and distinguished himself much in. regard to the Magdalen hospital, which was opened in August 1758: he became preacher at the chapel of this charity, for which he was allowed yearly I Oo/. But, notwithstanding his apparent attention to spiritual concerns, he was much more in earnest, and indeed in earnest only in cultivating his temporal interests; but all his expedients were not successful, and his subservient flattery was sometimes seen through. In 1759 he published in 2 vols. 12mo, bishop Hall’s Meditations, and dedicated them to Miss Talbot, who lived in the family of archbishop Seeker; and, on the honour the marquis of Granby acquired in Germany, addressed an ode to the marchioness. His dedication to Miss Talbot was too extravagant a piece of flattery not to miss its aim, and gave such offence to the archbishop, that, after a warm epistolary expostulation, his grace insisted on the sheet being cancelled in all the remaining copies.

Dr. Squire, who in 1760 was made bishop of St. David’s, had published the year before a work entitled “Indifference for Religion inexcusable:” on the appearance of which, Dodd wrote a sonnet, and addressed it to the author, who was so well pleased with this mark of his attention, that in 1761 he made him his chaplain, and in 1763 procured for him a prebend of Brecon. He also egregiously flattered this prelate in “The Public Ledger,” in which he then wrote: and about the same time he is supposed to have defended the measures of administration, in some political pieces. From 1760 to 1767 he superintended and contributed largely to “The Christian’s Magazine,” for which he received from the proprietors 100l. yearly. By all these employments and contrivances he earned money enough to support a man of moderate expences; but a very considerable fortune would have been too small for the luxurious style of living in which he delighted to indulge, and which in him may have been reckoned original, as he never lived in any situation where he could have acquired the habit.

Still, however, he preserved theological appearances; and he now meditated a design of publishing a large commentary on the Bible. In order to give the greater éclat to this undertaking, and draw the public attention upon it, it was, announced, that lord Masham presented him with Mss. of Mr. Locke, found in his lordship’s library at Oates; and that he had helps also from Mss. of lord Clarendon, Dr. Watcrland, Gilbert West, and other celebrated men. He began to publish this commentary, 1765, in weekly and monthly numbers; and continued to publish it regularly till it was completed in 3 vols. folio. It was dedicated to his patron bishop Squire, who died in May the year following, 1766; and was lamented (we believe very sincerely) by our commentator, in a funeral sermon dedicated to his widow. This year he took the degree of LL. D. at Cambridge, having been made a chaplain to the king some time before. His next publication was a volume of his poems, in 8vo. In 1769 he published a translation from the French, of “Sermons preached before Lewis XV. during his minority, by Massillon, bishop of Clermont.” They were called “Sermons on the duties of the great,” and inscribed to the prince of Wales. In 1771 he published “Sermons to Young Men,” 3 vols. 12mo. These he dedicated to his pupils Charles Ernst and Philip Stanhope, now earl of Chesterfield, he having become tutor to the latter, by the recommendation of bishop Squire.

In 1772 he was presented to the living of Hockliffe in Bedfordshire: but such a preferment was of little avail in supplying his wants. The habits of expence had gained an irresistible ascendancy over him: he was vain; he was pompous; which persons emerging from low situations in life are apt to be; and thus became involved and sinking under debts. To relieve himself, he was tempted to a step which ruined him for ever with those who had not before seen through his character; and this was, to procure by indirect means the rectory of St. George’s, Hanoversquare. On the preferment of Dr. Moss to the see of Bath and Wells, in 1774, that rectory fell to the disposal of the crown; on which, Dodd caused an anonymous letter to be sent to lady Apsley, offering the sum of 3000l. if by her means he could be presented to the living: the letter was immediately communicated to the chancellor; and, after being traced to the sender, laid before the king. His name was ordered to be struck out of the list of chaplains; the press abounded with satire and invective; he was abused and ridiculed in the papers of the day; and, to crown the whole, the transaction became a subject of entertainment, in one of Foote’s performances at the Haymarket. All the answer he made was a short letter in the newspapers, requesting the public to suspend their opinions, and promising an elucidation of the affair, which never appeared.

Stung with shame, if not remorse, he decamped for a season; and went to his pupil then at Geneva, who added to Hocklitfe the living of Winge in Buckinghamshire: but his extravagance continued undiminished, and drove him to schemes which covered him with infamy. He now became the editor of a newspaper, and is said to have attempted a disengagement from his debts by a commission of bankruptcy, in which, however, he failed. From this period every step led to complete his ruin. In the summer of 1776 he went to France; and, as if he had a mind to wanton in folly, paraded in a phaeton at the races on the plains of Sablons, tricked out in all the foppery of French attire. He returned in the beginning of winter, and proceeded to exercise his function with the same formality and affected earnestness as formerly, particularly at the Magdalen chapel, where his last sermon was preached, Feb. 2, 1777. Two days after this, he signed a bond, which he had forged as from his pupil lord Chesterfield, for the sum of 400l. and, upon the credit of it, obtained a considerable sum of money but detection instantly following, he was committed to prison, tried and convicted at the Old Bailey, Feb. 24, and executed at Tyburn, June 27, where he exhibited every appearance of penitence. The unusual distance between the pronouncing and executing of his sentence was owing to a doubt for some time, respecting the admissibility of an evidence, whose testimony had been made use of to convict him.

Lord Melcombe is allowed to have been generous, magnificent, and convivial, but more respected as a private gentleman than as a politician. In the one character he was free, easy, and engaging; in the other intriguing, close, and reserved. His reigning passion was to be well at court, and to this object he sacrificed every circumstance of his life. Lord Orford says of him that he was “ostentatious in his person, houses, and furniture, and wanted in his expences the taste he never wanted in his conversation. Pope and Churchill treated him more severely than he deserved, a fate that may attend a man of the greatest wit, when his parts are more suited to society than to composition. The verse remains, the bon-mots and sallies are forgotten.” He was handsome, and of a striking figure, but in his latter days was probably singular in his dress. Churchill ridicules his wig, and Hogarth has introduced it in one of his “orders of periwigs.” His patronage of learned men descended from Young, Thomson, and Glover, to the meaner political hirelings who frequented the prince’s court. And among his intimate friends, besides Young, Thomson, and Glover, were Fielding, Bentley, Voltaire, Lyttelton, lord Chesterfield, lord Peterborough, Dr. Gregory Sharpe, &c. and among his lower associates, Ralph, Paul Whitehead, and a Dr. Thomson, a physician without practice or manners, served to add to the hilarity of his table. Most of his biographers have reported that he was a single man, but he certainly was married, as in his letters he frequently speaks of Mrs. Dodington, whose heart was placed in an urn at the top of an obelisk which he erected at Hammersmith. When she died we know not, but as she left no family, he is reported to have used some singular expedients for procuring an heir, which were as unsuccessful as immoral and foolish. He bequeathed his whole property, a few legacies excepted, to the late Thomas Wyndham, esq. of Hammersmith. The mansion which he built at Eastbury came, as already observed in the note, to the marquis of Buckingham, and was taken down a few years ago. Part of the offices were left standing, and have been converted into a very convenient house by J. Wedgewood, esq. who purchased the estate of the marquis of Buckingham. His villa at Hammersmith became a few years ago the property of the margrave of Anspach.

, an eminent English lawyer, the son of Richard Doddridge, of a Devonshire family, was born at Barnstaple in 1555. In 1572 he was entered of Exeter college, Oxford, where he studied four years; after which he was removed to the Middle Temple, London, where he became a great proficient in the law, and a noted counsellor. In the forty-fifth year of the reign of queen Elizabeth he was Lent reader of that house; and on the 20th of January, 1603-4, he was called to the degree of serjeant-at-law, at which time he had the honour of being appointed serjeant to Henry prince of Wales. From this employment he was raised, in the succeeding year, to be solicitor-general to the king, and on the 25th of June 1607, he was constituted his majesty’s principal serjeantat-law, and was knighted on the fifth of July following. In February 1612-13, he was created M. A. at his chambers in Serjeants Inn by the vice-chancellor, the two proctors, and five other members of the university of Oxford. This peculiar honour was conferred upon him in gratitude for the great service he had done to the university in several law-suits depending between the city of Oxford and the university. On the 22d of April 1013, he was appointed one of the judges of the court of king’s bench, in which, office he continued till his death. In this station he appears to have conducted himself with great integrity as well as ability. However, in April, 162, he and the other judges of the court were called upon to assign their reasons in the house of lords, for having given judgment against admitting five gentlemen to bail, who had been imprisoned for refusing the loan which had lately been demanded by the crown. Sir Nicholas Hyde, lord chief justice, sir John Doddridge, Mr. Justice Jones, and Mr. Justice Whitlocke, each of them spoke upon the occasion, and made the best defence which the nature of the case would admit. If they were guilty of a mistake, which cannot now reasonably be doubted, they seem to have been led into it in the sincerity of their hearts, from the notions they entertained of regal power, and probably from their perceiving the drift of parliament in these proceedings. Sir John Doddridge, in his speech, asserts the,

index. Faulkner’s Hist, of Fulham. Park’s Royal and Noble Authors. Cumberland’s Life. Some account of his uncle, Knight’s Life ofColet. Hawkins’s Life of Johnson. Dodsley’s, Pcareh’s, and NiclioU's Poems. Bowles’s edition of Pope’s Works, Louoj^r’s Common-place li^ok, vol. 1. Cose’s Life of purity of his own character in the following terms: “It is no more fit for a judge to decline to give an account of his doings than for a Christian of his faith. God knoweth I have endeavoured always to keep a good conscience; for a troubled one who can bear? I have now sat in this court fifteen years, and I should know something. Surely, if I had gone in a mill so long, dust would cleave to my clothes. I am old, and have one foot in the grave; therefore I will look to the better part as near as 1 can. But omnia haberc in memoria, et in nullo errarc, divinum potius est quain human um.” He died Sept. 13, 1628, in the seventy-third year of his age, and was buried in the ambulatory before the door of the library, formerly called Lady Mary’s Chapel, in the cathedral church of Exeter. Within that library is a very sumptuous monument erected to his memory, containing his figure and that of his wife, cut in alabaster, under a stately arch supported by marble pillars. This learned judge, by his happy education, accompanied with excellent natural parts and unremitted industry, became so general a scholar, that it was said of him, that it was difficult to determine whether he were the better artist, divine, civil or common lawyer. Among his other studies, he was a great lover of antiquities, and attained to such an eminence of knowledge and skill in that department of literature, that he was regarded as one of the ablest members of the famous society of antiquaries, which may be said to have begun in 1571, but which more particularly flourished from 1590 to 1614. Rewrote, I. “The Lawyer’s Light; or, due direction for the study of the Law,” London, 1629, 4to. 2. “A complete Parson, or a description of advowsons and church livings, delivered in several readings, in an inn of chancery called the New Inn,” printed 1602, 1603, 1630, 4to. 3. “The History of the ancient and modern estate of the principality of Wales, duchy of Cornwall, and earldom of Chester,” 1630, 4to. 4. “The English Lawyer, a treatise describing a method for the managing of the Laws of this Land, and expressing the best qualities requisite in the student, practiser, judges, &c.” London, 1631, 4to. 5. “Opinion touching the antiquity, power, order, state, manner, persons, and proceedings, of the High Courts of Parliament in England,” London, 1658, 8vo. 6. “A Treatise of particular Estates,” London, 1677, duodecimo, printed at the end of the fourth edition of William Noy’s Works, entitled, “The Ground and Maxims of the Law.” 7. “A true representation of forepassed Parliaments to the view of the present times and posterity.” This still remains in manuscript. Sir John Doddridge also enlarged a book called “The Magazine of Honour,” London, 1642. 7'he same book was afterwards published under his name by the title of “The Law of Nobility and Peerage,” Lond. 16S7, 1658, 8vo. In the Collection of curious Discourses, written by eminent antiquaries, are two dissertations by our judge; one of which is on the dimensions of the land of England, and the other on the office and duty of heralds in this country. Mr. Bridgman, in his “Legal Bibliography,” informs us that many valuable works have been attributed to sir John Doddridge, which in their title-pages have borne the names of others. He mentions particularly Sheppard’s “Law of Common Assurances touching Deeds in general,” and “Wentworth’s office and dutie of Executors;” both which are said to have been written by Doddridge.

, an eminent dissenting divine, great-grand-nephew to the preceding, was the son of the nonconformist rector of Shepperton in Middlesex, and was born in London, June 26th, 1702. At his birth he was so weakly that he was regarded as dead; but by attention and care he recovered some degree of strength. His constitution, however, was always feeble, and probably rendered more so by the assiduity with which he prosecuted his studies and public services. To his pious parents he was indebted for early instruction in religion, and for those salutary impressions which were never erased from his mind. His classical education commenced in London, but being left an orphan in his thirteenth year, he was removed to a private school at St. Alban’s, where he had the happiness of commencing an acquaintance with Mr. (afterwards Dr.) Samuel Clark, the dissenting minister of the place; and having lost his whole patrimony after his father’s death, the protection of this friend enabled him to pursue the course of his studies. In 1715 he left St. Alban’s, and retired to the house of his sister, the wife of Mr. John Nettleton, a dissenting minister at Ongar, in Essex, and while deliberating on the course of life which he should pursue, he received offers of encouragement and support from the duchess of Bedford, if he chose to be educated in one of the universities for the church of England; but could not conscientiously comply with the terms of conformity. Others advised him to devote himself to the profession of the law; but before he had finally determined, he received a letter from Mr. Clark, with generous offers of assistance, if he chose the ministry among the dissenters. These offers he thankfully accepted; and after continuing for some months at St. Alban’s in the house of his benefactor, he was placed, in October 1719, under the tuition of the reverend John Jennings, who kept an academy for the education of nonconformist ministers at Kibworth in Leicestershire. Here he paid particular attention to classical literature, and cultivated an acquaintance with the Greek writers, and also with the best authors of his own country. In 1722, having obtained an ample testimonial from a committee of ministers, by whom he was examined, he became a preacher at Kibworth, which he preferred, because it was an obscure village, and the congregation was small, so that he could pursue his studies with little interruption. During his residence at this place, from June 1723 to October 1725, he is said to have excelled as a preacher. At first he paid particular attention to his compositions, and thus acquired a habit of delivering his sentiments usually with judgment, and always with ease and freedom of language, when he was afterwards, by a multiplicity of engagements, reduced to the necessity of extempore speaking. In 1725, he removed to Market-Harborough, to enjoy the conversation and advice of Mr. Some, the pastor of the congregation in that place and after the year 1727, when he was chosen assistant to Mr. Some, he preached alternately at Kibworth and MarketHarborough. He received several invitations from congregations much more numerous than these; but he determined to adhere to the plan, which he had adopted, of pursuing his schemes of improvement in a more private residence. When he left the academy, his tutor, Mr. Jennings, not long before his death, which happened in 1723, advised him to keep in view the improvement of the course of lectures on which he had attended; and this advice he assiduously regarded during his retirement at Kibworth. Mr. Jennings foresaw, that, in case of his own death, Mr. Doddridge was the most likely of any of his pupils to complete the schemes which he had formed, and to undertake the conduct of a theological academy. Mr. Doddridge’s qualifications for the office of tutor were generally known and approved, in consequence of a plan for conducting the preparatory studies of young persons intended for the ministry, which he had drawn up at the desire of a friend, whose death prevented his carrying it into effect. This plan was shewn to Dr. Watts, who had then no personal acquaintance with the author; but he was so much pleased with it, that he concurred with others in the opinion, that the person who had drawn it up was best qualified for executing it. Accordingly he was unanimously solicited to undertake the arduous office; and after some hesitation, and with a very great degree of diffidence, he consented to undertake it. Availing himself of all the information and assistance which he could obtain from conversation and correspondence with his numerous friends, he opened his academy at Midsummer, in 1729, at Market- Harborongh. Having continued in this situation for a few months, he was invited by a congregation at Northampton; and he removed thither in December 1729; and in March of the following year, he was ordained according to the mode usually practised among dissenters. In this place he engaged, in a very high degree, the love and attachment of his congregation; and he observes, in his last will, “that he had spent the most delightful hours of his life in assisting the devotions of as seuious, as grateful, and as deserving a people, as perhaps any minister had ever the happiness to serve.”

In 1730, Mr. Doddridge entered into the matrimonial relation, with a lady who possessed every qualification that could conduce to his happiness, and who survived him. many years. At the first removal of the academy to Northampton, the number of students was small; but it increased every year; so that, in 1734, it became necessary to have a stated assistant, to whom the care of some of the junior pupils was committed. The number of students was, one year with another, thirty-four. The system of education being liberal, many received instruction in his academy, who were members of the established church. And in the course of the twenty years, during which Mr. Doddridg presided over it, he acquired high reputation both as a preacher, tutor, and author. Of his detached works, consisting of tracts and sermons, it would be unnecessary ta give a particular list, as they are now published in a collection of his works. The most popular of them was his “Rise and Progress of Religion in the Soul,” which has gone through numerous editions, and been translated into the Dutch, German, Danish, and French languages; and the most useful is his “Family Expositor,” in 6 vols. 4to, which has lately risen in reputation, and been often reprinted in 6 vols. 8vo. His “Course of Lectures,” published after his death by the rev. Samuel Clark, 1763, 4to, is also a work of great utility, and was republished in 1794, 2 vols. 8vo, by Dr. Kippis, with very extensive and valuable additions. Dr. Dodd ridge also wrote some hymns, and though inferior to those of Dr. Watts, he gave at least one evidence of his poetical taste and powers, in the excellent lines which he wrote on the motto to the arms of his family, ll dum vivimus vivamus," which are highly commended by Dr. Johnson, and represented as containing one of the finest epigrams in the English language.

From the course of Dr. Doddridge’s life, and the multiplicity of his labours, his application must have been incessant, and with little time for exercise and recreation. His constitution was always feeble, and his friends deprecated the injurious effects of his unintermitting assiduity and exertion. By degrees, however, his delicate frame was so impaired, that it could not bear the attack of disease. In December 1750, he went to St. Alban’s to preach the funeral sermon of his friend Dr. Clark, and in the course of his journey he caught a cold, which brought on a pulmonary complaint, that resisted every remedy. But notwithstanding the advice and remonstrances of those who apprehended his death, and wished to prolong his usefulness, he would not decline or diminish the employments in the academy, and with his congregation, in which he* took great delight. At length he was obliged to submit; and to withdraw from all public services to the house of his friend Mr. Orton, at Shrewsbury. Notwithstanding some relief which his recess from business afforded him, his disorder gained ground; and his medical friends advised him to make trial of the Bristol waters. The physicians of this place afforded him little hope of lasting benefit; and he received their report of his case with Christian fortitude and resignation. As the last resort in his case, he was advised to pass the winter in a warmer climate; and at length he was prevailed upon to go to Lisbon, where he met with every attention which friendship and medical skill could afford him. But his case was hopeless. Arriving at Lisbon on the 13th of October, the rainy season came on, and prevented his deriving any benefit from air and exercise, and in a few days he was seized with a colliquative diarrhoea, which rapidly exhausted his remaining strength. He preserved, however, to the last the same calmness, vigour, and joy of mind, which he had felt and expressed through the whole of his disease. The only anxiety he seemed to feel was occasioned by the situation in which Mrs. Doddridge would be left upon his removal. To his children, his congregation, and his friends in general, he desired to be remembered in the most affectionate manner; nor did he forget a single person, not even his servant, in the effusions of his benevolence. Many devout sentiments and aspirations were uttered by him on the last day but one preceding that of his death. At length, his release took place on the 26th of October, O. S. about 3 o'clock in the morning; and though he died in a foreign land, and in a certain sense among strangers, his decease was embalmed with many tears, nor was he molested, in his last moments, by the officious zeal of any of the priests of the church of Rome. His body was opened, and his lungs were found to be in a very ulcerated state. His remains were deposited in the most respectful manner in the burying-ground belonging to the British factory at Lisbon. His congregation erected in his meeting-house a handsome monument to his memory, on which is an inscription drawn up by his much esteemed and ingenious friend, Gilbert West, esq. Dr. Doddridge left four children, one son and three daughters, and his widow survived him more than forty years. His funeral sermon was preached by Mr. Orton from I Cor. xv. 54; and it was extensively circulated under the title of “The Christian’s triumph over death.” His character stands high among the dissenters, no man with equal powers and equal popularity having appeared among them in the course of last century, Dr. Watts excepied. Dr. Doddridge was an indefatigable student, and his mind was furnished with a rich stock of various learning. His acquaintance with books, ancient and modern, was very extensive and if not a profound scholar, he was sufficiently acquainted with the learned languages to make a considerable figure as a critic and commentator. To history, ecclesiastical as well as civil, he had paid no small degree of attention; and while from his disposition he was led to cultivate a taste for polite literature in general, more than for the abstruser parts of science, he was far from being a stranger to mathematical and philosophical studies. But the favourite object of his pursuit, and that in which his chief excellence lay, was divinity, taking that word in its largest sense. As a preacher. Dr. Doddridge was much esteemed and very popular. But his biographers have had some difficulty in vindicating him from the charge of being what is called a trimmer^ that is, accommodating his discourses to congregations of different sentiments nor do we think they have succeeded in proving him exempt from the appearance at least of inconsistency, or obsequious timidity. We are informed, however, that his piety was ardent, unaffected, and cheerful, and particularly displayed in the resignation and serenity with which he bore his affliction. His moral conduct was not only irreproachable, but in every respect exemplary. To his piety he joined the warmest benevolence towards his fellow- creatures, which was manifested in the most active exertions for their welfare within the compass of his abilities or influence. His private manners were polite, affable, and engaging; which rendered him the delight of those who had the happii. of his acquaintance. No man exercised more candour and moderation towards those who differed from him in religious opinions. Of these qualities there are abundant proofs in the extensive correspondence he carried on with many eminent divines in the establishment, and of other persuasions.

, a learned physician and botanist, of a West Friesland family of good repute, was born at Mechlin, in 1517. He studied medicine at Louvaine, and afterwards visited the celebrated universities of France and Italy, and to his medical knowledge added an acquaintance with the classics and polite literature. On his return from Italy, his reputation procured him the honour of being appointed physician to the emperors Maximilian II. and Rodolph II. Having been obliged during the civil wars of his time to quit the imperial court, in order to take care of his property at Mechlin and Antwerp, he resided awhile at Cologne, from whence he was persuaded to return to Antwerp but soon afterwards he became professor of physic in the newlyfounded university of Leyden, with an ample stipend. This took place in 1582, and he sustained the credit of his appointment by his lectures and various writings, till death put a period to his labours in March 1585, in the sixtyeighth year of his age. It appears by his epitaph at Leyden, that he left a son of his own name behind him. Dodoens is recorded to have excelled in a knowledge of the history of his own country, and especially in genealogical inquiries, as well as in medicine. His chief fame at present rests on his botanical publications, particularly his “Pemptades,” or 30 books of the history of plants, in 1 vol. folio, published at Antwerp in 1583, and again in 1612 and 1616. This is still a book of general reference on account of the wooden cuts, which are numerous and expressive. Hailer reckons it “a good and useful work, though not of the first rate.” The author had previously published some lesser works in 8vo, as “Frugum Histona,” printed at Antwerp, in 1552, including the various kinds of corn and pulse, with their virtues and qualities, often copied, as Haller remarks, literally from ancient authors, who perhaps do not always speak of the same plants. This work, likewise, is illustrated by wooden cuts. His “Herbarium Belgicum” first appeared in the German language in 1553, and again in 1557; which last Ci us ius translated into French. From the French edition “Henry Lyte, esquyer” composed his Herbrl, which is pretty nearly a translation of the whole. It was published in 1578, and went through several subsequent editions. This work, in its various languages and editions, is accompanied by wooden cuts, very inferior, for the most part, to those in the above-mentioned “Pemptades.” Halier records an epitome of Dodoens by William Kam, printed at London, in 1606, 4to, under the title of “Little Dodoen.” This we have never seen.

, an English poet and miscellaneous writer, was born at Mansfield, in Nottinghamshire, in 1703. His father is said to have kept the tree-school at Mansfield, a situation in which it is natural to suppose he could have bestowed some education on his children, yet it is not easy to reconcile this with the servile track of life into which they were obliged to enter. He is described as a little deformed man, who, after having a large family by his first wife, married at the age of seventy-five a young girl of only seventeen years, by whom he had a child. Of his sons, A Ivory lived many years, and died in the service of the late sir George Saville; Isaac was for some time gardener to Mr. Allen, of Prior-park, and afterwards to lord Weymouth, at Long-leat. In these two families he spent fifty-two years of his life; and has the credit of being the projector of some of the beautiful plantations at both those seats. He retired from Long-leat at the age of seventy-eight, and died about three years after. There was a third, John, whose name with that of Alvory, and of the father, is among the subscribers to our poet’s first publication. James, who was twenty-two years younger than Robert, will come to be mentioned hereafter; when he was taken into partnership. How he passed the preceding part of his time is not known. Of Robert, nothing is now remembered in his native town, but a traditional story, that he was put apprentice to a stocking-weaver of that place, and that, being almost starved, he ran away, and was hired by a lady as her footman: this lady, it is added, observing that he employed his leisure hours in reading, gave him every encouragement; and soon after he wrote an entertainment, which was shewn to Pope and others. Part of this story is probable, but too much of his history is crowded into it. His first service was not that of a lady, nor was the entertainment (The Toy-shop) his first production.

Although he was probably not in many stations of the menial kind, it is certain that he was once footman to Charles Dartiquenave, (or, as spelt by Swift, Dartineuf,) esq. paymaster of the works, and the Darty who is noticed by Pope,

His gluttony, which was long proverbial, suggested to lord Lyttelton to introduce him, in his Dialogues of the Pead, holding a conversation with Apicius. The story of the Ham-pye, Dr. Wartoii assures us, was confirmed by Dodsley, who knew Dartineuf, and, as he candidly owned, had waited on him at dinner; or, as he said more explicitly to Dr. Johnson, “v*as his footman.” He served afterxvards, in the same humble station, in the family of the hon. Mrs. Lowther, where his conduct procured him respect, and his abilities, distinction. Several of his smaller poems were written while in this family, and being shewn to his mistress and her visitors, he was encouraged to publish them by a very liberal subscription, including about two hundred names of considerable note. His volume had the very appropriate title of “The Muse in Livery; or, The Footman’s Miscellany,” a thin 8vo, published in 1732. In his preface he alludes very feelingly to the many disadvantages of his humble condition; and in an emblematical frontispiece is a figure intended to represent himself, the right foot chained to despair, the right hand chained by poverty to misery, folly, and ignorance, the left hand winged, and endeavouring in vaiu to reach happiness, virtue, and knowledge.

His next attempt was more successful than the publication or' his poems, and, considering the disadvantages of a life of servitude, more extraordinary; he wrote a dramatic piece, entitled “The Toy-shop,” the style of which discovers an improvement which to those who had just read “The Muse in Livery,” must have appeared wonderful. This the author determined to submit to Pope in manuscript. He tells us he had a great regard for that poet, before he had the honour of being known to him, and “it was a great mortification to him that he used to think himself too inconsiderable ever to merit his notice or esteem,. However, some time after I had wrote the Toy-shop, hoping there was something in it which might recommend me to him in a moral capacity, at least, though not in a poetical one, I sent it to him, and desired his opinion of it; expressing some doubt, that though I designed it for the stage, yet, unless its novelty would recommend it, I was afraid it would not bear a public representation, and therefore had not offered it to the actors.”

Almost from the commencement of trade, Dodsley became a speculator in various literary undertakings, either original or compiled. So rapid was his success, that before he had been three years in business, he became a purchaser of copyrights; and it is among the most striking of those occurrences which diversify the lives of men of literary eminence, that, in 1738, the truly illustrious Dr. Samuel Johnson was glad to sell his first original publication to humble Robert Dodsley, for the small sum of ten guineas. We find by Mr. Boswell’s very interesting account of this transaction, that Dodsley was the first to discover the merits of Johnson’s “London,” and was desirous to purchase an article of which as a tradesman he had not miscalculated the value. But before this time Dodsley’s shop must have been in considerable reputation, as in April 1737 he published Pope’s “Second Epistle of the Second Book of Horace,” and in the following month Pope assigned over to him the sole property of his “Letters,” and afterwards that of vols. V. and VI. of his Works, and some of his detached pieces. Not long after, Young and Akenside published their works at his shop, and as early as March 1738-9, he became a partner with some of his brethren in the copyright of established authors. The first of his literary schemes was a periodical journal, which appears to have escaped the researches of his biographers, entitled “The Public Register, or Weekly Magazine,” begun Jan. 3, 1741, each number of which consisted of sixteen 4to pages, handsomely printed, and was sold for three-pence. Although Dodsley appears to have lived on friendly terms with Cave, the printer, who referred Johnson to him as a lit publisher of the “London,” yet this Register was undoubtedly one of the many attempts made at that time to rival me uncommon and much envied success of the Gentleman’s Magazine, and like them was soon obliged to yield to the superior popularity of that valuable miscellany. Dodsley and Cave abused one another a little, as rival projectors, but were probably reconciled when the cause was removed. The contents of Dodsley’s “Public Register” were original letters and essays in prose and verse records of literature; the substance of the parliamentary debates, with news foreign and domestic, and advertisements relating to books. The original essays were contributed by his mends, and many of them probably by himself. It proceeded as far as the twenty-fourth number, when the editor thought proper to stop. He urges in his farewell address, “the additional expense he was at in stamping it, and the ungenerous usage he met with from one of the proprietors of u certain monthly pamphlet, who prevailed with most of the common newspapers not to advertise it.” In 1745, he wrote a little poetical piece called “Rex et Pontifcx,” which he meant as an attempt to introduce a new species of ^pantomime upon the stage. It was not, however, received by any of the theatres, and probably was considered only as a political effusion for a temporary purpose. In 1746, he projected another periodical work, entitled “The Museum, or the Literary and Historical Register,” published every fortnight, in an 8vo size. Of this concern he had only a fourth share, the rest being the property of Mess. Longman, Shewell, Hitch, and Rivington. It extended to three volumes, and contains a greater variety of original essays of real merit than any similar undertaking within our memory, nor will this be doubted, when it is added that among the contributors were Spence, Horace Walpole, the two Wartons, Akenside, Lowth, Smart, Gilbert Cooper, William Whitehead, Merrick, and Campbell. This last wrote those political papers which he afterwards collected, enlarged, and published under the title of “The Present State of Europe.”

In 1748 our author published a work of yet greater popularity and acknowledged value in the instruction of youth, feis “Preceptor,” to which some of the parties just mentioned contributed. Dr. Johnson furnished the Preface, and “The Vision of Theodore the Hermit.” In the be ginning of the following year, Dodsley purchased Johnson’s “Vanity of Human Wishes,” for the small sum of fifteen guineas, but Johnson reserved the right of printing one edition. It is a better proof of Dodsley’s enterprising Spirit that he was the first who suggested the scheme of the English Dictionary, upon which Dr. Johnson was at this time employed; and is supposed to have procured some hints from Pope, among whose friends a scheme of this kind had been long entertained. Pope, however, did not live to see the excellent Prospectus which Johnson published in 1747. In 1748, Dodsley collected together in one volume his dramatic pieces, under the modest title of “Trifles.” On the peace of Aix-la-Chapelle, he wrote the “Triumph of Peace,” a masque, which was set to music by Dr. Arne, and performed at Drury-lane in 1748-9. In 1750 he published a small volume, unlike any of his former attempts, entitled “The Œconomy of Human Life, translated from an Indian manuscript, written by an ancient Bramin; to which is prefixed, an account of the manner in which the said manuscript was discovered. In a letter from an English Gentleman, now residing in China, to the earl of *****.” Whether from modesty, fear, or merely a trick of trade, Dodsley affected to be only the publisher of this work, and persisted in his disguise for some time. Conjecture gave it to the earl of Chesterfield, and not quite so absurdly as Mrs. Teresa Constantia Phillips complimented that nobleman on being author of the “Whole Duty of Man.” Chesterfield had a friendship for Dodsley, and would not contradict a report which rendered the sale of the “Œconomy” both rapid. and extensive. The critics, however, in the Monthly Keview, and Gentleman’s Magazine, were not to be deceived.

It would be unnecessary to say much on the merit of a piece which is so well known. During its early popularity, it occasioned many imitations, the principal of which were, “The Second part of the Œconomy of Human Life;” “The Œconomy of Female Life” “The Œconomy of the Sexes” and “The Œconomy of a Winter’s Day,” an humourous burlesque. Dodsley’s “Œconomy,” however, outlived these temporary efforts, and continued to be praised and read as the production of lord Chesterfield. The real author, although he might secretly appropriate this praise to himself, was perhaps not very well pleased to find that he seldom was suspected to have deserved it. His next production appears to have occupied his thoughts and leisure hours for a considerable time. This was a poem, intended to be comprized in three books, treating of agriculture, commerce, and arts. Of these, by way of experiment, he published the first, under the general titld of “Public Virtue,” in 1754; but it did not meet with such encouragement as to induce him to complete his design. It is written in blank verse, to which his ear was not very well attuned; but with many imperfections, this poem has likewise many beauties. He appears to have contemplated rural scenery with the eye of a poet. In the didactic part, he fails as others have failed before him, who wished to convey mechanical instruction with solemn pomp, and would invoke the heroic muse to tell what an unlettered farmer knows better. To console himself for the cool reception of this work, he told Dr. Johnson that “Public Virtue was not a subject to interest the age.”

About this time, he established, in conjunction with Moore, a periodical paper, entitled “The World,” a name which Dodsley is allowed to have suggested after the other partners had perplexed themselves in vain for a proper one. Lord Lyttelton, although no contributor himself, used his influence with his friends for that purpose, and Dodsley procured papers from many of his friends and customers. One paper only, No. 32, is acknowledged to come from his own pen. By undertaking to pay Moore a stipulated sum for each paper, whether contributed by that writer, or sent by volunteers, J)odsley secured to himself the copyright, and was amply repaid not only by its sale in. single numbers, but by the many editions printed in volumes. When it was concluded in 1756, he obtained permission of the principal writers to insert their names, which gave it an additional interest with the public. A few chose, at that time, to remain concealed, who have since been discovered, and some are yet unknown. Chesterfield and Horace Walpole were known at the time of publication.

In 1758, Dodsiey wrote “Melpomene, or the Regions of Terror and Pity,” an ode, but concealed his being the author, and employed Mrs. Cooper as his publisher. The consequence was that this ode, in which it is universally acknowledged that there are many sublime passages, was attributed to some promising young man, whom years and cultivation would lead to a high rank among poets. Mary Cooper, who was also the publisher of the World, lived in Paternoster- row, and appears to have been frequently employed in this capacity by Dodsiey and others, when they did not choose that their names should appear to the first edition of any work.

In the same year, Dodsley produced his tragedy of “Cleone,” at Covent-garden theatre. This is said to have been rejected by Garrick with some degree of contempt, principally because there was not a character in it adapted to the display of his talents; and when it was performed for the first time at the rival theatre, he endeavoured to diminish its attraction by appearing the same night in a new character at Drury-lane. The efforts of jealousy are sometimes so ridiculous, as to make it difficult to be believed that they are seriously intended. But notwithstanding this malicious opposition, Cleone was played with great success for numv nights, although the company at Covent- garden, with the exception of Mrs. Bellamy, were in no reputation as tragedians. How powerfully the author has contrived to excite the passions of terror and pity, was lately seen, when this tragedy was revived by Mrs. Siddons. Its effect was so painful, and indignation at the villainy of Glanville and Ragozin approached so near to abhorrence, that the play could not be endured. There are, indeed, in this piece, many highly-wrought scenes, and the madness of Cleone deserves to rank ^mong the most pathetic attempts to convey an idea of the ruins of an amiable and innocent mind. For Garrick’s opinion we can have little respect, and perhaps he was not sincere in Diving it. The prologue to Cleone was written by MehnoUi, and the epilogue by Shenstone. Dodsley omitted about thirty lines of the latter, and substituted twelve or fourteen of his own, but restored the epilogue as originally written, in the fourth edition, at which it arrived in less than a year. Such was the avidity of the public, occasioned probably in a great measure by the opposition given to the performance of the play, that two thousand copies were sold on the first day of publication. Pope, when very young, had attempted a tragedy on the same subject, which he afterwards burnt, as he informed Dodsley, when the latter sent him his Cleone, in its first state, requesting his advice. Pope encouraged him to bring it out, but wished he would extend the plan to the accustomed number of five acts. Dodsley acted with su r iicient caution in keeping his piece rather more than “ni:ie years,” and then submitted it to lord Chesterfield and other friends, who encouraged him to offer it to the sta^e, and supported it when produced. Dr. Johnson was likewise among those who praised its pathetic effect, and declared that “if Otway had written it, no other of his pieces would have been remembered.” Dodsley, to whom this was told, said very justly, that “it was too much.”

This was an important year (176S) to our author in another respect. He now published the first volume of the *' Annual Register," projected in concert with the illustrious Edmund Burke, who is supposed to have contributed very liberally to its success. This work was in all its departments so ably conducted, that although he printed a large impression, he and his successor were frequently obliged to reprint the early volumes. Its value as an useful and convenient record of public affairs was so universally felt, that every inquirer into the history of his country must wish it had been begun sooner. Dodsley, however, did not live to enjoy its highest state of popularity; but some years after his death it became irregular in i,ts times of publication, and the general disappointment which such neglect occasioned, gave rise, in 17 Ho, to another work of the same kind, under the name of the New Annual Register. This for many years was a powerful rival, until the unhappy sera of the French revolution, when the principles adopted in the New Register gave disgust to those who had been accustomed to the Old, and the mind, if not the hand of Burke appearing again in the latter, it resumed and still maintains its former reputation, under the managemerit of Messrs. Rivington, who succeeded the late James Dodsley in the property.

On the death of Shenstone, in the beginning of the year 1763, Dodsley endeavoured to repay the debt of gratitude, by publishing a very beautiful edition of the works of that poet, to which he prefixed a short account of his life and writings, a character written with much affection, a description of the Leasowes, &c. He had now retired from the active part of his business, having realized a considerable fortune, and was succeeded by his brother James, whom he had previously admitted into partnership, and who continued the business until hi’s death in 1797, but without his brother’s spirit or intelligence.

In his more private character, Dodsley was a pleasing and intelligent companion. Few men had lived on more easy terms with authors of high rank, as well as genius; and his conversation abounded in that species of information which, unfortunately for biographers, is generally lost with those by whom it has been communicated. By his letters, some of which we have seen, he appears to have written with ease and familiar pleasantry, and the general style of his writings affords no reason to remember that he was deprived of the advantages of educatios. So much may application, even with limited powers, effect, while those who trust to inspiration only, too frequently are content to excite wonder, and dispense with industry, mis-, taking the bounty-money of fame for its regular pay.

, an English barrister, was the son of the Rev. John Dodson, M. A. a dissenting minister of Marlborough, in Wiltshire, and of Elizabeth, one of the daughters of Mr. Foster, an attorney-at-law of the same place. He was born at Marlborough on the 20th or 21st Sept. 1732, and educated partly under the care of his father, and partly at the grammar-school of that town; and under the direction of his maternal uncle, sir Michael Foster, he was brought up to the profession of the law. After being admitted of the Middle Temple, London, August 31, 1754, he practised many years with considerable reputation, as a special pleader. His natural modesty and cliffiJence discouraged him from attending the courts, and therefore he did not proceed to be called to the bar till July 4, 1783. This measure contributed, as was intended, more to the diminution than to the increase of professional business. He was appointed one of the commissioners of bankrupts in 1770, during the chancellorship of lord Camden, and was continued in that situation till the time of his death. On December 31, 1778, Mr. Dodson married miss Elizabeth Hawkes, his cousin-german, and eldest daughter of Mr. Hawkes, of Marlborough. He enjoyed a life of uninterrupted good health, and indeed little alteration was observeable in his strength or general habits till nearly the last year of his life. It was not till the month of October 1799, that he began more sensibly to feel the effect of disease; and, after a confinement to his room of about a fortnight, he died of a dropsy in his chest, at his house in Boswell-court, Carey-street, London, on the 13th of November of that year; and was buried in Bunhillfields the 21st of the same month. Mr. Dodson’s legal knowledge and discrimination were deservedly estimated by those to whom he was known, and who had occasion to confer with him upon questions of law. He was deliberate in forming his opinion, and diffident in delivering it, but always clear in the principles and reasons on which it was founded. His general acquaintance with the laws, and veneration for the constitution of his country, evinced his extensive acquaintance with the principles of jurisprudence, and his regard for the permanence of the liberties of Britain. In 1762, Mr. Justice Foster published his book, entitled, “A Report of some proceedings on the commission for the trial of the Rebels in the year 1746, in the county of Surrey; and of other crown cases; to which are added, Discourses upon a few branches of the Crown Law.” This work will be to him, said Mr. Dodson, “monumeutum aere perennius.” The impression being large, and a pirated edition being made in Ireland, a new edition, was not soon wanted in England; but in 1776 Mr. Dodson published a second edition with some improvements, and with remarks in his preface on some objections made by Mr. Barrington in his “Observations on the more ancient Statutes.” In 1792 he published a third edition, with an appendix, containing three new cases, which the author had intended to insert in the first edition, and had caused to be transcribed for that purpose. In 1795 Mr. Dobson drew up a life of his truly learned and venerable uncle sir Michael Faster, which was to have formed a part of the sixth volume of the new edition of the Biographia Britannica. It has since been printed separately in 1811, 8vo. But the public are in possession of more ample documents of Mr. Dodson’s deep research and critical judgment in biblical literature, than in legal disquisitions. He had very attentively and dispassionately examined th evidences of revelation, and was firmly convinced of the truth of its pretensions. He was zealous for the true and rational interpretation of its scriptures, because he was strongly persuaded of the great influence such interpretation would have on its reception in the world, and on the consequent happiness of mankind. But having a turn for biblical criticism, and having embraced the principles of the Unitarians, he published many papers in a work entitled “Commentaries and Essays,” written by the members of a small “Society for promoting the knowledge of the Scriptures.” Mr. Dodson was a very early member of this society, not only communicating some papers of his own, but conducting through the press some of the contributions of others. In 1790 he laid before the public, as the result of many years’ study, “New translation of Isaiah, with notes supplementary to those of Dr. Lowth, late bishop of London, and containing remarks on many parts of his Translation and Notes, by a Layman.” In this he has taken more freedoms than can be justified by the principles of sound criticism; which drew forth an able answer from the pen of Dr. Sturges, in “Short remarks on a new Translation of Isaiah,” 8vo. To this Mr. Dodson replied, with urbanity and candour, in “A Letter to the Rev. Dr. Sturges, &c.” 8vo, 179 1.

, an eminent antiquary, the son of Matthew Dodsworth, registrar of York cathedral, and chancellor to archbishop Matthews, was born July 24, 1585, at Newton Grange, in the parish of St. Oswald, in Rydale, Yorkshire. He died in August 1654; and was buried at Rufrord, Lancashire. He was a man “of wonderful industry, but less judgment; always collecting and transcribing, but never published any thing.” Such is the report of him by Wood; who in the first part of it, Mr. Gough observes, drew his own character. “One cannot approach the borders of this county,” adds this topographer, in his account of Yorkshire, “without paying tribute to the memory of that indefatigable collector of its antiquities, Roger Dodsworth, who undertook and executed a work, which, to the antiquaries of the present age, would have been the stone of Tydides.” One hundred and twenty-two volumes of his own writing, besides original Mss. which he had obtained from several hands, making all together 162 volumes folio, now lodged in the Bodleian library, are lasting memorials what this county owes to him, as the two volumes of the Monasticon (which, though published under his and Dugdale’s names conjointly, were both collected and written totally by him) will immortalize that extensive industry which has laid the whole kingdom under obligation. The patronage of general Fairfax (whose regard to our antiquities, which the rage of his party was so bitter against, should cover his faults from the eyes of antiquaries) preserved this treasure, and bequeathed it to the library where it is now lodged. Fairfax preserved also the fine windows of York cathedral; and when St. Mary’s tower, in which were lodged innumerable records, both public and private, relating to the northern parts, was blown up during the siege of York, he gave money to the soldiers who could save any scattered papers, many of which are now at Oxford; though Dodsworth had transcribed and abridged the greatest part before. Thomas Tomson, at the hazard of his life, saved out of the rubbish such as were legible; which, after passing through several hands, became the property of Dr. John Burton, of York, being 1868, in thirty bundles. Wallis says they are in the cathedral library. Fairfax allowed Dodsworth a yearly salary to preserve the inscriptions in churches.

, a very learned writer, was born in the parish of St. Warburgh in Dublin, towards the latter end of October 1641, and baptized November 4th. His father, who was in the army, had an estate at Connaught, but it being seized by the Irish rebels, he came, with his wife and child, to England in 1648, to obtain some assistance among their relations. After some stay in London, they went to York, and placed their son in the free-school of that city, where he continued five years, and laid the foundation of his extensive learning. His father, after having settled him with his mother at York, went to Ireland, to look after his estate, but died of the plague at Waterford: and his mother, going thither for the same purpose, fell into a consumption, of which she died, in her brother sir Henry Slingsby’s house. Being thus deprived of his parents, Mr. Doduell was reduced to such streights that he had not money enough to buy pen, ink, and paper; and suffered very much for want of his board being regularly paid*. Thus he continued till 1654, when his uncle, Mr. Henry Dodvvell, rector of Newbourn

Mr. Dodwell came the same year to England, and resjded at Oxford for the sake of the public library. Thence he returned to his native country, and in 1672 published, at Dublin, in 8vo, a posthumous treatise of his late learned tutor John Steam, M. D. to which he put a preface of his own. He entitled this book, “De Obstinatione: Opus posthumum Pietatem Chrisdano-Stoicam scholastico more suadens:” and his own preface, “prolegomena Apologetica, de usu Dogmatum Philosophicorum,” &c. in which he apologizes for his tutor; who, by quoting so often and setting a high value upon the writings and maxims of the heathen philosophers, might seem to depreciate the Holy Scriptures. Mr. Dodwell therefore premises first, that the author’s design in that work is only to recommend moral duties, and enforce the practice of them by the authority of the ancient philosophers; and that he does not meddle with the great mysteries of Christianity, which are discoverable only by divine revelation. His second work was, “Two letters of advice. 1. For the Susception of Holy Orders. 2. For Studies Theological, especially such as are rational.” To the second edition of which, in 1681, was added, “A Discourse concerning the Phoenician History of Sanchoniathon,” in which he considers Philo-Byblius as the author of that history. In 1673, he wrote a preface, without his name, to “An introduction to a Devout Life,” by Francis de Sales, the last bishop and prince of Geneva; which was published at Dublin, in English, this same year, in 12mo. He came over again to England in 1674, and settled in London; where he became acquainted with several learned men; particularly, in 1675, with Dr. William Lloyd, afterwards successively bishop of St. Asaph, Litchfield and Coventry, and Worcester . With that eminent divine he contracted so great a friendship and intimacy, that he attended him to Holland, when he was appointed chaplain to the princess of Orange. He was also with him at Salisbury, when he kept his residence there as canon of that church; and spent afterwards a good deal of time with him at St. Asaph. In 1675 he published “Some Considerations of present Concernment; how far the Romanists may be trusted by princes of another persuasion,” in 8vo, levelled against the persons concerned in the Irish remonstrance, which occasioned a kind of schism among the Irish Roman catholics. The year following he published “Two short Discourses against the Romanists. 1. An Account of the fundamental Principle of Popery, and of the insufficiency of the proofs which they have for it. 2. An Answer to six Queries proposed to a gentlewoman of the Church of England, by an emissary of the Church of Rome,” 12mo, but reprinted in 1688, 4to, with “A new preface relating to the bishop of Meaux, and other modern complainers of misrepresentation.” In 1679, he published, in 4to, “Separation of Churches from episcopal government, as practised by the present non-conformists, proved schismatical, from such principles as are least controverted, and do withal most popularly explain the sinfulness and mischief of schism.” This, being animadverted upon by R. Baxter, was vindicated, in 1681, by Mr. Dodwell, in “A Reply to Mr. Baxter’s pretended confutation of a book, entitled, Sepafration of Churches,” &c. To which were added, “Three Letters to Mr. Baxter, written in 1673, concerning the Possibility of Discipline under a Diocesan Government,” &c. 8vo. In 1682 came out his “Dissertations on St. Cyprian,” composed at the reqviest of Dr. Fell, bishop of Oxford, when he was about to publish his edition of that father. They were printed in the same size, but reprinted at Oxford in 1684, 8vo, under the title “Dissertationes Cyprianse.” The eleventh dissertation, in which he endeavours to lessen the number of the early Christian martyrs, brought upon him the censure of bishop Burnet, and not altogether unjustly. The year following, he published “A Discovirse concerning the One Altar, and the One Priesthood, insisted on by the ancients in the disputes against Schism ,” Lond. 8vo. In 1684, a dissertation of his on a passage of Lactantius, was inserted in the new edition of that author at Oxford, by Thomas Spark, in 8vo. His treatise “Of the Priesthood of Laicks,” appeared in 1686, in 8vo. The title was “De jure Laicorum,” &c. It was written in answer to a book published by William Baxter, the antiquary, and entitled “AntiDodwellism, being two curious tracts formerly written by H. Grotius, concerning a solution of the question, whether the eucharist may be administered in the absence of, or want of pastors.” About the same time he was preparing for the press the posthumous works of the learned Dr. John Pearson, bishop of Chester, Lond. 1688, 4to. He published also,“Dissertations on Irenseus,” 1689, 8vo. On the 2d of April, 1688, he was elected, by the university of Oxford, Camden’s professor of history, without any application of his own, and when he was at a great distance from Oxford; and the 21st of May was incorporated master of arts in that university. But this beneficial and creditable employment of professor he did not enjoy long; being deprived of it in November, 1691, for refusing to take the oaths of allegiance to king William and queen Mary. When their majesties had suspended those bishops who would not acknowledge their authority, Mr. Dodwell published “A cautionary discourse of Schism, with a particular regard to the case of the bishops, who are suspended for refusing to take the new oath,” London, 8vo. And when those bishops were actually deprived, and others put in their sees, he joined the former, looking upon the new bishops, and their adherents, as schismatics. He wrote likewise “A Vindication of the deprived Bishops:” and “A Defence of the same,” 1692, 4to, being an answer to Dr. Hody’s “Unreasonableness of Separation,” &c. After having lost his professorship, he continued for some time in Oxford, and then retired to Cookham, a village near Maidenhead, about an equal distance between Oxford and London; and therefore convenient to maintain a correspondence in each place, and to consult friends and books, as he should have occasion. While he lived there, he became acquainted with Mr. Francis Cherry of Shottesbrooke, a person of great learning and virtue, for the sake of whose conversation he removed to Shottesbrooke, where he chiefly spent the remainder of his days. In 1692, he published his Camdenian lectures read at Oxford; and, in 1694, “An Invitation to Gentlemen to acquaint themselves with ancient History” being a preface to Degory Whear’s “Method of reading history,” translated into English by Mr. Bohun. About this time having lost one or more of the Dodwells, his kinsmen, whom he designed for his heirs, he married on the 24th of June, 1694, in the 52d year of his age, a person, in whose father’s house at Cookham he had boarded several times, and by her had ten children . In 1696 he drew up the annals of Thucydides and Xenophon, to accompany the editions of those two authors by Dr. John Hudson and Mr. Edward Wells. Having likewise compiled the annals of Velleius Paterculus, and of Quintilian, and Statius, he published them altogether in 1698, in one volume, 8vo. About the same time he wrote an account of tUe lesser Geographers, published by Dr. Hudson; and “A Treatise concerning the lawfulness of instrumental music in holy offices:” occasioned by an organ being set up at Tiverton in 1696: with some other things on chronology, inserted in “Grabe’s Spicilegium.” In 1701, he published his account of the Greek and Roman cycles, which was the most elaborate of all his pieces, and seems to have been the work of the greatest part of his life. The same year was published a letter of his, inserted in Richardson’s “Canon of the New Testament,” &c. concerning Mr. Toland’s disingenuous treatment of him. The year following appeared “A Discourse [of his] concerning the obligation to marry within the true communion, following from their style of being called a Holy Seed;” and “An Apology for the philosophical writings of Cicero,” against the objections of Mr. Petit; prefixed to Tally’s five books De Finibus, or, of Moral Ends, translated into English by Samuel Parker, gent, as also the annals of Thucydides and Xenophon, Oxoa. 4to. In 1703 he published “A Letter concerning the Immortality of the Soul, against Mr. Henry Layton’s Hypothesis,” 4to and, “A Letter to Dr. Tillotson about Schism,” 8vo, written in 1691.The year following came out, his “Chronology of DionX'Sius Halicarnasseus,” in the Oxford edition of that historian by Dr. Hudson, folio; his “Two Dissertations on the age of Phalaris and Pythagoras,” occasioned by the dispute between Bentley and Boyle; and his “Admonition to Foreigners, concerning the late Schism in England.” This, which was written in Latin, regarded the deprivation of the nonjuring bishops. When the bill for preventing occasional conformity was depending in parliament, he wrote a treatise, entitled, “Occasional Communion fundamentally destructive of the discipline of the primitive catholic Church, and contrary to the doctrine of the latest Scriptures concerning Church Communion;” London, 1705, 8vo. About the same time, observing that the deprived bishops were reduced to a small number, he wrote, “A Case in View considered in a Discourse, proving that (in case our present invalidly deprived fathers shall leave all their sees vacant, either by death or resignation) we shall not then be obliged to keep up our separation from those bishops, who are as yet involved in the guilt of the present unhappy schism,” Lond. 1705, 8vo. Some time after, he published “A farther prospect of the Case in View, in answer to some new objections not then considered,” Lond. 1707, 8vo. Hitherto Mr. Dodwell had acted in such a manner as had procured him the applause of all, excepting such as disliked the nonjurors; but, about this time, he published some opinions that drew upon him almost universal censure. For, in order to exalt the powers and dignity of the priesthood, in that one communion, which he imagined to be the pecuHum of God, and to which he had joined himself, he endeavoured to prove, with his usual perplexity of learning, that the doctrine of the soul’s natural mortality was the true and original doctrine; and that immortality was only at baptism conferred upon the soul, by the gift of God, through the hands of one set of regularly-ordained clergy. In support of this opinion, he wrote “An Epistolary Discourse, proving, from the scriptures and the first fathers, that the soul is a principle naturally mortal; but immortalized actually by the pleasure of God, to punishment, or to reward, by its union with the divine baptismal spirit. Wherein is proved, that none have the power of giving this divine immortalizing spirit, since the apostles, but only the bishops,” Lond. 1706, 8vo. At the end of the preface to the reader is a- dissertation, to prove “that Sacerdotal Absolution is necessary for the Remission of Sins, even of those who are truly penitent.” This discourse being attacked by several persons, particularly Chishull, Clarke, Norris, and Mills afterwards bishop of Waterford, our author endeavoured to vindicate himself in the three following pieces: 1. “A Preliminary Defence of the Epistolary Discourse, concerning the distinction between Soul and Spirit: in two parts. I. Against the charge of favouring Impiety. II. Against the charge of favouring Heresy,” Lond. 1707, 8vo. 2. “The Scripture account of the Eternal Rewards or Punishments of all that hear of the Gospel, without an immortality necessarily resulting from the nature of the souls themselves that are concerned in those rewards or punishments. Shewing particularly, I. How much of this account was discovered by the best philosophers. II. How far the accounts of those philosophers were corrected, and improved, by the Hellenistical Jews, assisted by the Revelations of the Old Testament. III. How far the discoveries fore-mentioned were improved by the revelations of the Gospel. Wherein the testimonies also of S. Irenaens and Tertullian are occasionally considered,” Lond. 1708, 8vo. And, 3. “An Explication of a famous passage in the Dialogue of S. Justin Martyr with Tryphon, concerning the immortality of human souls. With an Appendix, consisting of a letter to the rev. Mr. John Norris, of Bemerton; and an expostulation relating to the late insults of Mr. Clarke and Mr. Chishull,” Lond. 1708, 8vo. Upon the death of Dr. William Lloyd, the deprived bishop of Norwich, on the first of January 1710-11, Mr. Dodwell, with some other friends, wrote to Dr. Thomas Kenn, of Bath and Wells, the only surviving deprived bishop, to know, whether he challenged their subjection? He returned for answer, that he did not: and signified his desire that the breach might be closed by their joining with the bishops possessed of their sees; giving his reasons for it. Accordingly, Mr. Dodwell, and several of his friends, joined in communion with them. But others refusing this, Mr. Dodwell was exceedingly concerned, and wrote, “The case in view now in fact. Proving, that the continuance of a separate communion, without substitutes in any of the late invalidlydeprived sees, since the death of William late lord bishop of Norwich, is schismatical. With an Appendix, proving, that our late invalidly-deprived fathers had no right to substitute successors, who might legitimate the separation, after that the schism had been concluded by the decease of the last survivor of those same fathers,” Lond. 1711, 8vo. Our author wrote some few other things, besides what have been already mentioned *. At length, after a

the Isle of Man, who had desired his Mr. Hearne at the end of his edi ion of

V*e of Incense in Dirine Offices,“Lon- Dionysii Periejetas. Priuted hi the very studious and ascetic course of life, he died at Shottesbrooke the 7th of June 1711, in the seventieth year of his age; and was buried in the chancel of the church there, where a monument is erected to him. Mr. Dodwell, as to his person, was of a small but well-proportioned stature, of a sanguine and fair complexion, of a grave and serious, but a comely, pleasant countenance: of a piercing eye, of a solid judgment, and ready apprehension. He naturally enjoyed so strong and vigorous a constitution of body, that he knew not, by his own experience, what the head-ach was. His industry was prodigious, as appears by the many books he published. He was extremely frugal of his time, and indefatigable in his studies, by which means he became acquainted with almost all authors, both sacred and profane, ancient and modern. He studied, not for his own benefit only, but also for that of others: for he was generously communicative, and always ready to assist others in worthy undertakings; very zealous to promote learning, and though learned almost beyond any one o.f his age, yet (what is very uncommon) of singular humility and modesty. Accordingly he was courted and admired by the most eminent men abroad, who bestow the highest encomiums upon him, on all occasions. It must, however, be owned, that, as he conversed more with books than men, his style is, for that reason, obscure and intricate, and full of digresOxford edition of that author in 1710, wherein he showed, that airtiyj-arro does 8vo. 5.” De Parma Equestri Wood- not signify his being strangled with wardiana Disserta'.io,“&c. on the grief, as Grotius and Dr. Hammond ancient Roman shield, formerly in Dr. understood it, but that he hanged himWoodward’s possession, whereon was self. It was never printed: nor the represented the sacking of Rome by following, which was left unfinished, the Gauls. This dissertation, which 8.” A Dissertation concerning the Time Mr. Dodwell was prevented by death of the Greek translation of the Old from finishing, was published by Hearne Testament by the LXX.“9.” ADisin 8vo, Oxon 17 13, but brought Hearne sertstioa concerning the Laws of Nainto a dispute with the university, ow- hire and Nations“in which the author i:ig to some supposed reflections on proposed to shew, that these lows w< re the jurors, and he was ordered to sup- not the result of reason, but laws depress the work. After, however, he livered by God to Adam, or Noah, and had cancelled the preliminary niafer, were transmitted to us by tradition. the publicatiou was suffered to go on. 10. He designed to publish” The Mr. Dodwell supposes this Roman Epistle of St. Barnabas,“with a liteshield to have been made about the ral translation, and notes; having ever time of Nero. 6. Four letters, which since the year 1691, wrote” Prolegopassed between the right reverend the mena" to it; but it was left, imperfect. lord bishop of Sarum, and Mr. Henry 11. Lastly, He began to s. tile theDodwell, were printed from the origi- time and order in which Tertullion nals, Lond. 1713, 12mo. v^ro'e each of his books, on which he

, archbishop of York, was a prelate of considerable worth, abilities, and eminence, in the reigns of Charles II. and James II. a man who, to the courage and fidelity which had first deserved a military reward, united all those talents and qualifications which could justify his subsequent advancement to the honours of the church. He was born at Stanwick, in Northamptonshire, March 20, 1625, being the fifth in descent from William Dolben of Denbighshire; and descended from an ancient family of that name, settled at Segrayd, in the same county. Dr. William Dolben, the father of the archbishop, was at that time rector of Stanwick, and of Benefield, to both of which he was instituted in one day; and prebendary of Lincoln, through the interest of the lord keeper Williams, whose niece Elizabeth Williams he had married. Few marriages have been more fortunate in their issue: besides the subject of the present article, their second son William proved highly eminent in the profession to which he was educated. He became recorder of London, received the honour of knighthood, and in 1678 was appointed one of the judges in the court of common pleas. In 1683 he was removed from that situation, very highly to his honour, being the only judge that gave his opinion against the legality of dissolving corporations by quo warranto. His rank was justly restored by king William; who, in 1689, appointed him a judge of the king’s bench; and in that station he remained till his death, which happened in 1693, the 65th year of his age. He was buried in the Temple church, and left a character of high estimation for strict integrity, and the most penetrating discernment. Dr. William Dolben, however, neither lived to see the eminence of his sons, nor to complete his own career of advancement; for he died in 1631, when his eldest son John was only six years old, being himself nominated, at the time, for the succession to a vacant bishopric, but his death produced an affecting testimony to his merit, of no small value in the moral estimate , of honours. This was conferred by his parishioners of Stanwick, by whom he was so sincerely beloved, that on his falling ill at London of the sickness which proved fatal to him, they plowed and sowed his glebe lands at their own expence, that his widow might have the benefit of the crop which she accordingly received after his decease; an anecdote more felt and valued by his family than any thing that usually adorns the page of the biographer.

When the civil wars broke out, Mr. Dolben took arms for the royal cause in the garrison at Oxford, and served as an ensign in the unfortunate battle of Marston-Moor, in 1644, where he received a dangerous wound in the shoulder from a musquet-ball; but in the defence of York, soon after, he received a severer wound of the same kind in the thigh; which broke the bone, and confined him twelve months to his bed. In the course of his military service he was advanced to the rank of captain, and, according to Wood, of major. In 1646, when there appeared no longer any hope of serving the king’s cause by arms, when Oxford and his other garrisons were surrendered, and himself in the hands of his enemies, Mr. Dolben retired again to his college, and renewed his studies; a sense of duty had made him an active soldier; inclination and natural abilities rendered him at all times a successful student. In 1647 he took the degree of master of arts, and remained at college till ejected by the parliamentarian visitors in 1648. In the interval between this period and the year 1656, when he entered into holy orders, we have no account of him; but it is most probable that his time was, in general, studiously employed, and especially from the moment when he took up that design. From 1657, when he married Catharine daughter of Ralph, elder brother of archbishop Sheldon, to the time of the king’s restoration, he lived in Oxford, at the bouse of his father-in-law, in St. Aldate’s parish; and throughout that interval, in conjunction with Dr. Fell and Dr. Allestree, constantly performed divine service and administered the sacraments, according to the Liturgy of the church of England, to the great comfort of the royalists then resident in Oxford, particularly the students ejected in 1648, who formed a regular and pretty numerous congregation*. The house appropriated to this sacred purpose was then the residence of Dr. Thomas Willis, the celebrated physician, and is yet standing, opposite to Merton college. The attachment of Mr. Dolben to what he considered as the right cause had before been active and courageous; it was now firm and unwearied, with equal merit, and with better success.

When the regal government was restored, for the sake of which Mr. Dolben had so often hazarded his life, his zeal for the cause and sufferings in it were not forgotten by the king f. In that very year, 1660, he took his degree of D. D. on being appointed a canon of Christ Church, Oxford. In the same year he was also presented to the rectory of Newington-cum-Britwell, in Oxfordshire, in the gift of the archbishop of Canterbury. His preferments and honours now succeeded each other rapidly; the time of trial was past, and the time of reward had arrived. In 1661 he became a prebendary of St. Paul’s (the prebend of Cadington major), and was one of those who signed the revised Liturgy, which passed the house of convocation December iiotb, in that year. In 1662 he was appointed archdeacon of London, and presented to the vicarage of St. Giles’s, Cripplegate; but resigned both a short time after, with his other parochial preferment, on being installed dean of Westminster. He was chosen prolocutor of the lower house of convocation in 1664, and soon after became clerk of the closet to- the king. In 1666 he was consecrated bishop of Rochester, and allowed to hold the deanery of Westminster in commendam. In 1675 he was

But the fullest account of his person, talents, and character, was drawn up by his friend sir William Trumbull, and is still extant in his own hand-writing; which, as it proceeds from a person who had the fullest knowledge of him, and is certainly authentic, we shall preserve in the original words. " He was an extraordinary comely person, though grown too fat; of an open countenance, a lively piercing eye, and a majestic presence. He hated flattery, and guarded himself with all possible care against the least insinuation of any thing of that nature, how well soever he deserved: he had admirable natural parts, and great acquired ones; for whatever he read he made his own, and improved it. He had such an happy genius, and such an admirable elocution, that his extempore preaching was beyond not only most of other men’s elaborate performances, but (I was going to say) even his own. I have been credibly informed, that in Westminsterabbey a preacher falling ill after he had named his text, and proposed the heads of his intended discourse, the bishop went up into the pulpit, took the same text, followed the same method, and, I believe, discoursed much better on each head than the other would have done.

“Not any of the bishop’s bench, I may say not all of them, had that interest and authority in the house of lords which he had. He had easily mastered all the forms of proceeding. He had studied much of our laws, especially those of the parliament, and was not to be brow-beat or daunted by the arrogance or titles of any courtier or favourite. His presence of mind and readiness of elocution, accompanied with good breeding and an inimitable wit, gave him a greater superiority than any other lord could pretend to from his dignity of office. I wish I had a talent suitable to the love and esteem I have for this great and good rnan, to enlarge more upon this subject; and, when I think of his death, 1 cannot forbear dropping some tears, for myself as well as for the public; for in him we lost the greatest abilities, the usefullest conversation, the faithfullest friendship, and one who had a mind that practised the best virtues itself, and a wit that was best able to recommend them to others, as Dr. Sprat expresses it in his Life of Mr. Cowley.”

The wife of archbishop Dolben (by whom he had three children, Gilbert and John, and a daughter Catharine, who died an infant), survived him till 1706, when she died at Finedon, in Northamptonshire, in her eightieth year. His eldest son, Gilbert, who furnished Dryden with the various editions of Virgil, when about to translate that poet, was afterwards created a baronet by queen Anne, and for many years represented the city of Peterborough in parliament. He was appointed a justice of the common pleas in Ireland by William III. and held that office for twenty years. He died in 1722. The probity and worth of the present representatives of this family are well known.

, a very eminent artist, was born at Florence in 1616, and was a disciple of Jacopo Vignali. His first attempt was a whole figure of St. John, painted when he was only eleven years of age, which received extraordinary approbation and afterwards he painted the portrait of his mother, which gained him such general applause as placed him in the highest rank of merit. From that time his new and delicate style procured him great employment in Florence, and other cities of Italy, as much, or even more than he was able to execute. This great master was particularly fond of painting sacred subjects, although he sometimes painted portraits. His works are easily distinguished; not so much by any superiority to other renowned artists in design or force, as by a peculiar delicacy with which he perfected all his compositions; by a pleasing tint of colour, improved by a judicious management of the chiaroscuro, which gave his figures a surprising relief; by the graceful airs of his heads; and by a placid repose diffused over the whole. His pencil was tender, his touch inexpressibly neat, and his colouring transparent; though it ought to be observed, that he has often been censured for the excessive labour bestowed on his pictures and carnations, that have more the appearance of ivory than the look of flesh. In his manner of working he was remarkably slow; and it is reported of him that his brain was affected by having seen Luca Giordano dispatch more business in four or five hours, than he could have done in so many months. In the Palazzo Corsini, at Florence, there is a picture of St. Sebastian painted by Carlino Dolce, half figures of the natural size. It is extremely correct in the design, and beautifully coloured; but it is rather too much laboured in regard to the finishing, and hath somewhat of the ivory look in the rlesh colour. In the Palazzo Ricardi is another picture of his, representing the Four Evangelists; the figures are as large as life, at half length; and it is a lovely performance; nor does there appear in it that excessive high finishing for which he is censured. The two best figures are St. Matthew and St. John; but the latter is superior to all; it is excellent in the design, the character admirable, and the whole well executed. There is also a fine picture by him in the Pembroke collection at Wilton, of which the subject is the Virgin it is ornamented with flowers, and those were painted by Mario da Fiori. This artist died at Florence in 1686. His daughter Agnese Dolce was taught painting by him, and strove to imitate him, which, however, she did best by furnishing copies from his numerous pictures. Sir Robert Strange, who had a fine St. Margaret by Carlo, observes, that however perfect, and however studied his pictures are, it must be allowed that he laboured more to please the eye than to enrich the understanding by conveying to it great or noble ideas.

, a most laborious Italian writer, was born at Venice in 1508. His family was one of the most ancient in the republic, but reduced in circumstances. Lewis remained the whole of his life in his native city, occupied in his numerous literary undertakings, which procured him some personal esteem, but little reputation or wealth. Perhaps his best employment was that of cor-, rector of the press to the celebrated printer Gabriel Giolito, whose editions are so much admired for the beauties of type and paper, and yet with the advantage of Dolce’s attention, are not so correct as could be wished. As an original author, Dolce embraced the whole circle of polite literature and science, being a grammarian, rhetorician, orator, historian, philosopher, editor, translator, and commentator; and as a poet, he wrote tragedies, comedies, epics, lyrics, and satires. All that can be called events in his life, were some literary squabbles, particularly with Ruscelli, who was likewise a corrector of Giolito’s press. He died of a dropsical complaint in 1569, according to Apostolo Zeno, and, according to Tiraboschi, in 1566. Baillet, unlike most critics, says he was one of the best writers of his age. His style is flowing, pure, and elegant; but he was forced by hunger to spin out his works, and to neglect that frequent revisal which is so necessary to the finishing of a piece. Of his numerous works, a list of which may be seen in Niceron, or Moreri, the following are in some reputation: 1. “Dialogo della pittura, intitolato I'Aretino,” Venice, 1557, 8vo. This work was reprinted, with the French on the opposite page, at Florence, 1735. 2. “Cinque priini canti del Sacripante,” Vinegia^ 1535, 8vo. 3. “Primaleone,” 1562, 4to. 4. “Achilles; 1 * and” Jineas,“1570, 4to. 5.” La prima imprese del conte Orlando," 1572, 4to. 6. Poems in different collections, among others in that of Berni. And the Lives of Charles V. and Ferdinand the First.

, a voluminous French writer, who was burnt for his religious opinions at Paris, was born at Orleans about 1509, of a good family. Some have reported that he was the natural son of Francis L but this does not agree with the age of that monarch, who was born in 1494. Dolet began his studies at Orleans, and was sent to continue them at Paris when twelve years old. He applied with particular diligence to the belles lettres, and to rhetoric under Nicholas Berauld. His taste for these studies induced him to go to Padua, where he remained for three years, and made great progress under the instructions of Simon de Villa Nova, with whom he contracted an intimate friendship, and not only dedicated some of his poetical pieces to him, but on his death in 1530, composed some pieces to his memory, and wrote his epitaph. After the death of this friend, he intended to have returned to France, but John de Langeac, the Venetian ambassador, engaged him as his secretary. During his residence at Venice, he received some instructions from Baptiste F,griatio, who commented on Lucretius and Cicero’s Offices, and he became enamoured of a young lady whose charms and death he has celebrated in his Latin poems. On his return to France with the ambassador, he pursued his study of Cicero, who became his favourite author; and he began to make collections for his commentaries on the Latin language. His friends having about this time advised him to study law, as a profession, he went to Toulouse, and divided his time between law and the belles lettres. Toulouse was then famous for law studies, and as it was frequented by students of all nations, each had its little society, and its orator or president. The French scholars chose Doiet into this office, and he, with the rashness which adhered to him all his life, commenced hy a harangue in which he praised the French at the expence of the Toulousians, whom he accused of ignorance and barbarism, because the parliament of Toulouse wished to prohibit these societies. This was answered by Peter Pinache, to whom JJolet replied with such aggravated contempt for the Toulousians, that in 1533 he was imprisoned for a month, and then banished from the city. Some think he harboured Lutheran opinions, which was the cause of his imprisonment and banishment, but there is not much in his writings to justify this supposition, except his occasional sneers at ecclesiastics. As soon, however, as he reached Lyons, he took his revenge by publishing his harangues against the Toulousians, with some satirical verses on those whom he considered as the most active promoters of his disgrace; and that he might have something to plead against the consequences of such publications, he pretended that they had been stolen from him and given to the press without his knowledge. The verses were, however, inserted in the collection of his Latin poems printed in 1538.

After residing for some time at Lyons, Dolet came to Paris in October 1534, and published some new works; and was about to have returned to Lyons in 1536, but was obliged to abscond for a time, having killed a person who had attacked him. He then came to Paris, and presented himself to Francis L who received him graciously, and granted him a pardon, by which he was enabled to return to Lyons. All these incidents he has introduced in his poems. It appears to have been on his return to Lyons at this time that he commenced the business of printer, and the first work which came from his press in 1538, was the four books of his Latin poems. He also married about the same time, and had a son, Claude, born to him in 1539. whose birth he celebrates in a Latin poem printed the same year. From some parts of his poems in his “Second Enfer,” it would appear that the imprisonment we have mentioned, was not all he suffered, and that he was imprisoned twice at Lyons, and once at Paris, before that final imprisonment which ended in his death. For all these we are unable to account; his being confined at Paris appears to have been for his religious opinions, but after fifteen months he was released by the interest of Peter Castellanus, or Du Chatel, then bishop of Tulles. He was not, however, long at large, being arrested at Lyons, Jan. 1, 1544, from which he contrived to make his escape, and took refuge in Piemont, when he wrote the nine epistles which form his “Deuxieme Enfer.” We are not told whether he ever returned to Lyons publicly, but only that he was again apprehended in 1545, and condemned to be burnt as a heretic, or rather as an atheist, which sentence was executed at Paris, Aug. 3, 1516. On this occasion it is said by some that he made profession of the catholic faith by invoking the saints but others doubt this fact. Whether pursuant to his sentence, or as a remission of the most horrible part of it, we know not, but he was first strangled, and then burnt. Authors diii'er much as to the real cause of his death; some attributing it to the frequent attacks he had made on the superstitions and licentious lives of the ecclesiastics; others to his being a heretic, or Lutheran; and others to his impiety, or atheism. Jortin, in his Life of Erasmus, and in his “Tracts,” contends for the latter, and seems disinclined to do justice to Dolec in any respect. Dolet certainly had the art of making enemies; he was presumptuous, indiscreet, and violent in his resentments, but we have no direct proof of the cause for which he suffered. On one occasion a solemn censure was pronounced against him by the assembly of divines at Paris, for having inserted the following words in a translation of Plato VAxiochus, from the Latin version into I'Yench “Apres la mort tu tie seras rien clu tout,” and this is said to have produced his condemnation but, barbarous as the times then were, we should be inclined to doubt whether the persecutors would have condemned a man of acknowledged learning and genius for a single expression, and that merely a translation. On the other hand, we know not how to admit Dolet among the protestant martyrs, as Calvin, and others who lived at the time, and must have known his character, represent him as a man of no religion. Dolet contributed not a little to the restoration of classical literature in France, and particularly to the reformation of the Latin style, to which he, had applied most of his attention. He appears to have known little of Greek literature but through the medium of translations, and his own Latin style is by some thought very laboured, and composed of expressions and half sentences, a sort of cento, borrowed from his favourite Cicero and otber authors. He wrote much, considering that his life was short, and much of it spent in vexatious removals and in active employments. His works are: l.“S. Doleti orationes diue in Tholosam; ejusdem epistolarum hbri duo; ejusdem canninum libri duo; ad eundem epistolarum amicorum liber,” 8vo, without date, but most probably in 1534, when he had been driven from Toulouse and was at Lyons, as mentioned above. 2. “Dialogus de imitutione Ciceroniana, adversus Desiderium Erasmum pro Christophoro Longolio,” Lyons, 1535, 4to. This was an attack on Erasmus in defence of Longolius, in which he had been partly anticipated by Scaliger in his “O ratio pro Cicerone contra Erasmum.” 3. “Commentariorum linguce Latinse tomi duo,” Lyons, 1536 and 1588, fol. This is a kind of Latin dictionary, in the manner of a common-place book, and evidently a work of great labour. He began it in his sixteenth year. An abridgment of it was published at Basil in 1537, 8vo. 4. “De re navali liber ad Lazarum Bayfium,” Lyons, 1537, 4to, and inserted by Gronovius in vol. XL of his Greek antiquities. 5. “S. Doleti Galli Aurelii Carminum libri quatuor,” printed by himself at Lyons, 1538, 4to. Dolet’s Latin verses have been too much undervalued by Jortin and others. 6. “Genethliacon Claudii Doleti, Stephani Doleti nlii; liber vitae communi in primis utilis et necessarius; autore patre, Lugduni, apud eundem Doletum,” 1539, 4to. A French translation was printed by the author in the same year. 7. “Formulas Latinarum locutionum illustriorum in tres partes divisae,” Lyons, 1539, folio, and with additions by Sturmius and Susannasus, Strasburgh, 1596, 4to. 8. “Francisci Valesii, Gallorum regis, fata, ubi rein omnem celebriorem a Gallis gestam noscas, ab anno 1513 ad annum 1539,” Lyons, 1539, 4to. This which is in Latin verse, was translated by the author into French prose, and printed in 1540, 4to, 1543, 8vo, and Paris, 1546, 8vo. 9. “Observationes in Terentii Andriam et Eunuchum,” Lyons, 1540, 8vo. 10. “La maniere de bien traduire d'une langue en une autre de la ponctuation Francoise, &c.” Lyons, 1540, 8vo. 11. “Liber de imitatione Ciceroniana adversus Floridum Sabinum Responsio ad convitia ejusdem Sabini; Epigrammata in eundem,” Lyons, 1540, 4to. Dolet was unfortunately not content with arguing with his antagonists, but more frequently exasperated them by his sarcastic attacks. 12. “Libri tres de legato, de immunitate legatorum, et de Joannis Langiachi Lemovicensis episcopi Legationibus,” Lyons, 1541, 4to. 13. “Les epitres et evangiles des cinquante-deux dimanches, &,c. avec brieve exposition,” Lyons, 1541, 8vo. 14. A translation of Erasmus’s “Miles Christianus,” Lyons, 1542, 16mo. 15, “Claudii Cotersei Turonensis de jure et privilegiismilitum libri tres, et de officio imperatoris liber unus,” Lyons, 1539, folio. 16. “On Confession,” translated from Erasmus, ibid. 1542, 16mo. 17. “Discotirs contenant le seul et vrai moyen, par lequel un serviteur favorise et constitue” au service d'un prince, peut conserver sa felicite eternelle et temporelle, &c.“Lyons, 1542, 8vo. 18.” Exhortation, a la lecture des saintes lettres,“ibid. 1542, 16rno. 19.” La paraphrase de Jean Campensis sur les psalmes de David, &c. faite Frangoise,“ibid. 1542. 20.” Bref discours de la republique Fran^oise, desirant la lecture des livres de la sainte ecriture lui etre loisible en sa langue vulgaire,“in verse, Lyons, 1544, 16mo. 21. A translation of Plato’s Axiochus and Hipparchus, Lyons, 1544, I6mo. This was addressed to Francis I. in a prose epistle, in which the author promises a translation of all the works of Plato, accuses his country of ingratitude, and supplicates the king to permit him to return to Lyons, being now imprisoned. 22.” Second Enfer d'Etienne Dolet,“in French verse, Lyons, 1544, 8vo. This consists of nine poetical letters addressed to Francis I. the duke of Orleans, the duchess d'Estampes, the queen of Navarre, the cardinal Lorraine, cardinal Tournon, the parliament of Paris, the judges of Lyons, and his friends. The whole is a defence of the conduct for which he was imprisoned at Lyons in the beginning of 1544. He had written a first” Enfer," consisting of memorials respecting his imprisonment at Paris, and was about to have published it when he was arrested at Lyons, but it never appeared. Besides these, he published translations into French of Cicero’s Tusculan Questions and his Familiar Epistles, which went through several editions. Almost all Dolet’s works are scarce, owing to

He designed his eldest son, Peter Dollond, for the same business with himself; and for several years they carried on their manufactures together in Spital -fields; but the employment neither suited the expectations nor disposition of the son, who, having received much information upon mathematical and philosophical subjects from the instruction of his father, and observing the great value which was set upon his father’s knowledge in the theory of optics by professional men, determined to apply that knowledge to the benefit of himself and his family; and, accordingly, under the directions of his father, commenced optician. Success, though under the most unfavourable circumstances, attended every effort; and in 1752, John Dollond, embracing the opportunity of pursuing a profession congenial with his mind, and without neglecting the rules of prudence towards his family, joined his son, and in consequence of his theoretical knowledge, soon became a proficient in the practical parts of optics.

Mr. Dollond’s celebrity in optics became now universal; and the friendship and protection of the most eminent men of science, flattered and encouraged his pursuits. To enumerate the persons, both at home and abroad, who distinguished him by their correspondence, or cultivated his acquaintance, however honourable to his memory, would be only an empty praise. Yet among those who held the highest place in his esteem as men of worth and learning, may be mentioned, Mr. Thomas Simpson, master of the royal academy at Woolwich; Mr. Harris, assaymaster at the Tower, who was at that time engaged in writing and publishing his “Treatise on Optics;” the rev. Dr. Bradley, then astronomer royal; the rev. William Ludlam, of St. John’s college, Cambridge and Mr. John Canton, a most ingenious man, and celebrated not less for his knowledge in natural philosophy, than for his neat and accurate manner of making philosophical experiments. To this catalogue of the philosophical names of those days, we may add that of the late venerable astronomer-royal, the rev. Dr. Maskelyne, whose labours have so eminently benefited the science of astronomy.

This new principle being now established, he was soon able to construct object-glasses, in which the different refrangibility of the rays of light was corrected, and the name of achromatic was given to them by the late Dr. Bevis, on account of their being free from the prismatic colours, and not by Lalande, as some have said. As usually happens on such occasions, no sooner was the achromatic telescope made public, than the rivalship of foreigners, and the jealousy of philosophers at home, led them to doubt of its reality and Euler himself, in his paper read before the academy of sciences at Berlin in 1764, says, “I am not ashamed frankly to avow that the first accounts which were published of it appeared so suspicious, and even so contrary to the best established principles, that I could not prevail upon myself to give credit to them;” and he adds, *' I should never have submitted to the proofs which Mr. Dollond produced to support this strange phenomenon, if M. Clairaut, who must at first have been equally surprized at it, had not most positively assured me that Dpllond’s experiments were but too well founded.“And when the fact could be no longer disputed, they endeavoured to find a prior inventor, to whom it might be ascribed; and several conjecturers were honoured with the title of discoverers. But Mr. Peter Dollond in the paper we have just mentioned, has stated and vindicated, in the most unexceptionable and convincing manner, his father’s right to the first discovery of this improvement in refracting telescopes, as well as of the principle on which it was founded. In so doing he has corrected the mistakes of M. de la Lande in his account of this subject; those of M. N. Fuss, professor of mathematics at St. Petersburg, in his” Eulogy on Euler,“written and published in 1783; and those of count Cassini, in his” Extracts of the Observations made at the Royal Observatory at Paris in the year 1787;" and it must appear to every impartial and candid examiner, that Mr. Dollond was the sole discoverer of the principle which led to the improvement of refracting telescopes.

In the beginning of 1761, Mr. Dollond was elected F. R. S. and appointed optician to his majesty, but did not live to enjoy these honours long; for on Nov. 30, in the same year, as he was reading a new publication of M. Clairaut, on the theory of the moon, and on which he had been intently engaged for several hours, he was seized with apoplexy, which rendered him immediately speechless, and occasioned his death in a few hours afterwards. His family, at his death, consisted of three daughters and two sons, Peter and John, who, possessing their father’s abilities, carried on the optical business in partnership, until the death of John, when it was continued, and still flourishes, under the management of Mr. Peter Dollond, well known as an able philosopher and artist, and Mr. George Huggins, his nephew, who, upon the king’s permission, has taken the name of Dollond.

, a very able mineralogist, was born in Dauphiny, June 24, 1750. Of his early history our authorities give but a confused account. He was inspector of the mines, and commander of the order of Malta. He first went to sea at the age of eighteen, when being insulted by one of his companions, who was on board the same ship, he fought and killed him; for which, on his return to Malta, he was sentenced to death by the chapter of the order. The grand-master, however, granted him his pardon, but as it was necessary that it should be confirmed by the pope, and as his holiness was at that time out of humour with the knights, he remained inflexible, and Dolomieu was confined for nine months in a dungeon in the island. He afterwards resumed his studies, and accompanied the regiment of carabineers in which he was an officer. At Metz he took his first lessons in chemistry and natural history, and his progress became so rapid, that the academy of sciences granted him the title of corresponding member, which favour attached him entirely to natural philosophy. He then quitted the service, and almost immediately began his travels through Sicily, which produced “Voyage aux Isles de Lipari,” 1783, 8vo; a very interesting account of these volcanic isles, and forming very useful materials for a history of volcanoes. In the same year he published “Memoire sur le tremblemens de terre de la Calabre in 1783,” 8vo, which the following year was translated into Italian; and in 1788, “Memoire sur les isles Ponces, et Catalogue raisonne de PEtna,” 8vo.

On the commencement of the revolution, he embraced the principles of the popular party, but refusing any public employment, pursued his favourite studies. In the “Journal de Physique,” for 1790, we find a dissertation by him on the origin of basaltes; and he prepared the mineralogical articles of the new Encyclopaedia. The revolutionary horrors, which were fatal to his friend the duke de Rochefoucault, who was murdered before his eyes, had likely to have been equally fatal to himself, his name being inserted in the lists of the proscribed by the tyrants of the

, a French lawyer, was born of a good family, at Clermont, in Auvergne, in 1625. Father Sirmood, who was his great uncle, had the care of his education, and sent him to the college at Paris, where he learned the Latin, Greek, Italian, and Spanish tongues, applied himself to the study of philosophy and the belles-lettres, and made himself a competent master in the mathematics. Afterwards he went to study the law, and to take his degrees at Bourges, where professor Emerville made him an offer of a doctor’s hood, though he was but twenty years of age. Upon his return from Bourges, he attended the bar of the high court of judicature at Clermont, and began to plead with extraordinary success. In 1648 he married, and by that marriage had thirteen children. Three years before he had been made advocate to the king, in the high court of Clermont; which place he filled for thirty years with such uncommon reputation for integrity as well as ability, that he became arbiter, in a great measure, of all the affairs of the province. The confusion which he had observed in the laws, put him upon forming a design of reducing them to their natural order. He drew up a plan for this purpose, and communicated it to his friends, who approved of it so much, and thought it so useful, that they persuaded him to shew it to some of the chief magistrates. With this view he went to Paris in 1685, where the specimen of his work, which he carried along with him, was judged to be so excellent, that Lewis XIV. upon the report which Pelletier, then comptroller general, made to him of it, ordered Domat to continue at Paris, and settled upon him a pension of 2000 livres. Henceforward he employed himself at Paris, in finishing and perfecting his work; the first volume of which, in 4to, was published there, under the title of “Les Lois civiles, dans leur ordre naturel,” 1689. Three other volumes were published afterwards, which did their author the highest honour; who, upon the publication of the first, was introduced by Pelletier, to present it to the king. It was usual to recommend this work to young lawyers and divines, who wished to apply themselves to the study of morality and the civil law; and an improved edition was published so recently as 1777. It was also translated and published in English by Dr. William Strahan, 1720, 2 vols, fol. and reprinted and enlarged in 1741. His “Legum Delectus,” which is a part of this great work, was printed separately, and very elegantly by Wetstein; and in 1806, M. d'Agard published the first volume of a translation of this “Delectus,” with notes, &c.

Domat died at Paris Mar. 14, 1696. He was intimately acquainted with the celebrated Pascal, who was his countryman, and with whom he had many conferences upon religious subjects. He used also to make experiments with him upon the weight of the air, and in other branches of natural philosophy. He was at Paris when Pascal died there Aug. 19, 1662, and was entrusted by him with his. most secret papers.

, an eminent French botanist and traveller, was born at Macon, Feb. 22, 1742. He was brought up to the study of medicine, and took the degree of doctor of physic in the university of Montpellier. He there imbibed, under the celebrated professor Gouan, a taste for natural history, more especially for botany. To this taste he sacrificed his profession, and all prospect of emolument from that source, and cultivated no studies but such as favoured his darling propensity. Whatever time was not devoted to that, was given to the pleasures and dissipation incident to his time of life, his gay and agreeable character, and the society with which he was surrounded. To this dissipation he perhaps sacrificed more than prudence could justify; and it was fortunate for his moral character and worldly interest, probably also for his scientific success, that he removed to Paris in 1772, to improve his botanical knowledge. In 1775, while returning from a visit to Haller at Berne, he was informed that M. Turgot, the French minister, had chosen him to go to Peru, in search of plants that might be naturalized in Europe. On this he immediately returned to Paris, was presented to the minister, and received his appointment, with a salary of 3000 livres. Part of this was obliged to be mortgaged to pay his debts, and he was detained until the Spanish court had consented to the undertaking, which was not until next year. On arriving at Madrid, in November 1776, he found that the Spanish court had encumbered his expedition with futile instructions, and had added four companions, who, although of very little use, had each a salary of 10,000 livres. He accomplished his voyage, however, in six months, arriving at Lima April 8, 1778, where he obtained a favourable reception from the viceroy of Peru, Don Emanuel de Guirrior, and from M. de Bordenave, one of the canons of Lima.

His first botanical expedition towards Quito was not without danger, from hordes of run-away negroes, but it afforded him an abundant harvest of specimens of plants, as well as of antiquities from the sepulchres of the ancient Peruvians. These, with thirty-eight pounds of platina, and a collection of seeds, he sent immediately to Europe. He was also employed by the viceroy to analyse some mineral waters in that neighbourhood. He afterwards settled for a time in the mountainous province of Tarma, beyond the Cordilleras, and in May 1780, visited Huanuco, the extremity of the Spanish settlements in that direction. To investigate the vast and almost impervious forests beyond, swarming with insects, and filled with stagnant pestiferous vapours, proved a labour of no less danger than difficulty; not only from these natural impediments, but from the savages, 200 of whom were advancing by night to plunder them, had they not escaped by a precipitate and perilous retreat to Huanuco. From thence Dombey returned alone to Lima, where, although he was much discouraged by the ignorance and bigotry of the Spanish priests, he met with some enlightened and disinterested characters, who could appreciate his merit, and rendered him, from time to time, the most essential services.

Having sent off his second collection to Europe, Dombey returned to Huanuco, in the end of December 1780, where he had shortly after the mortification of hearing that his first collection had been taken by the English, and redeemed at Lisbon, by the Spanish government, consequently that the antiquities were now detained in Spain, and that duplicates only of the. dried plants and seeds had been forwarded to Paris. Dombey in the mean while, leaving his more recent acquisitions in safety at Lima, undertook a journey to Chili, and although his journey was necessarily attended with vast expence, his character was now so well known, that he readily met with assistance. He arrived at La Conception in the beginning of 1782, where, the town being afflicted with a pestilential fever, he devoted himself to the exercise of his medical skill, assisting the poor with advice, food, and medicine. This example having the effect to restore the public courage, the grateful people wished to retain him, with a handsome stipend, as their physician; and the bishop of La Conception endeavoured to promote his union with a young lady of great beauty and riches, on whom his merit had made impressions as honourable to herself as to him; but neither of these temptations prevailed. Having added greatly to his collection of drawings, shells, and minerals, as welt as of plants, and having discovered a new and most valuable mine of quicksilver, and another of gold, he revisited Lima, to take his passage for Europe. A journey of 100 leagues among the Cordilleras, made at his own expence, had much impaired his finances and his health, but he refused the repayment which the country offered him, saying, that “though he was devoted to the service of Spain, it was for his own sovereign, who had sent him, to pay his expences.” In Chili he discovered the majestic tree, of the tribe of Pines, 150 feet high, now named after him, Dombeya, of which the Norfolk-island pine is another species. While he still remained at Lima, the labours of arranging and packing his collections of natural history, added to the fatigues he had already undergone, and the petty jealousies and contradictions he experienced from some of the Spaniards in power, preyed upon his health and spirits; and under the idea that he might possibly never reach Europe, he wrote to his friend Thouin, to take the necessary precautions for the safety of his treasures on their arrival in a Spanish port. He survived, however, to undergo far greater distresses than he had yet known. After narrowly escaping shipwreck at Cape Horn, and being obliged to wait at the Brasils till his ship could be refitted, which last circumstance indeed was favourable to his scientific pursuits and acquisitions, he reached Cadiz on the 22d of February, 1785; but, instead of the reception he expected and deserved, he was not only tormented with the most pettifogging and dishonest behaviour concerning the property of his collections, but those collections were exposed, without discrimination or precaution, to the rude and useless scrutiny of the barbarians at the custom-house, so as to be rendered useless, in a great measure, even to those who meant to plunder them. The whole were thrown afterwards into damp warehouses, where their true owner was forbidden to enter. Here they lay for the plants to rot, and the inestimable collections of seeds to lose their powers of vegetation, till certain forms were gone through, which forms, as it afterwards appeared, tended chiefly to the rendering their plunder useless to others, rather than valuable to their own nation. In the first place, as much of these treasures had suffered by this ill-treatment, Dombey was required to repair the injury from his own allotment, or from that of his master, the king of France. With this he could not of himself comply; but an order was, for some political reason, procured from the French court, and he was obliged to submit. He could never, however, obtain that the seeds should be committed to the earth so as to be of use; and hence the gardens of Europe have been enriched with scarcely half a score of his botanical discoveries, among which are the magnificent Datura arborea, the beautiful Salvia formosa, and the fragrant Verbena triphylla, or, as it ought to have been called, citrea. This last will be a “monumentum sere perennins” with those who shall ever know his history. What had been given him for his own use hy the vice-roy of the Brasils, underwent the same treatment as the rest. Finally, he was required to fix a price upon the sad remains of his collections, which, as a great part was French national property, it was obvious he could not do. He remained at Cadiz, without money and without friends. His only hope was that he might hereafter publish his discoveries, so as to secure some benefit to the world and some honour to himself. But this last consolation was denied him. Anxious to revisit his native land, he would have compounded for his liberty with the loss of all but his manuscripts; but he was not allowed to depart until his persecutors had copied all those manuscripts, and bound him by a written promise never to publish any thing till the return of his travelling companions. In the mean while, those very companions were detained by authority in Peru; and in after-times the original botanical descriptions of Dombey have, many of them, appeared verbatim, without acknowledgment, in the pompous Flora of Peru and Chili, which thence derives a great part of its value. Thus chagrined and oppressed, the unhappy Dombey sunk into despair, till, no longer useful or formidable to his oppressors, he was allowed to return, with such parts of his collections as they condescended to leave him, to Paris.

There our countryman Dr. Smith knew him in 1786; no longer the handsome lively votary of pleasure, nor even the ardent enthusiastic cultivator of science, but presenting the sallow, silent, melancholy aspect of depression and disappointment. He chiefly associated with his faithful friends, Le Monnier and Thouin, and in their society botanical converse still retained its charms. To the contents of his own collection, which, however injured and diminished, was still a very interesting one, he paid little attention. Bound by his promise, his high sense of honour would not let him make the proper use of it, but at length he was induced to part with it to M. de Buffon, who nobly exerted himself so as to procure from government a pension of 6000 livres for Dombey, and 60,000 livres to pay his debts. The herbarium was confided to M. L'Heritier, with orders to publish its contents. This was no sooner known at Madrid, than interest was made by that court to defeat the measure, and the court of Versailles was not in a condition to dispute even so unjust and politically unimportant a requisition from that quarter. Buffon had orders to withdraw the herharium, but L'Heritier on the first alarm had taken it over to London, and Dr. Smith with his lamented friend Broussonet, and his draughtsman Redoute", were alone entrusted with the secret. Happy and safe in a land of liberty and science, L‘Heritier remained about fifteen months devoted to the prosecution of his object, chiefly under the hospitable roof of ’.is friend sir Joseph Banks.

After his return, he had determined to retire to a peaceful retreat at the foot of Mount Jura, where he had a friend devoted to the love and cultivation of plants. His pecuniary circumstances were now easy, and he resigned his fatal celebrity without regret. He broke oft' all scientific communication, except with M. Pavon, one of his fellowlabourers in Peru, and who had all along been innocent of the execrable machinations against his honour and his peace. He refused a place in the French academy of sciences, as well as a large pecuniary offer from the empress of Russia for the duplicates of his collection, saying, “he was not in want of money, and he had most pleasure in distributing his specimens amongst his friends.” Residing at Lyons for some time, in his way towards Switzerland, he had the misfortune to be present during the siege of that town; but sickening at the sight of public miseries on every side, he procured a commission to visit North America, in order to purchase corn from the United States, and to fulfil some other objects of public importance, especially relating to science and commerce. A tempest obliged him to take shelter at Guadaloupe, but that island being, like the mother country, in a state of revolution, he narrowly escaped with his life, and after much barbarous treatment, was ordered to quit the colony in the American vessel in which he came. That vessel was no sooner out of the harbour, than it was attacked by two privateers, and taken. Dombey, disguised as a Spanish sailor, was thrown into a prison in the island of Montserrat, where ill-treat, ment, mortification, and disease, put a period to his life on the 19th of February, 1796.

, or Domenico Zampieri,a very much admired artist, was born at Bologna in 1581, and received his first instruction in the art of painting, from Denis Calvart; but afterwards he became a disciple of the Caracci, and continued in that school for a long time. The great talents of Domenichino did not unfold themselves as early in him, as talents much inferior to his have disclosed themselves in other painters; he was studious, thoughtful, and circumspect; which by some writers, as well as by his companions, was misunderstood, and miscalled dullness. But the intelligent Annibal Caracci, who observed his faculties with more attention, and knew his abilities better, testified of Domenichino, that his apparent slowness of parts at present, would in time produce what would be an honour to the art of painting. He persevered in the study of his art with incredible application and attention, and daily made rapid advances. Some writers contend that his thoughts were judicious from the beginning, and they were afterwards elevated, wanting but little of reaching the sublime; and that whoever will consider the composition, the design, and the expression, in his Adam and Eve, his Communion of St. Jerom, and in that admirable picture of the Death of St. Agnes at Bologna, will readily perceive that they must have been the result of genius, as well as of just reflections; but Mr. De Piles says he is in doubt whether Domenichino had any genius or not. That ingenious writer seems willing to attribute every degree of excellence in Domenichino’s performances, to labour, or fatigue, or good sense, or any thing but genius; yet, says Pilkington, how any artist could (according to his own estimate in the balance of painters) be on an equality with the Caracci, Nicolo Poussin, and Lionardo da Vinci, in composition and design, and superior to them all by several degrees in expression, and also approach near to the sublime, without having a genius, or even without having an extraordinary good one, seems to me not easily reconcileable. If the productions of an artist must always be the best evidence of his having or wanting a genius, the compositions of Domenichino must ever afford sufficient proofs in his favour. The same biographer says, that as to correctness of design, expression of the passions, and also the simplicity and variety, in the airs of his heads, he is allowed to be little inferior to Raphael; yet his attitudes are but moderate, his draperies rather stiff, and his pencil heavy. However, as he advanced in years and experience, he advanced proportionably in, merit, and the latest of his compositions are his best. There is undoubtedly in the works of this eminent master, what will always claim attention and applause, what will for ever maintain his reputation, and place him among the number of the most excellent in the art of painting. One of the chief excellences of Domenichino consisted in his painting landscapes; and in that style, the beauty arising from the natural and simple elegance of his scenery, his trees, his well- broken grounds, and in particular the character and expression of his figures, gained him as much public admiration as any of his other performances.

"It is, however, but justice to observe that there is a subject in which Domenichino has not unsuccessfully copied, and perhaps even excelled RafTaello. I mean that of the Cure of the demoniac boy, among the series of frescoes painted by him at Grotto Ferrata. That inspired figure is evidently the organ of an internal preternatural agent, darted upward without contortion, and even considered without any connexion with the story, never can be confounded with a mere tumultuary distorted maniac; which is not perhaps the case of the boy in the Transfiguration; the subject, too, being within the range of Domenichino’s powers, a domestic one, the whole of the persons introduced is characteristic. Awe of the saint who operates the miracle, and terror at the redoubled fury of the son at his approach, mark the rustic father: confidence, serene activity, and fervent prayer, the saint and his companion: nor could the agonizing female with the child, as she is the mother, be exchanged to advantage; here she properly occupies that place which the fondling females in the pictures of St. Sebastian, St. Andrew, and St. Agnes, only usurp.

St. Dominic had spent ten years in preaching in Languedoc, when, in 1215, he founded the celebrated order of preaching friars, or Dominicans, as they were afterwards called. The same year it was approved of by Innocent III. and confirmed in 1216, by a bull of Honorius III. under the title of St. Augustin; to which Dominic added several austere precepts and observances, obliging the brethren to tuke a vow of absolute poverty, and to abandon entirely all their revenues and possessions; and they were called preaching friars, because public instruction was the main end of their institution. The first convent was founded at Tholouse by the bishop thereof, and Simon de Montfort. Two years afterwards they had another at Paris, near the bishop’s house and iome time after, viz. in 1218, a third in the rue St Jaques, St. James’s- street, whence the denomination of Jacobins. Just before his death, Dominic sent Gilbert de Fresney, with twelve of the brethren, into England, where they founded their first monastery at Oxford, in 1221, and soon after another at London. In 1276, the mayor and aldermen of the city of London gave them two whole streets by the river Thames, where they erected a very commodious convent, whence that place is still called Black Friars, from the name by which the Dominican? were called in England. St. Dominic, at first, only took the habit of the regular canons, that is, a black cassock, and rochet; but this he quited in 1219, for that which they now wear, which, it is pretended, was shewn by the blessed Virgin herself to the beatiiied Renaud d'Orleans. This order is diffused throughout the whole known world. It has forty-five provinces under the general, who resides at Rome; and twelve particular congregations, or reforms, governed by vicars-general. They reckon three popes of this order, above sixty cardinals, several patriarchs, a hundred and fifty archbishops, and about eight hundred bishops; beside masters of the sacred palace, whose office has been constantly discharged by a religious of this order, ever since St. Dominic, who held it under Honorius III. in 1218. The Dominicans are also inquisitors in many places. Of all the monastic orders, none enjoyed a higher degree of power and authority than the Dominican friars, whose credit was great and their influence universal. Nor will this appear surprising, when we consider that they filled very eminent stations in the church, presided every where over the terrible tribunal of the inquisition, and had the care of souls, with the function of confessors in all the courts of Europe, which circumstance, in those times of ignorance and superstition, manifestly tended to put most of the European princes in their power. But the measures they used, in order to maintain and extend their authority, were so perfidious and cruel, that their influence began tq decline towards the beginning of the sixteenth century. The tragic story of Jetzer, conducted at Bern in 1501), for determining the uninteresting dispute between them and the Franciscans, relating to the immaculate conception, will reflect indelible infamy on this order. They were indeed perpetually employed in stigmatizing with the opprobrious name of heresy numbers of learned and pious men; in encroaching upon the rights and properties of others, to augment their possessions; and in laying the most iniquitous snares and stratagems for the destruction of their adversaries. They were the principal counsellors, by whose instigation and advice LeoX. was determined to the public condemnation of Luther. The papal see never had more active and useful abettors than this order and that of the Jesuits. The dogmata of the Dominicans are usually opposite to those of the Franciscans. They concurred with the Jesuits in maintaining, that the sacraments have in themselves an instrumental and official powe". by virtue of which they work in the soul (independently of its previous preparation or propensities) a disposition to receive the divine grace; and this is what is commonly called the opus operatum of the sacraments. Thus, according to their doctrine, neither knowledge, wisdom, humility, faith, nor devotion, are necessary to the efficacy of the sacraments, whose victorious energy nothing but a mortal sin can resist.

After establishing this important order, St Dominic, who had deservedly become a favourite at the court of Home, was detained for several months to preach in that city and by his advice the pope created the new office, already mentioned, that of master of the sacred palace, who is by virtue of this office the pope’s domestic theologian or chaplain; and St. Dominic was appointed to it. It has ever since been held by one of his order. The rest of his history at Rome consists of his miracles, and may well be spared. In 1218 he took a journey from Rome through Languedoc into Spain, and founded two convents; thence he went in 1219 to Toulouse and Paris, at which last place he founded his convent in St. James’s-street, whence his order were called Jacobins, and inhabited a house since memorable in the history of the French revolution. After this, and the foundation of other convents, he arrived at Bologna, where he principally resided during the remainder of his life, which ended August 6, 1221. He was canonized by pope Gregory IX. in 1234.

, archbishop of Spalato in Dalmatia, was born about 1561, at Arba, and educated at Padua. He was remarkable for a fickleness in religious matters, which at length proved his ruin; otherwise he was a man of great abilities and learning. He was entered early amongst the Jesuits, but left that society to be bishop of Segni, and afterwards archbishop of Spalato but instead of growing more firmly attached to the church of Rome on account of his preferment, he became every day more and more disaffected to it. This induced him to write his famous books “De Republica Ecclesiastica,” which were afterwards printed in London; and in which he aimed a capital blow at the papal power. These books were read over and corrected, before publication, by our bishop Bedell, who was then at Venice in quality of chaplain to sir Henry Wotton, ambassador there from James I. De Dominis coming to Venice, and hearing a high character of Bedell, readily discovered his secret, and commuicated his copy to him. Bedell took the freedom he allowed him, of correcting many improper applications of texts in scripture, and quotations of fathers: for that prelate, being ignorant of the Greek tongue (a common thing in those days even amongst the learned), had committed many mistakes both in the one and the other. De Dominis took all this in very good part, entered into great familiarity with Bedell, and declared his assistance so useful, and indeed so necessary to him, that he could, as he used to say, do nothing without him.

When Bedell returned to England, Dominis came over with him, and was at first received by the English clergy with all possible marks of respect. Here he preached and wrote against the Romish religion, and the king gave him the deanery of Windsor, the mastership of the Savoy, and the rich living of West Ildesley in Berkshire. De Dominis’s view seems to have been to reunite the Romish and English churches, which he thought might easily be effected, by reforming some abuses and superstitions in the former; “and then,” Grotius says, “he imagined, the religion of protestants and catholics would be the same.” After he had staid in England some years, he was made to believe, upon the promotion of pope Gregory XIV. who had been his school-fellow and an old acquaintance, that the pope intended to give him a cardinal’s hat, and to make use of him in all affairs; so that he fancied he should be the instrument of a great reformation in the church. This snare wa* laid for him chiefly by the artifice of Gondemar, the Spanish ambassador; and his own ambition and vanity (of both which he had a share) made him easily fall into it. Accordingly he returned to Rome in 1622, where he abjured his errors in a very solemn manner. He was at first, it is said, well received by the pope himself; but happening to say of cardinal Bellarmine, who had written against him, that he had not answered his arguments, he was complained of to the pope, as if he had been still of the same mind as when he published his books. He excused himself, and said, that though Bellarmine had not answered his arguments, yet he did not say they were unanswerable; and he offered to answer them himself, if they would allow him time for it. This imprudent way of talking, together with the discovery of a correspondence which he held with some protestants, furnished a sufficient plea for seizing him; and he was thrown into prison, where he died in 1625. It was discovered after his death, that his opinions were not agreeable to the doctrine of the church of Rome; upon which his corpse was dug up, and burnt with his writings in Flora’s Field, by a decree of the inquisition.

Besides his work, “De Republica Ecclesiastica,” 3 vols. fol. he was author of a work in optics, which obtained the applause of the illustrious sir I. Newton, and which is entitled “De Radiis Visus & Lucis in Vitris perspectives et Iride Tractatus.” Our great philosopher complimented the author of this tract so far as to declare, that he was the first person who had explained the phenomena of the colours of the rainbow. He wrote also, 1. “Dominis suae profectionis a Venetiis consilium exponit,” London, 1616, 4to, and published in English the same year. 2. “Predica fatta, la prima Domenica dell' Avvento 1617, in Londra nella Capella delta delli Mercian,” Lond. 1617, 12mo, published in English the same year, 4to. 3. “Sui Retiitus in Anglia consiliura exponit,” Rome, 1623, 4to, and in English the same year. 4. “De pace regionis, Epistola ad Josephum Hallum,” 1666, 4to. We are also indebted to him for father Paul’s “History of the Council of Trent,” the manuscript of which he procured for archbishop Abbot.

, an artist and author, was born at Edinburgh in 1737; his father was a glover in rather low circumstances, but of a speculative turn of mind, and much addicted to metaphysical reveries, of which his son unfortunately inherited a double portion, and without his father’s prudence, who never suffered his abstractions to interfere with his business. While a child, young Donaldson was constantly occupied in copying every object before him with chalk on his father’s cutting-board, which, was often covered with his infant delineations. This natural determination of the mind was encouraged by the father, and at the age of twelve or thirteen, his son had acquired some reputation as a drawer of miniature portraits in Indian ink, and was by these efforts enabled to contribute to the support of his parents. At the same time he was much admired for his skilfil imitations of the ancient engravers, which he executed with a pen so correctly, as sometimes to deceive the eye of a connoisseur. After passing several years in Edinburgh, he came to London, and for some time painted portraits in miniature with much success; but unfortunately he now began to fancy that the taste, policy, morals, and religion of mankind were all wrong, and that he was born to set them right. From this time his profession became a secondary object, and whether from jealousy or insanity, he used repeatedly to declare that sir Joshua Reynolds must be a very dull fellow to devote his life to the study of lines and tints. The consequence of all this was that contemptuous neglect of business which soon left him no business to mind. In the mean time he employed his pen in various lucubrations, and published a volume of poems, and an “Essay on the Elements of Beauty,” in both which merit was discoverable. Before he took a disgust at his profession, he made an historical drawing, the “Tent of Darius,” which was honoured with the prize given by the Society of Arts and also painted two subjects in enamel, the “Death of Dido,” and “Hero and Leander,” both which obtained prizes from the same society, yet no encouragement could induce him to prosecute his art. Among his various pursuits he cultivated chemistry, and discovered a method of preserving not only vegetables of every kind, but the lean of meat, so as to remain uncorrupted during the longest voyages. For this discovery he obtained a patent; but want of money, and perhaps his native indolence, and a total ignorance of the affairs of life, prevented him from deriving any advantage from it. The last twenty years of his life were years of suffering. His eyes and business failing, he was not seldom in want of the most common necessaries. His last illness was occasioned by sleeping in a room which had been lately painted. He was seized with a total debility; and being removed by the care of some friends to a lodging at Islington, where he received every attention that his case required, he expired Oct. 11, 1801, regretted by all who knew him as a man of singular and various endowments, addicted to no vice, and of the utmost moderation, approaching to abstemiousness; but unhappy in a turn of mind too irregular for the business of life, and above the considerations of prudence. Mr. Edwards attributes to him an anonymous pamphlet entitled “Critical Observations and Remarks upon the public buildings of London.”

, or Donato, one of the principal revivers of sculpture in Italy, of an obscure family at Florence, was born in 1383. He learned design under Lorenzo de Bicci, and abandoning the old dry manner, he was the first who gave his works the grace and freedom of the productions of ancient Greece and Rome; and Cosmo de Medicis employed him on a tomb for pope John XXIII. and in other works, both public and private. Cosmo also availed himself of his taste and judgment in forming those grand collections, which gave celebrity to Florence as the parent of modern art. Amongst his performances in that city are his Judith and Holofernes in bronze, his Annunciation, his St. George and St. Mark, and his Zuccone, in one of the niches of the Campanile at Florence; all of which are as perfect as the narrow principles upon which the art was then conducted would allow. To these we may add another excellent performance, his equestrian statue of bronze at Padua, to the honour of their general Gallamalata. Conscious of the value of his performances, he exclaimed to a Genoese merchant, who had bespoke a head, and estimated it by the number of days which it had employed the artist, “this man better knows how to bargain for beans than for statues he shall not have my head” and then dashed it to pieces yet no man less regarded money than Donatello. Cosmo at his death having recommended him to his son, the latter gave him an estate; but in a little while Donatello, who began to be plagued with his farmers and agents, begged his benefactor to take it again, as he did not like the trouble of it. The gift was resumed, and a weekly pension of the same value assigned to the artist. He had no notion of hoarding; but it is said that he deposited what he received in a basket, suspended from a ceiling, from which his friends and workpeople might supply themselves at their pleasure. He died in 1466, at the age of 83, and was buried in the church of St. Lorenzo, near his friend Cosmo, that, as he expressed himself, “his soul having been with him when living, their bodies might be near each other when dead.” He left a son, named “Simon,” who adopted his manner, and acquired reputation.

, an eminent botanist, was born at Padua in 1717, of a noble family, but addicted himself to science, and under the ablest professors of the university of his native city, studied medicine, natural history, botany, and mathematics. After taking his doctor’s degree in medicine, he more particularly cultivated natural history, and frequently went to Dalmatia in pursuit of curious specimens. In 1750 he published a small folio, with plates, entitled “Delia Storia Naturale Marina dell' Adriatico,” to which his friend Sesler subjoined the botanical history of a plant named after him Vitaliana. This work was afterwards translated into several languages. The same year, he was appointed professor of natural history and botany at Turin. After having travelled several times over the maritime Alps, he undertook, by order of the king, an expedition to the East Indies. Arriving at Alexandria, he went thence to Cairo, and after visiting a considerable part of Egypt, penetrated into those countries that were then unknown to European travellers. On his return he died at Bassora, of a putrid fever, in 1763. He had previously packed up two cases of collections of natural history, and two large volumes of observations made during his travels, which were to be conveyed to Turin by the way of Lisbon; but at the latter place, it is said, they were kept a long time, not without some suspicion of their having been opened, &c. It is certain, however, that both the collections and the manuscripts were lost by some means or other. Ferber, who gives some account of Donati in his “Letters on Mineralogy,” thinks he was not very remarkable for his botanical knowledge, but a first-rate connoisseur in petrifactions, corals, zoophytes, and, in general, in the knowledge of all marine bodies. He adds that his enemies were zealous in their endeavours to injure his reputation; affirming that he was still alive in Persia, where he resided in disguise, and appropriated to his own use the remittances that had been granted for the purposes of his voyage, all which Ferber considers as a ridiculous fable. After his death, was published his “Dissertation sur le corail noir.”

, a Jesuit of Sienna, who died at Rome April 23, 1640, published in that city in 1639, in 4to, a description of ancient and modern Rome, “Roma vetus & recens utriusque edificiis illustrata.” It is far more accurate and better composed than all those that had been given before to the public. Grsevius has inserted it in the 3d volume of his Roman Antiquities. We have likewise Latin poems of his, Cologne, 1631, 8vo, and three books on the art of poetry.

, a nobleman of Venice, who died in the beginning of the sixteenth century, was very useful to his country; served it as a commander more than once; and was, in 1510, the means of reconciling that republic and pope Julius II. though he had the misfortune to he carried off by a violent fever at Rome in 1513, before the treaty was concluded between them. He was also a man of learning; and published a translation of “Alexander Aphrodiseus de Anima.” His letters are likewise well written; which made Erasmus say of him, that he was capable of any literary exertion, if his mind had not been dissipated by other employments. Pierius Valerianus has placed him in the list of unfortunate learned men, for which he gives three reasons: first, because his domestics obeyed him ill; secondly, because he did not live to see the happiness, which would arise to his country from the conclusion of his treaty; thirdly, because a great many books, which he had written to immortalize kis name, remained unpublished. We have not much reason, hovever, for thinking that any of these misfortunes gave him much uneasiness. An ingenious reply is, we know not upon what authority, attributed to him, when ambassador from Venice to pope Julius II. who asked him for the title of the claims of his republic to the sovereignty of the Adriatic. “Your holiness will find the concession of the Adriatic,” said he to the pontiff, “at the back of the original record of Constantine’s donation to pope Sylvester, of the city of Rome and the other territories of the church.” A bold answer, when we consider how dangerous it was to dispute the authenticity of this writ of donation, insomuch that, in 1478, several persons were condemned to the flames at Strasburg for expressing their doubts of it.

Much additional information respecting Donato is given by our countryman Mr. Greswell, who says that “he united in his character whatever could adorn the scholar and the gentleman;” and that “with a well-cultivated understanding, great political experience, and a profound knowledge of the interests of the state, he combined very elegant manners, and the most captivating address; all which advantages were heightened by a majestic stature and deportment, and every personal accomplishment.”

, bishop of Casae Nigrae in Numidia, is regarded by some as the author of the sect of the Donatists, which took its rise in the year 311, from the following circumstance. Cecilianus having been chosen to succeed Mensurius in the episcopal chair of Carthage, the election was contested by a powerful party, headed by a lady named Lucilla, and two priests, Brotus and Celestius, who had themselves been candidates for the disputed see. They caused Majorinus to be elected, under pretence that the ordination of Cecilianus was null, as having, according to them, been performed by Felix, bishop of Aptonga, whom they accused of being a traditor; that is, of having delivered to the pagans the sacred books and vessels during the persecution, and was therefore unfit to bestow consecration. The African bishops were divided, and Donatus headed the partisans of Majorinus. In the mean time, the affair being brought before the emperor, he referred the judgment to three bishops of Gaul, Maternus of Cologne, Reticius of Autun, and Marinus of Arles, r conjointly with the pope Miltiades. These prelates, in a council held at Rome in 313, composed of fifteen Italian bishops, in which Cecilianus and Donatus appeared, each with ten bishops of their party, decided in favour of Cecilianus; but the division soon being renewed, the Donatists were again condemned by the council of Aries in 3)4; and lastly by an edict of Constantine, of the month of November 316. Donatus, who was returned to Africa, there received the sentence of deposition and of excommunication pronounced against him by pope Miltiades.

, bishop of Carthage, has likewise the credit of having given the name to the sect of Donatists, founded it is said, by the former, but which took its name from this Donatus, as being the more considerable man of the two. He maintained, that though the three persons in the trinity were of the same substance, yet the son was inferior to the father, and the holy ghost to the son. He began to be known about the year 329, and greatly confirmed his faction by his character and writings. He was a man of great parts and learning; but of greater pride. He did not spare even the emperors themselves; for when Paulus and Macarius were sent by Constans with presents to the churches of Africa, and with alms to relieve the poor, he received them in the most reproachful manner, rejected their presents with scorn, and asked in a kind of fury, “What had the emperor to do with the church?” He was banished from Carthage about the year 356, according to Jerom, and died in exile: though authors are not agreed as to the precise time either of his banishment or of his death. The emperors were obliged to issue many severe edicts to restrain the fury and intemperance of this very factious sect. The Donatists had a great number of bishops and laity of their party; some of whom distinguished themselves by committing outrages upon those who differed from them. They had a maxim which they firmly maintained upon all occasions, “That the church was every where sunk and extinguished, excepting in the small remainder amongst themselves in Africa.” They also affirmed baptism in other churches to be null, and of no effect; while other churches allowed it to be valid in theirs; from which they inferred, that it was the safer to join that community where baptism was acknowledged by both parties to be valid, than that where it was allowed to be so only by one.

Notwithstanding the severities they suffered, it appears that they had a very considerable number of churches, towards the close of the fourth century; and could number among them no less than 400 bishops; but at this time they began to decline, on account of a schism among themselves, occasioned by the election of two bishops, in the room of Parmenian, the successor of Donatus; one party elected Primian, and were called Primianists, and another Maximian, and were called Maximianists. The decline was also precipitated by the zealous opposition of St. Augustin, and by the violent measures which were pursued against them by order of the emperor Honorius, at the solicitation of two councils held at Carthage; the one in the year 404, and the other in the year 411. Many of them were fined, their bishops were banisiied, and some put to death. This sect revived and multiplied under the protection of the Vandals, who invaded Africa in the year 427, and took possession of this province but it sunk again under new severities, when their empire was overturned in the year 534. Nevertheless, they remained in a separate body till the close of the sixth century, when Gregory, the Roman pontiff, used various methods for suppressing them; and there are few traces to be found of the Donatists after this period. They were distinguished by other appellations; as Circumce/liones, Montenses, or mountaineers, Campites, Rupites, &c. They held three councils, or conciliabules; one at Cirta, in Numidia, and two at Carthage.

, a celebrated grammarian in the fourth century, wrote a grammar, which long continued in the schools, and notes upon Terence and Virgil. Vossius mentions him amongst his Latin historians, on account of the lives of Virgil and Terence, of which some have fancied him to be the author; but he believes that the first was written by Tiberius Claudius Donatus, as it is certain the latter was by Suetonius. Our Donatus flourished in the time of Constantius, and taught rhetoric and polite literature at Rome with applause, in the year 356, and afterwards; about which time St. Jerom, who has several times mentioned him as his master, studied grammar under him. Jerom also speaks of his commentaries upon Terence and Virgil; and in his own commentary upon the first chapter of the book of Ecclesiastes, verse 9th, he quotes a verse out of Terence, and then an observation of his master Donatus upon it, which was probably made yi his lectures, as it does not now appear in the notes of Donatus upon Terence. Donatus has given ample employment to the Bibliographers, who all speak of the “Editio Tabellaris, sine ulla nota” of his Grammar, as one of the first efforts at printing by means of letters cut on wooden blocks. This work has been printed with several titles, as “Donatus,” “Donatus minor,” “Donatus pro puerulis,” &c. but the work is the same, viz. Elements of the Latin language for the use of children. Dr. Clarke has given an account of twelve editions, all of great rarity, one of which, by Wynkyn de Worde, is described by Mr. Dibdin. His “Commentarii in quinque Comujclias Terentii,” was first printed without a date, probably before 1460, and reprinted in 1471, 1476; and his “Commentarius in Virgilium,” fol. was printed at Venice in 1529.

, a famous physician of Padua, surnamed Aggregator, on account of the great quantity of remedies he had made, was not less versed in mathematics than in medicine. He invented a clock of a new construction, which shewed not only the hours of the day and night, the days of the month, and the festivals of the year, but also the annual course of the sun, and that of the moon. The success of this invention got him the appellation of Horologius, a name ever afterwards retained hy the family. It was likewise Dondus who first found out the secret of making salt from the waters of Albano, in the Pacluan, which is described in a posthumous treatise, “De fluxu et refluxu Maris,” 1571. He died in 1350, leaving several works in physics and medicine. We have by him: “Promptuarium medicinae,” Venice, 1481, folio; and in company with John de Dondis, his son, “De fontibus calidis Patavini agri,” in a treatise “De Balneis,” Venice, 1553, folio.

, in Latin Donellus, one of the most learned civilians of the sixteenth century, was born at Chalons on the Saone, in 1537. His school-master had so disheartened him by severity, that neither threats nor promises could make him remain in school. But at last, being afraid he should be placed in a menial situation, he applied more diligently to his studies. He learned civil law at Toulouse, under the professors John Corrasius and Arnold du Ferrier, who had no less than four thousand auditors. He was admitted to the degree of D. C. L. at Bourges, in 1551, and professed that science in the same city with Duaren, Hotman, and Cujacius, and afterwards at Orleans. He was very near being killed in the massacre of 1572, because he was a protestant; and could not have escaped the violence of the murtherers, if some of his scholars, who were Germans by nation, had not saved him by disguising him in a German dress, as one of their domestics. He had embraced the reformation whea rery young, at the instigation of his sister. He staid some time at Geneva, and afterwards he went into the palatinate, where he taught the civil law in the university of Heidelbergh. He was invited to Leyden in 1575, to take upon him the same employment, which he accepted and discharged in a worthy manner, but baring imprudently engaged himself in some political disputes, he was forced to leave Holland in 1588. He returned to Germany, and was professor of law at Altorf until his death, May 4, 1591. He had so happy a memory, that he knew the whole Corpus Juris by heart. His works, most of which had been published separately, were collected under the title of “Commentaria de jure civili,” 5 vols. folio, reprinted at Lucca, 12 vols. folio, of which the last appeared in 1770. 2. “Opera Posthuma,” 8vo. The most valuable of his writings, is his book on the subject of last wills and testaments, which he is said to have treated with great learning and precision.

There was another DoNi, whose name was John Bap­Tist, a writer on Music, and who left behind him at his death, about 1650, many printed works upon ancient music, as “Compend. del. Trat. de‘ Generi e de’ Modi della Musica.” “De praestantia Musicse Veteris,” and particularly his “Discorso sopra le Consonanze,” with a great number of unfinished essays and tracts relative to that subject, and the titles of many more. Few men had indeed considered the subject with greater attention. He saw the difficulties, though he was unable to solve them. The titles of his chapters, as well as many of those of father Mersennus, and others, are often the most interesting and seducing imaginable. But they are false lights, which like ignes fatui, lead us into new and greater obscurity. The treatises which he published both in Latin and Italian, on the music of the Greeks, being well written in point of language, obtained him the favour and eulogies of men of the highest class in literature. He has been much extolled by Heinsius, Gassendi, Pietro della Valle, and others. Apostolo Zeno, in his learned notes to the Biblioteca Italiana of Fontanini, speaks of him in the following terms: “We had reason to hope that the works of Doni -would have completed our knowledge of the musical system of the ancients; as he united in himself a vast erudition, a profound knowledge in the Greek language, in mathematics, in the theory of modern music, in poetry, and history, with access to all the precious Mss. and treasures of antiquity.” Doni invented an instrument which he denominated the “Lyra Barberini,” or “Amphichordon,” which he has described in an express treatise, but we hear of it no where else. He was a declared foe to learned music, particularly vocal in fugue, where the several performers are uttering different words at the same time, and certainly manifests good taste, and enlarged views, with respect to theatrical music and the improvement of the musical drama or opera; but his objections to modern music, and proposals of reform, not only manifest his ignorance of the laws of harmony, but a bad ear, as he recommends such wild, impracticable, and intolerable expedients of improvement, as no ear well constructed, however uncultivated, can bear.

, was born in 1596, of a noble family, originally of Florence, and entered himself of the Minims. Cardinal Richelieu, who became acquainted with him during his retirement at Avignon, was so struck with his modesty and learning, that he gave him the bishopric of Itiez, in which diocese he did much good. From the see of Uiez he was translated to that of Autun, and died in 1664, at the age of sixty-eight. He published, 1. “A History of the Minims,” 4to.' 2. “The Life of queen Joan, foundress of the Annonciades,” 8vo. 3. “The Life of cardinal de Berulle,” in Latin, 8vo. 4. “The History of the Cardinals,” in Latin, 1660, 2 vols. folio, &c. His Latin works are more tolerable in regard to style than those in French, the diction of which is become obsolete.

, an ingenious mathematician, was born Feb. 6, 1718, at Bideford, in Devonshire, where his father kept a mathematical school, and was reputed one of the best teachers of arithmetic, navigation, and dialing, in his time. It appears from some papers in ms. left by the Rev. Mr. Hervey, author of the “Meditations,” that the family name was Donne and that Christopher, the grandfather, was the first that dropped the final e. The subject of the present article was brought up under the care of the Rev. Mr. Mudge, of Plymouth, and his successor White, M. A. with whom he made a very considerable progress in the Latin and Greek languages. When he left the grammar-school, as far as his health would permit, he assisted his father in his mathematical school; and when he was about fourteen years of age, being at play with some of his schoolmates, he fell from a high pile of deals, which, with his soon after going a-swimming in a profuse sweat, laid the foundation for disorders which continued on him till the time of his death; so that, from the fourteenth year of his age to his twenty-eighth, when he died, he can scarcely be said to have had the blessing of health, even for so short an interval as a month. ^Notwithstanding this severe sickness, he studied the mathematics, and acquired some considerable knowledge in those sciences; for he solved several questions in the Diaries. As to astronomy, it seemed to have been his favourite study; and he left behind him the result of hiss calculations of the eclipses of the Sun and Moon, with the transits of Mercury, for more than ten years to come, with their delineations. He was assistant to Mr. Hervey in his studying the use of the globes and that pious clergyman preached his funeral sermon, July 15, 1746. His works were published by his younger brother, Benjamin Donn, who about 1756 opened an academy at Kingston, near Taunton, in Somersetshire, where he taught with great success, and where he died in 1798, after publishing some mathematical treatises.

, an eminent English divine and poet, was born in the city of London in 1573. His father was descended from a very ancient family in Wales, and his mother was distantly related to sir Thomas More the celebrated and unfortunate lord chancellor, and to judge Rastall, whose father, one of the earliest English printers, married Elizabeth, the chancellor’s sister. Ben Jonsoa seems to think that he inherited a poetical turn from Haywood, the epigrammatist, who was also a distant relation, by the mother’s side. Of his father’s station in life we have no account, but he must have been a man of considerable opulence, as he bequeathed to him three thousand pounds, a large sum in those days. Young Donne received the rudiments of education at home under a private tutor, and his proficiency was such, that he was sent to the university at the early, and perhaps unprecedented age of eleven years, or according to Walton, at ten. At this time, we are told, he understood the French and Latin languages, and had in other respects so far exceeded the usual attainments of boyhood, as to be compared to Picus Mirandula, one that was “rather born, than made wise by study.” He was entered of Hart-hall, now Hertford college, where at the usual time he might have taken his first degree with honour, but having been educated in the Roman catholic persuasion, he submitted to the advice of his friends who were averse to the oath usually administered on that occasion. About his fourteenth year, he was removed to Trinity college, Cambridge, where he prosecuted his studies for three years with uncommon perseverance and applause: but here likewise his religious scruples prevented his taking any degree.

In his seventeenth year, he repaired to London, and was admitted into Lincoln’s-inn, with an intention to study law, but what progress he made we are not told, except that he continued to give proofs of accumulated knowledge in general science. Upon his father’s death, which happened before he could have been regularly admitted into the society of Lincoln’s-inn, he retired upon the fortune which his father left to him, and had nearly dissipated the whole before he made choice of any plan of life. At this time, however, he was so, young and so submissive as to be under the guardianship of his mother and friends, who provided him with tutors in the mathematics, and such other branches of knowledge as formed the accomplishments of that age; and his love of learning, which was ardent and discursive, greatly facilitated their labours, and furnished his mind with such intellectual stores as gained him considerable distinction. It is not improbable, also, that his poetical attempts contributed to make him more known.

In this honourable employment, he passed five years, probably the most agreeable of his life. But a young man of a disposition inclined to gaiety, and in the enjoyment of the most elegant pleasures of society, could not be long a stranger to love. Donne’s favourite object was the daughter of sir George Moor, or More, of Loxley farm in the county of Surrey, and niece to lady Ellesmere. This young lady resided in the house of the chancellor, and the lovers had consequently many opportunities to indulge the tenderness of an attachment which appears to have been mutual. Before the family, they were probably not very cautious, for in one of his elegies he speaks of spies and rivals, and her father either suspected, or from them had some intimation, of a connexion which he chose to consider as degrading, and therefore removed his daughter to his own house at Loxley. But this measure was adopted too late, as the parties, perhaps dreading the event, had been for some time privately married. This unwelcome news, when it could be no longer concealed, was imparted to sir George Moor, by Henry earl of Northumberland, a nobleman, who, notwithstanding this friendly interference, was afterwards guilty of that rigour towards his own youngest daughter, which he now wished to soften in the breast of sir George Moor. Sir George’s rage, however, transported him beyond the bounds of reason. He not only insisted on Donne’s being dismissed from the lord chancellor’s service, but caused him to be imprisoned; and, at the same time, Samuel Brook, afterwards master of Trinity college, and iiis brother Christopher Brook, who were present at the marriage, the one acting as father to the lady, the other as witness.

It has already been noticed that in his early years he had examined the state of the controversy between the popish and protestant churches, the result of which was his firm attachment to the latter. But this was not the only consequence of a course of reading in which the principles of religion were necessarily to be traced to their purer sources. He appears to have contracted a pious turn of mind, which although occasionally interrupted by the intrusions of gay life, and an intercourse with foreign nations and foreign pleasures, became habitual, and was probably increased by the distresses brought on his family in consequence of his imprudent marriage. That this was the case appears from an interesting part of his history, during- his residence with sir Francis Wooley, when he was solicited to take orders. Among the friends whom his talents procured him, was the learned Dr. Morton, afterwards bishop of Durham, who first made this proposal, but with a reserve which does him much honour, and proves the truest regard for the interests of the church. The circumstance is so remarkable that no apology can be necessary for giving it in the words of his biographer:

“Dr. Morton sent to Mr. Donne, and intreated to borrow an hour of his time for a conference the next day. After their meeting, there was not many minutes passed before he spake to Mr. Donne to this purpose: ' Mr. Donne, the occasion of sending for you is to propose to you, what I have otten revolved in my own thought since 1 saw you last, which nevertheless I will not declare but upon this condition, that you shall not return me a present answer, but forbear three days, and bestow some part of that time in fasting and prayer, and after a serious consideration of what I shall propose, then return to me with your answer. Deny me not, Mr. Donne, for it is the effect of a true love, which I would gladly pay as a debt due for yours to me.” This request being granted, the doctor expressed himself thus: ‘ Mr. Donne, I know your education and abilities; I know your expectation of a state employment, and I know your fitness for it, and I know too, the many delays and contingencies that attend court-promises; and let me tell you, that my love, begot by our long friendship and your merits, hath prompted me to such an inquisition after your present temporal estate, as makes me no stranger to your necessities, which I know to be such as your generous spirit could not bear, if it were not supported with a pious patience: You know I have formerly persuaded you to wave your court-hopes, and enter into holy orders; which I now again persuade you to embrace, with this reason added to my former request: The king hath yesterday made me dean of Gloucester, and I am also possessed of a benefice, the profits of which are equal to those of my deanery: I will think my deanery enough for my maintenance (who am and resolve to die a single man), and will quit my benefice, and estate you in it (which the patron is willing I shall do), if God shall incline your heart to embrace this motion. Remember, Mr. Donne, no man’s education or parts make him too good for this employment, which is to be an ambassador for the God of glory; that God, who, by a vile death, opened the gates of life to mankind. Make me no present answer, but remember your promise, and return to me the third day with your resolution.’

“At the hearing of this, Mr. Donne’s faint breath and perplexed countenance gave a visible testimony of an inward conflict; but he performed his promise, and departed without returning an answer till the third day, and theft his answer was to this effect: ' My most worthy and most dear friend, since I saw you I have been faithful to my promise, and have also meditated much of your great kindness, which hath been such as would exceed even my gratitude, but that it cannot do, and more I cannot return you; and that I do with an heart full of humility and thanks, though I may not accept of your offer: But, sir, my refusal is not for that I think myself too good for that calling, for which kings, if they think so, are not good enough; nor for that my education and learning, though not eminent, may not, being assisted with God’s grace and humility, render me in some measure fit for it; but I dare make so dear a friend as you are my confessor: some irregularities of my life have been so visible to some men, that though I have, I thank God, made my peace with him by penitential resolutions against them, and by the assistance of his grace banished them my affections; yet this, which God knows to be so, is not so visible to man, as to free me from their censures, and it may be that sacred calling from a dishonour. And besides, whereas it is determined by the best of casuists, that God’s glory should be the first end, and a maintenance the second motive to embrace that calling, and though each man may propose to himself both together, yet the first may not be put last without a violation of my conscience, which he that searches the heart will judge. And truly my present condition is such, that if I ask my own conscience whether it be reconcileable to that rule, it is at this time so perplexed about it, that I can neither give mvself nor you an answer. You know, sir, who says, Happy is that man whose conscience doth not accuse him for that thing which he does. To these I might add other reasons that dissuade me, but I crave your favour that may forbear to express them, and thankfully decline your offer.'”———

In this desultory course of reading, which improved hia mind at the expence of his fortune, he spent two years at Mitcham, when sir Robert Drury insisted on his bringing his family to live with him in his spacious house in Drury-­lane and sir Robert afterwards intending to go on an embassy with lord Hay to the court of France, he persuaded Donne to accompany him. Mrs. Donne was at this time in a bad state of health, and near the end of her pregnancy; and she remonstrated against his leaving her, as she foreboded “some ill in his absence.” Her affectionate husband determined on this account to abandon all thoughts of his journey, and intimated his resolution to sir Robert, who, for whatever reason, became the more solicitous for his company. This brought on a generous conflict between Donne and his wife. He urged that he could not refuse a man to whom he was so much indebted; and she complied, although with some reluctance, from a congenial sense of obligation. It was on this occasion, probably, that he addressed to his wife the verses “By our first strange and fatal interview,” &c. She had formed, if this conjecture be allowed, the romantic design of accompanying him in the disguise of a page, from which, it was the purpose of these verses to dissuade her.

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.

At this period of our history, it was deemed expedient to select such men for high offices in the church, as promised by their abilities and zeal to vindicate the reformed religion. King James, who was no incompetent judge of such merit, though perhaps too apt to measure the talents of others by his own standard, conceived from a perusal of the “Pseudo-Martyr,” that Donne would prove an ornament and bulwark to the church, and therefore not only endeavoured to persuade him to take orders, but resisted every application to exert the royal favour towards him in any other direction. When the favourite earl of Somerset requested that Mr. Donne might have the place of one of the clerks of the council, then vacant, the king replied, *' I know Mr. Donne is a learned man, has the abilities of a learned divine, and will prove a powerful preacher, and my desire is to prefer him that way, and in that way I will deny you nothing for him." Such an intimation must have made a powerful impression, yet there is no reascn to conclude from any part of Mr. Donne’s character, that he won I'd have been induced to enter the church merely by the persuasion of his sovereign, however flattering. To him, however, at this time, the transition was not difficult. He had relinquished the follies of youth, and had nearly outlived the remembrance of them. His studies had long inclined to theology, and his frame of mind was adapted to support the character expected from him. His oldfriend Dr, Morton probably embraced this opportunity to second the king’s wishes, and remove Mr. Donne’s personal scruples; and Dr. King, bishop of London, who had been chaplain to the chancellor when Donne was his secretary, and consequently knew his character, heard of his intention with much satisfaction. By this prelate he was ordained deacon and afterwards priest; and the king, although not uniformly punctual in his promises of patronage, immediately made him his chaplain in ordinary, and gave him hopes of higher preferment.

Those who had been the occasion of Mr. Donne’s entering into orders, were anxious to see him exhibit in a new character, with the abilities which had been so much admired in the scholar, and the man of the world. But at first, we are told, he confined his public services to the churches in the vicinity of London, and it was not until his majesty required his attendance at Whitehall on an appointed day, that he appeared before an auditory capable of appreciating his talents. Their report is stated to have been highly favourable. His biographer, indeed, seems to be at a loss for words to express the pathos, dignity, and effect of his preaching, but in what he has advanced he no doubt spoke the sentiments of Donne’s learned contemporaries. Still the excellence of the pulpit oratory of that age will not bear the test of modern criticism, and those who now consult Mr. Donne’s sermons, if they expect gratification, must be more attentive to the matter than the manner. That he was a popular and useful preacher, is universally acknowledged, and he performed the more private duties of his function with humility, kindness, zeal, and assiduity.

The same month, which appears to have been March 1614, in which he entered into orders, and preached at Whitehall," the king happened to be entertained during one of his progresses at Cambridge, and recommended Mr. Donne to be made D. D. Walton informs us that the university gave their assent as soon as Dr. Harsnet, the vice-chancellor, made the proposal. According, however, to two letters from Mr. Chamberlain to sir Dudley Carlton, it appears that there was some opposition to the degree, in consequence of a report that Mr. Donne had obtained the reversion of the deanery of Canterbury. Even the vice-chancellor is mentioned among those who opposed him. It is not very easy to reconcile these accounts, unles by a conjecture that the opposition was withdrawn, when the report respecting the deanery of Canterbury was proved to be untrue. And there is some probability that this was the case, for that deanery became vacant in the following year, and was given to Dr. Fotherby, a man of much less fame and interest. But whatever was the cause of this temporary opposition at Cambridge, it is certain that Dr. Donne became so highly esteemed as a preacher, that within the first year of his ministry, he had the offer of fourteen different livings, all of which he declined, and all for the same reason, namely, that they were situated at a distance from London, to which, in common with all men of intellectual curiosity, he appears to have been warmly attached.

In 1617 his wife died, leaving him seven children. This affliction sunk so deep into his heart, that he retired from the world and from his friends, to indulge a sorrow which could not be restrained, and which for some time interrupted his public services. From this he was at length diverted by the gentlemen of Lincoln’s-inn, who requested him to accept their lecture, and prevailed. Their highregard for him contributed to render this situation agreeable and adequate to the maintenance of his family. The connexion subsisted about two years, greatly to the satisfaction of both parties, and of the people at large, who had now frequent opportunities of hearing their favourite preacher. But on lord Hay being appointed on an embassy to Germany, Dr. Donne was requested to attend him. He was at this time in a state of health which required relaxation and change of air, and after an absence of fourteen months, he returned to his duty in Lincoln’sinn, much improved in health and spirits, and about a year after, in 1620, the king conferred upon him the deanery of St. Paul’s.

While in this full tide of popularity, he had the misfortune to fall under the displeasure of the king, who had been informed that in his public discourses he had meddled with some of those points respecting popery which were more usually handled by the puritans. Such an accusation might have had very serious consequences, if the king had implicitly confided in those who brought it forward. But Dr. Donne was too great a favourite to be condemned unheard, and accordingly his majesty sent for him, and represented what he hud heard, and Dr. Donne so completely satisfied him as to his principles in church and state, that the king, in the hearing of his council, bestowed high praise on him, and declared that he rejoiced in the recollection that it was by his persuasion Dr. Donne had become a divine.

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.

, an ingenious botanist, and the author of some discoveries in the indigenous botany, was a native of Staffordshire, which he left to settle in London as an apothecary. He was chosen superintendant and demonstrator of the gardens at Chelsea, an office which he held some years before his death, which took place in 1706. In 1695 he was elected a fellow of the Royal Society, and was the contemporary and friend of Ray, PluJkenet, and Sloane, who all bear testimony to his merit. As he lived in London, and there is reason to believe was in very considerable business, his excursions could not ordinarily extend far from that city; but in its neighbourhood, his diligence was beyond any other example. He struck out a new path in botany, by leading to the study of that tribe which comprehends the imperfect plants, now called the Cryptogamia class. In this branch he made the most numerous discoveries of any man in that age, and in the knowledge of it stood clearly unrivalled. The early editions of Ray’s Synopsis were much amplified by his labours; and he is represented by Mr. Ray, as a man of uncommon sagacity in discovering and discriminating plants in general. The learned successor of Tournefort, M. Jussieu, speaks of him as “inter Pharmacopceos Londinenses sui temporis Coryphaeus.” In truth he was the Dillenius of his time. There is a long list of rare plants, many of them new, and first discovered by Mr. Doody, published in the second edition of Ray’s Synopsis, accompanied with observations on other species. There is also “The case of a dropsy of the breast,” written by him, and printed in the Philosophical Transactions, in 1697, vol. XX. Some of his Mss. on medical and botanical subjects are in the British Museum.

, 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.

, a noble Genoese, the greatest mariner of his age, was born in 1468, at Oneille, a small town on the coast of Genoa, of which Ceva Doria, his father, was joint lord. He adopted the military profession, and distinguished himself for several years in the service of different princes of Italy. On his return to his native country, he was twice employed in Corsica, where he fought against the rebels with so much success, that the whole island was reduced to the obedience of the republic. In consequence of the reputation for valour and prudence which Doria had acquired, he was appointed, about 1513, captain-general of the gallies of Genoa; and it is to be remarked, that he was upwards of forty-four years of age when he took up the profession of a maritime warrior. The African pirates, who at that time infested the Mediterranean, gave him the first opportunities for acquiring fame. He pursued them with unremitted ardour, and in a short time enriched himself with so many captures, that the produce, joined to the assistance of his friends, enabled him to purchase four gallics. The revolutions that soon happened in the government of Genoa, determined Doria to enter into the service of Francis I.; but after that prince was taken prisoner at Pavia, he became dissatisfied with the ministry of France, and yielding to the solicitations of Clement VII. he attached himself to that pontiff, who made him his admiral. Rome being taken by the constable of Bourbon, in 1527, the pope was no longer able to continue Doria in his pay, and persuaded him to go back into the service of France, the sovereign of which, Francis I. received him with open arms, and appointed him general of his gallies, with a salary of 36,000 crowns, to which he afterwards added the title of admiral of the seas of the Levant. Doria was then proprietor of eight well-armed gallies. It was to him that the French were indebted for the reduction of Genoa, from whence the Adorni were expelled that same year, 1527. The year following, Philippino Doria, his nephew and his lieutenant, whom he had dispatched with eight gallies to the coasts of the kingdom of Naples, in order to favour the operations of the French army there, commanded by Lautrec, gained a complete victory over the naval armament of the emperor at Capo-d'Orso, near the gulf of Salerno. The imperial fleet being now destroyed, Naples, besieged by Lautrec, could no longer receive succours by sea, and was on the point of surrendering, which would infallibly have brought on the conquest of the whole kingdom, when suddenly Doria abandoned France to serve the emperor. This defection frustrated the enterprise against Naples, and effected the total failure of the French affairs in Italy. As to the motives that led him to this sudden change, it should seem as if the ministers of Francis I. jealous of the influence of this foreigner, who besides treated them with the haughtiness of a republican, and the bluntness of a sailor, had endeavoured to ruin him in the king’s opinion, and had partly succeeded in their attempt. Doria, soured and angry, only waited for a pretext to give vent to his indignation, which his enemies soon gave him. They persuaded the king to appropriate to himself the town of Savona, belonging to the Genoese; to enlarge the port, and make it a rival of the metropolis. In vain did Doria make remonstrances to him in behalf of the republic, to turn him from his purpose; they were not only ill received, but were misinterpreted; and he was represented to the king as a man that openly resisted his will. Nor did they stop here; they persuaded the king to arrest him; and twelve gallies, under the command of Barbezieux, received orders to go first to Genoa to take possession of his person, and then to proceed to Naples to seize upon his gallies, commanded by Philippino his nephew. But Doria, having foreseen the blow, had retired to Lerica, in the gulph of La Spezia, whence he dispatched a brigantine to his nephew, with orders to join him without delay, and thought himself authorised to act in this manner, because the term of his engagement to the king was just expired. From this moment Doria made it his chief business to conclude his agreement with the emperor, who had been soliciting it for a long time. It will not appear surprizing that Francis T. now sought by all means in his power to regain Doria; but neither the most magnificent promises, nor even the mediation of pope Clement VII. could induce him to alter his resolution. What must, however, reflect still greater honour on the memory of Doria, was his refusal, on this occasion, of the sovereignty of Genoa, which was offered him by the emperor. Preferring the title of restorer to that of master, he stipulated that Genoa should remain free under the imperial protection, provided she should succeed in throwing off the yoke of the French. He thought nothing now was wanting to his glory, but to be the deliverer of his country; and the failure of the expedition against Naples emboldened him the same year, 1528, to hazard the attempt. Accordingly, presenting himself before Genoa with 13 gallies, and about 500 men, he made himself master of it in one night, without shedding a drop of blood. This expedition procured him the

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 reputed magician of Samaria, of the first century, who pretended to be the Messiah, is looked upon as the first heresiarch, but was more properly an enemy to Christianity. He applied to himself all the prophecies which are held by the church to regard Jesus Christ. He had in his train thirty disciples, as many as there are days in the month, and would not have any more. He admitted among them a woman whom he called the Moon. He observed the rite of circumcision, and fasted often. To gain belief that he was taken from the earth by an ascension into heaven, he retired into a cavern, where, far from the prying eyes of the world, he starved himself to death. The sect of the Dosithecans made great account of their chastity, and regarded with contempt the rest of mankind. A Uosithaean would not associate with any one who did not think and live like him. They had some singular practices, to which they were strongly attached: such as that of remaining for twenty-four hours in the same posture they happened to be in when the sabbath began, which they pretended to be founded upon the prohibition of working during the sabbath. In consequence of such practices the Dosithseans thought themselves superior to the most enlightened men, to the most virtuous citizens, to the most beneficent of men. This sect subsisted in jEgypt till some time in the sixth century, but ecclesiastical historians are much divided as to the history of Dosithoeus and his sect.

, 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.

, an English divine, was born about 1598 at Martley near Worcester, and educated at Worcester, whence at the age of sixteen he became a student at Oxford. After he had taken his bachelor’s degree, he was one of those excellent scholars who were candidates for a fellowship in Merton college, and after a severe examination by the then warden, sir Henry Savile, Mr. Doughty gained the election. He there completed his degree of M. A. and entering into orders, became a very popular and edifying preacher. In 1631 he served the office of proctor only for four months, the proctors being removed by the king; but about that time he became chaplain to the earl of Northumberland, and his college bestowed on him the rectory of Lapworth in Warwickshire. On the commencement of the rebellion, he left Lapworth, to avoid sequestration and imprisonment, and joined the king at Oxford. Soon after Dr. Duppa, bishop of Salisbury, gave him the lectureship of St. Edmund’s in that city, where he continued about two years; but, on the defeat of the royal army in the West, he went to London, and found an asylum in the house of sir Nathaniel Brent, in Little Britain. After the restoration, his loyalty and public services were rewarded with a prebend in Westminster, and the rectory of Cheam in Surrey, and about the same time he was created doctor of divinity. He died at Westminster, after he had lived, says Wood, “to be twice a child,” December 25, 1672, and was buried in the abbey.

, 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.

He also wrote an allegorical poem, called “King Hart,” which was first published from an original manuscript by Mr. Pinkerton, in 1786, in his “Ancient Scotish Poems.” A new edition of bishop Douglas’s translation of Virgil was printed at Edinburgh, in 1710, in small folio, to which a large and valuable glossary was added by the celebrated printer Ruddiman, and a life of the author by the rev. John Sage, who acknowledges the assistance he had from bishop Nicolson, sir Robert Sibbald, Dr. Pitcairne, and Mr. Urry.

, 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.

Dr. Douglas collected, at a great expence, all the editions of Horace which had been published from 1476 to 1739. Dr. Harwood, who mentions this circumstance in his View of the Greek and Roman classics, which, however, had been previously mentioned by Pope, observes that this one author thus multiplied, must have constituted a very considerable library. A very accurate catalogue of those different editions is prefixed to the first volume of Watson’s Horace.

His brother, John Douglas, who was surgeon to the Westminster infirmary, wrote several controversial pieces; in one of them, entitled “Remarks on a late pompous work,” London, 1735, 8vo, he censures, with no small degree of severity, as well as injustice, Cheselden’s Anatomy of the Bones; in another, Some account of the state of Midwifery in London, published in 1736, he criticises with equal asperity the works of Charnberlen and Chapman, on the subject of midwifery; and in a third he decries the new invented forceps of Dr. Smellie. He also wrote a work on the high operation for the stone, which he practised, a dissertation on the venereal disease, published in 1737, and “An account of Mortifications, and of the surprizing effects of the bark in putting a stop to their progress,” London, 1729. The practice recommended in this little work is still followed.

, the late learned bishop of Salisbury, was born in Scotland, in 1721, the son of Mr. Archibald Douglas, a merchant of Fittenween, in Fifeshire. His grandfather (who was a younger brother of the family of Douglas of Tulliquilly, one of the oldest branches of the house of Douglas now in existence), was an eminent clergyman of the episcopal church of Scotland, and the immediate successor of bishop Burnet in the living of Salten, in East Lothian, from which preferment he was ejected at the revolution, when presbyterianism was established in Scotland. The subject of this memoir was educated for some years at the school of Dunbar, but in 1736 was entered a commoner of St. Mary hall, Oxford, where he remained till 1738, and then removed to Baliolcollege, on being elected an exhibitioner on bishop Warner’s foundation. In 1741 he took his bachelor’s degree; and in 1742, in order to acquire a facility of speaking French, he went abroad, and remained for some time at Montreal, in Picardy, and afterwards at Ghent, in Flanders. On his return to college, in 1743, he took his master’s degree, and having been ordained deacon, in 1744, he was appointed to officiate as chaplain to the third regiment of foot-guards, which he joined when serving with the combined army in Flanders. During the time he tilled this situation, he employed himself chiefly in the study of modern languages. He was not an inactive spectator of the battle of Fontenoy, April 29, 1745, on which occasion he was employed in carrying orders from general Campbell to the English who guarded the village in which he and the other generals were stationed.

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 1755, he wrote a pamphlet entitled “An Apology for the Clergy,” against the Hutchinsonians; and shortly after, another pamphlet, entitled “The Destruction of the French foretold by Ezekiel,” against the same, being an ironical defence of them aq;ainst the attack made on them in the former pamphlet, which, however, was not greatly wanted, as the Hutchinsonians had at that time the more serious aid of Mr. (afterwards Dr.) George Home, bishop of Norwich, who could himself, had he thought it necessary, wield the weapon of irony with good effect. In 1756, Mr. Douglas published his first pamphlet against Archibald Bower, the purpose of which, as well as of what followed against the same doubtful character (see Bower), was to shew that his History of the popes could not be depended upon, and that the author had shewn himself capable of much misrepresentation and falsehood, which he had indulged to secure the patronage of the protestants in this country. In the autumn of the same year, Mr. Douglas published “A serious Defence of the Administration,” being an ironical justification of their introducing foreign troops to defend this country. In 1757 he published “Bower and Tillemont compared;” shortly afterwards, “A full Confutation of Bower’s Three Defences;” and in the spring of 1758, “The complete and final Detection of Bower.”

, an eminent artist, was born at Leyden in 1613, and after receiving some instructions from Dolendo, an engraver, and Kouwhoorn, a glasspainter, at the age of fifteen became a disciple of Rembrandt, with whom he continued three years. Rembrandt taught him the principles of colouring, and the chiaroscuro, to which knowledge Douw added a delicacy of pencil, and a patience in working up his colours to the highest degree of neatness, superior to any other master. His pictures are usually of a small size, with figures exquisitely touched, transparent and delicate. Every object is a minute copy of nature, and appears perfectly natural in colour, freshness, and force. In painting portraits he used a concave mirror, and sometimes looked at his original through a frame with many exact squares of fine silk; practices now disused, except by some miniature painters who still use the mirror.

, 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 ingenious physician and poet, the son of a country gentleman of both his names, was born at Newton House, in the village of Newton St. Cyrus, near Exeter, in 1740, and educated at the grammar-school of Exeter. About 1758 he was entered of Baliol college, Oxford, where he remained until he took his bachelor’s degree, and in 1762 was ordained by bishop Lavington in the cathedral of Exeter, but he had little attachment to the church, nor were his prospects very alluring. In 1765 he repaired to Edinburgh, with a view to study medicine, and took up his abode in the house of Dr. Blacklock, who, having read his first poetical production, “The Land of the Muses,” bestowed encouraging praise. This poem was published at Edinburgh in 1768, but has never since been reprinted. To it were added “Poems on several occasions,” of various merit, but all indicating a considerable share of poetical taste. In 1769, Mr. Downman came to London, where he attended the hospitals and lectures for one winter. He then received his master’s degree at Cambridge, and soon after settled as a practitioner at Exeter, and married the daughter of Dr. Andrew, an eminent physician in that city. Here his practice was rapidly increasing, when, in 1778, the severity of a chronic complaint, contracted in his earlier years, obliged him to consult his health by change of air, and retirement, during- which he amused himself by literary efforts. The first was his tragedy of “Lucius’unius Brutus,” published in 1779, in which there are some poetical beauties, but not enough of the dramatic form to suit the stage. “Belisarius,” his second dramatic attempt, was performed at the Exeter theatre, but with little success; but his third, “Editha,” brought out at that theatre in 1781, was performed for seventeen nights. This, however, must be imputed to its being founded on a local event peculiarly interesting to an Exeter audience; in other respects all his tragedies must be allowed to be better adapted to the closet than the stage.

About 1777, a design was entertained of publishing a translation of Voltaire’s works, and the poetical department was entrusted to Dr, Downman. The plan was too extensive, and those who undertook it failed. The publication was consequently discontinued but a volume of the tragedies, containing CEdipus, Mariamne, Brutus, and The Death of Caesar, was printed in 1781. It might be suspected, that the expressive energy of our author’s language was little suitable to the expanded tinsel of a French dramatist; yt't he is thought to have succeeded in familiarizing these tragedies to the English reader. When Mr. Polwhele, in 1792, collected the original miscellaneous poetry of Devonshire and Cornwall, Dr. Downman, at that time his intimate friend, was a large contributor. His pen indeed was seldom from his hand, and his poetical stock was almost inexhaustible; so that, while many poems were distinguished by his signature, he could claim many others marked with single initials.

, a celebrated enthusiast, was born about 1587, at Straiisiiitz, in Moravia, where his father was burgomaster. He was admitted minister in 1616, and exercised his function at Drakotutz; and when he was obliged to seek a retreat in foreign countries, on account of the severe edicts of the emperor against the protestant religion, he retired to Leidnitz, a town in Hungary, in 1629. Having no hopes of being restored to his church, he turned woollen-draper; in which occupation his wife, who was the daughter of one, was of great service to him. Afterwards he forgot the decorum of his former character so much, that he decame a hard drinker; and the other ministers, justly scandalized at his conduct, informed their superiors of it, who, in a synod called in Poland, examined into the affair, and resolved that Drabicius should be suspended from the ministry, if he did not live in a more edifying manner. This obliged him to behave himself with more decency, in public at least.

When he was upwards of fifty years of age, he commenced prophet. He had his first vision in the night of Feb. 23, 1638, and the second in the night of Jan. 23, 1643. The first vision promised him in general great armies from the north and east, which should crush the house of Austria; the second declared particularly, that Ragotski, prince of Transylvania, should command the army from the east, and ordered Drabicins to inform his brethren, that < was about to restore them to their own country, and to revenge the injuries done to his people and that they should prepare themselves for this deliverance by fasting and prayer. He received orders to write down what been revealed to him and to begin in the manner of the ancient prophets, “The word of the Lord came unto me.” His visions, however, were not much regarded at first. These two were followed by many others in the same year, 1643; and there was one, which ordered, that he should open the whole affair to Comenius, who was then at Elbing, in Prussia. One of his visions, in 1644, assured him that the imperial troops should not destroy the refugees. They committed great ravages upon the territories of Kagotski, plundered the town of Leidnitz, and besieged the castle. Drabicius shut himself up there, and did not depend so entirely upon the divine assurances as to think human means unnecessary. He even set his hand to the works: “he would not only be present,” says Comenius, who blames him for it, “but also fire one of the cannon himself; whereas, it would have been more proper for him to have been in a corner, and to have applied himself to prayer. But the imprudent zeal of this new Peter, presuming to defend the Lord with the material sword, was chastised by the Lord himself, who permitted part of the flame to recoil upon his face, and to hurt one of his eyes.” The imperialists raised the siege; but soon after besieged the place again, and took it. The refugees were plundered, and Drabicius fell into the hands of the imperialists. This did not prevent him from going to Ragotski, and telling him, Aug. 1645, that God commanded him to destroy the house of Austria and the pope; and that, “if he refused to attack that nest of vipers, he would draw down upon his family a general ruin.” The prince already knew that Drabicius had assumed the character of a prophet for Drabicius, according to the repeated orders which he had received in his ecstacies, had sent him a copy of his revelations, which Ragotski threw into the fire. The death of that prince, in Oct. 16 7, plunged Drabicius into extreme sorrow; who was in the utmost fear lest his revelation should vanish into smoke, and himself be exposed to ridicule. But he had one ecstatic consolation, which re-animated him; and that was, that God would send him Comenius, to whom he should communicate his writings. Comenius having business in Hungary, in 1650, saw Drabicius there, and his prophecies; and made such reflections as he thought proper, upon the vision’s having for three years before promised Drabicius that he should have Comenius for a coadjutor. Sigismond Ragotski, being urged by Drabicius to make war against the emperor, and by his mother to continue in peace with him, was somewhat perplexed. Drabicius denounced against him the judgments of the Almighty, in case of peace; and his mother threatened him with her curse in case of war. In this dilemma he recommended himself to the prayers of Drabicius and Comenius, and kept himself quiet till his death. In 1654 Drabicius was restored to his ministry, and his visions p esemed themselves more frequently than ever; ordering from lime to time that they should be communicated to his coadjutqr Comenius, that be might publish them to all nations and languages, and particularly to the Turks and Tartars. Comenius found himself embarrassed between the fear of God, and that of men; he was apprehensive that by not printing the revelations of Drabicins he should disobey God, and that by printing them he should expose himself to the ridicule and censure of men. He took a middle way; he resolved to print them, and not to distribute the copies; and upon this account he entitled the book “Lux in Tenebris.” But his resolution did not continue long; it gave way to two remarkable events, which were taken for a grand crisis, and the unravelling of the mystery. One of these events was the irruption of George Ragotski into Poland; the other, the death of the emperor Ferdinand III., but both events far from answering the predictions, served only to confound them. Ragotski perished in his descent upon Poland; and Leopold, king of Hungary, was elected emperor in the room of his father Ferdinand III. by which election the house of Austria was almost restored to its former grandeur, and the protestants in Hungary absolutely ruined. Drabicius was the greatest sufferer by this; for the court of Vienna, being informed that he was the person who sounded the trumpet against the house of Austria, sought means to punish him, and, as it is said, succeeded in it. What became of him, we cannot learn; some say that he was burnt for an impostor and false prophet; others, that he died in Turkey, whither he had fled for refuge; but neither of these accounts is certain.

, one of our most distinguished naval heroes, who flourished in the reign of Elizabeth, was the son of Edmund Drake, a sailor, and born near Tavistock, in Devonshire, in 1545, but some have said that he was the son of a clergyman. He was, however, brought up at the expence, and under the care, of sir John Hawkins, who was his kinsman; and at the age of eighteen was purser of a ship trading to Biscay. At twenty he made a voyage to Guinea; and at twenty-two had the honour to be made captain of the Judith. In that capacity he was in the harbour of St. John de Ulloa, in the gulph of Mexico, where he behaved most gallantly in the glorious actions under sir John Hawkins, and returned with him to England with great reputation, though as poor as he set out. Upon this he projected a design against the Spaniards in the West Indies, which he no sooner announced, than he had volunteers enough ready to accorapany him. In 1570 he made his first expedition with two ships; and the next year with one only, in which he returned safe, if not with such advantages as he expected. He made another expedition in 1572, did the Spaniards some mischief, and gained considerable booties. In these expeditions he was much assisted by a nation of Indians, who then were, and have been ever since, engaged in perpetual wars with the Spaniards. The prince of these people was named Pedro, to whom Drake presented a fine cutlass from his side, which he saw the Indian greatly admired. Pedro, in return, gave him four large wedges of gold, which Drake threw into the common stock, with this remarkable expression, that“he thought it but just, that such as bore the charge of so uncertain a voyage on his credit, should share the utmost advantages that voyage produced.” Then embarking his men with all the wealth he had obtained, which was very considerable, he bore away for England, where he arrived in August, 1573.

His success in this expedition, joined to his honourable behaviour towards his owners, gained him high reputation, which was increased by the use he made of his riches. For, fitting out three stout frigates at his own expence, he sailed with them into Ireland, where, under Walter earl of Essex, the father of the famous unfortunate earl, he served as a volunteer, and performed many gallant exploits. After the death of his noble patron, he returned into England; where sir Christopher Hatton, vice-chamberlain to queen Elizabeth, and privy-counsellor, introduced him to her majesty, and procured him countenance and protection at court. By this means he acquired a capacity of undertaking that grand expedition, which will render his name immortal. The first thing he proposed was a voyage into the South-seas, through the Straits of Magellan, which hitherto no Englishman had ever attempted. The project was well received at court; the queen furnished him with means; and his own fame quickly drew together a force sufficient. The fleet with which he sailed on this extraordinary undertaking, consisted only of five small vessels, compared with modern ships, and no more than 164 able men. He sailed from England, Dec. 13, 1577; on the 25th fell in with the coast of Barbary, and on the 29th with Cape Verd. March 13, he passed the equinoctial, made the coast of Brazil April 5, 1578, and entered the river de la Plata, where he lost the company of two of his ships; but meeting them again, and taking out their provisions, he turned them adrift. May 29, he entered the port of St. Julian, where he continued two months, for the sake of laying in provisions; Aug. 20> he entered the Straits of Magellan; and Sept. 25 passed them, having then only his own ship. Nov. 25, he came to Machao, which he had appointed for a place of rendezvous, in case his ships separated: but captain Winter, his vice-admiral, having repassed the Straits, was returned to England. Thence he continued his voyage along the coasts of Chili and Peru, taking all opportunities of seizing Spanish ships, and attacking them on shore, till his crew were sated with plunder; and then coasting North-America to the height of 48 degrees, he endeavoured, but in vain, to find a passage back into our seas on that side. He landed, however, and called the country New Albion, taking possession of it in the name and for the use of queen Elizabeth; and, having careened his ship, set sail from thence Sept. 29, 1579, for the Moluccas. He is supposed to have chosen this passage round, partly to avoid being attacked by the Spaniards at a disadvantage, and partly from the lateness of the season, when dangerous storms and hurricanes were to be apprehended. Oct. 13, he fell in with certain islands, inhabited by the most barbarous people he had met with in all his voyage; and, Nov. 4, he had sight of the Moluccas, and, coming to Ternate, was extremely well received by the king thereof, who appears, from the most authentic relations of this voyage, to have been a wise and polite prince. Dec. 10, he made Celebes, where his ship unfortunately ran upon a rock Jan. 9th following; from which, beyond all expectation, and in a manner miraculously, they got off, and continued their course. March 16, he arrived at Java Major, and from thence intended to have directed his course to Malacca; but founrf himself obliged to alter his purpose, and to think of returning home. March 25, 1580, he put this design in execution; and June 15, doubled the cape of Good Hope, having then on board 57 men, and but three casks of water. July 12, he passed the Line, reached the coast of Guinea the 16th, and there watered. Sept. 11, he made the island of Tercera; and Nov. 3, entered the harbour of Plymouth. This voyage round the globe was performed in two years and about ten months. His success in this voyage, and the immense mass of wealth he brought home, raised much discourse throughout the kingdom; some highly commending-, and some as loudly decrying him. The former alleged, that his exploit >vas not only honourable to himself, but to his country that it would establish our reputation for maritime skill in foreign nations, and raise an useful spirit of emulation at home; and that, as to the money, our merchants having suffered much from the faithless practices of the Spaniards, there was nothing more just, than that the nation should receive the benefit of Drake’s reprisals. The other party alleged, that in fact he was no better than a pirate; that, of all others, it least became a trading nation to encourage such practices; that it was not only a direct breach of all our late treaties with Spain, but likewise of our old leagues with the house of Burgundy; and that the consequences would be much more fatal than the benefits reaped from it could be advantageous. This difference of opinion continued during the remainder of 1580, and the spring of the succeeding year; but at length justice was done to Drake’s services; for, April 4, 1581, her majesty, going to Deptford, went on board his ship; where, after dinner, she conferred on him the honour of knighthood, and declared her absolute approbation of all he had done. She likewise gave directions for the preservation of his ship, that it might remain a monument of his own and his country’s glory. Camden, in his Britannia, has taken notice of an extraordinary circumstance relating to this ship of Drake’s, where, speaking of the shire of Buchan, in Scotland, he says, “It is hardly worth while to mention the clayks, a sort of geese, which are believed by some with great admiration, to grow upon trees on this coast, and in other places, and when they are ripe, they fall down into the sea, because neither their nests nor eggs can any where be found. But they who saw the ship in which sir Francis Drake sailed round the world, when it was laid up in the river Thames, could testify that little birds breed in the old rotten keels of ships, since a great number of such, without life and feathers, stuck close to the outside of the keel of that ship.” This celebrated ship, which had been contemplated many years at Deptford, at length decaying, it was broke p; and a chair made out of the planks was presented to the* university of Oxford. In 1585 he sailed with a fleet to the West Indies, and took the cities of St. Jago, St. Domingo, Carthagena, and St. Augustin. In 1587 he went to Lisbon with a fleet of 30 sail; and, having intelligence of a great fleet assembled in the bay of Cadiz, which was to have made part of the armada, he with great courage entered that port, and burnt there upwards of 10,000 tons of shipping: which he afterwards merrily called, “burning the king of Spain’s beard.” In 1558, when the armada from Spain was approaching our coasts, he was appointed vice-admiral under Charles lord Howard of Efringham, high-admiral of England, where fortune favoured him as remarkably as ever: for he made prize of a very large galleon, commanded by don Pedro de Valdez, who was reputed the projector of this invasion. This affair happened in the following manner July 22, sir Francis, observing a great Spanish ship floating at a distance from both fleets, sent his pinnace to summon the commander to yield. Valdez replied, with much Spanish solemnity, that they were 450 strong, that he himself was don Pedro, and stood much upon his honour, and propounded several conditions, upon which he was willing to yield: but the vice-admiral replied, that he had no leisure to parley, but if he thought fit instantly to yield he might; if not, he should soon find that Drake was no coward. Pedro, hearing the name of Drake, immediately yielded, and with 46 of his attendants came aboard Drake’s ship. This don Pedro remained above two years his prisoner in England; and, when he was released, paid him. for his own and his captain’s liberties, a ransom of 3500l. Drake’s soldiers were well recompensed with the plunder of this ship: for they found in it 55,000 ducats of gold, which was divided among them.

In 1589 he commanded as admiral of the fleet sent to restore don Antonio, king of Portugal, the command of the land-forces being given to sir John Norris: but they were hardly got to sea, before the commanders differed, and the attempt proved abortive. The war with Spain continuing, a more effectual expedition was undertaken by sir John Hawkins and Drake, against their settlements in the West Indies, than had hitherto been made duriug the whole course of it: but the commanders here again not agreeing about the plan, this also did not turn out so successful as was expected. All diiriculties, before these two last expeditions, had given way to the skill and fortune of Drake; which probably was the reason why he did not bear these disappointments so well as he otherwise would have done. A strong sense of them is supposed to have thrown him into a melancholy, which occasioned a bloody-flux; and of this he died on board his own ship, near the town of Noinbre de Dios in the West Indies, Jan. 28, 1596. His death was lamented by the* whole nation, and particularly by his countrymen, who had great reason to love him from the circumstances of his private life, as well as to esteem him in his public character. He was’ elected burgess for Bossiney, alias Tintagal, in Cornwall, in the 27th parliament of Elizabeth; and for Plymouth in. Devonshire, in the 35th. This town had very particular obligations to him; for in 1587 he undertook to bring water into it, through the want of which, till then, it had been grievously distressed: and he performed it by conducting thither a stream from springs at eight miles distance, in a straight line: but in the manner he brought it, the course of it runs upwards of twenty miles.

Sir Francis Drake was low of stature, but well formed, had a broad open chest, a very round head, his hair of a line brown, his beard full and comely, his eyes large and clear, of a fair complexion, with a fresh, cheerful, and very engaging countenance. As navigation had been his whole study, so he understood it thoroughly, and was a perfect master in every branch, especially in astronomy, and in the application of it to the art of sailing. He had the happiness to live under the reign of a princess, who never failed to distinguish merit, and to reward it. He was always her favourite; and she gave an uncommon proof of it, in regard to a quarrel he had with his countryman sir Bernard Drake, whose arms sir Francis assuming, the other was so provoked at it, that he gave him a box on the ear. Upon this, the queen took up the quarrel, and gave sir Francis a new coat, which is thus emblazoned “Sable, a fess wavy between two pole stars Argent,” and for his crest, “a. ship on a globe under ruff,” held by a cable, with a hand out of the clouds, over it this motto, “auxilio divino” underneath, “sic parvis nriagna” in the rigging of which is hung up by the heels a wivern Gules which was the arms of sir Bernard Drake. Her majesty’s kindness, however, did not extend beyond the grave; for she suffered his brother Thomas Drake, whom he made his heir, to be prosecuted for a pretended debt to the crown; which prosecution hurt him a good deal. It is indeed true, that sir Francis died without issue, but not a bachelor, as some authors have written; for ije left behind him a widow, Elizabeth, daughter and sole heiress of sir George Sydenham, in the county of Devon, knt. who afterwards was married to William Courtenay, esq. of Powderham castle in the same county, the ancestor of the noble family of Courtenay.

, 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.

Mr. D'Israeli, who has introduced Dr. Drake in his interesting work, “The Calamities of Authors,” informs us that Drake, in one instance at least, condescended to practise literary imposition. He reprinted father Parsons’s famous libel against the earl of Leicester in queen Elizabeth’s reign, under the title of “Secret Memoirs of Robert Dudley, earl of Leicester,” 1706, 8vo, with a preface pretending it was printed from an old manuscript, instead of being literally taken from “Leycester’s Commonwealth.”

, lieutenant-general and K. B. was educated at Eton, and at King’s college, Cambridge; and, preferring the military profession, went to the EastIndies in the company’s service; where, in 1760, he received the privilege of ranking as a colonel in the army, with Lawrence and Clive, and returned home that year. In 1761 he was promoted to the rank of brigadier in the expedition to Belleisle. In 1763, he, with admiral Cornish, conducted the expedition against Manila. They sailed from Madras Aug. 1, and anchored Sept. 27, in Manila bay, where the inhabitants had no expectation of the enemy. The fort surrendered Oct. 6, and was preserved from plunder by a ransom of four millions of dollars; half to be paid immediately, and the other half in a time agreed on. The Spanish governor drew on his court for the first half, but payment was never made. The arguments of the Spanish court were clearly refuted by colonel Draper in a letter to the earl of Halifax, then premier. Succeeding administrations declined the prosecution of this claim from reasons of state which were never divulged; and the commander in chief lost for his share of the ransom 25,000l. The colours taken at this conquest were presented to King’s college, Cambridge, and hung up in their beautiful chapel, and the conqueror was rewarded with a red ribband. Upon the reduction of the 79th regiment, which had served so gloriously in the East-Indies, his majesty, unsolicited by him, gave him the 16th regiment of foot as an equivalent. This he resigned to colonel Gisborne, for his half pay, 1200l. Irish annuity. In 1769 the colonel appeared, and with much credit, in a literacy character, drawing his pen against that of Junius, in defence of his friend the marquis of Granby, which drew a retort on himself, answered by him in a second letter to Junius, on the refutations of the former charge against him. On a republication of Junius’s first letter, sir William renewed his vindication of himself; and was answered with great keenness by his famous antagonist. Here the controversy dropped for the present, but he is supposed to have entered the lists once more, under the signature of Modestus, with that extraordinary and still concealed writer, in defence of general Gansel, who had been arrested for debt, and was rescued by a party of soldiers. In Oct. 1769 he retired to South Carolina, for the recovery of his health, and took the opportunity to make the tour of North America. That year he married miss de Lancy, daughter of the chief justice of New York, who died in July 1778, and by whom he had a daughter born Aug. 18, 1773. May 29, 1779, sir William, being then in rank a lieutenant-general, was appointed lieutenant-governor of Minorca, on the unfortunate surrender of which important place he exhibited 29 charges against the late governor, general Murray, Nov. 11, 1782. Of these 27 were deemed frivolous and groundless and for the other two the governor was reprimanded. Sir William was then ordered to make an apology to general Murray, for having instituted the trial against him; in which he acquiesced. From this time he appears to have lived in retirement at Bath till his decease, which happened the 8th of January 1787. Many particulars respecting his controversy with Junius, as well as the controversy itself, may be seen in the splendid edition of “Junius’s Letters,” published by Mr. Woodfall in 1812.

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.

In 1626 we find him styled poet laureat, in a copy of his own verses written in commendation of Abraham Holland, and prefixed to the posthumous poems of that author. It is probable, that the appellation of poet laureat was not formerly confined so strictly, as it is now, to the person on whom this title is conferred by the crown, who is presumed to have been at that time Ben Jonson; because we find it given to others only as a distinction of their excellency in the art of poetry; to Mr. George Sandys particularly, who was our author’s friend. The print of Drayton, before the first volume of his works in folio, has a wreath of bays above his head, and so has his bust in Westminster-abbey; yet when we find that the portraits of Joshua Sylvester, John Owen, and others, who never had any grant of the laureat’s place, are as formally crowned with laurel as those who really possessed it, we have reason to believe, that nothing more was meant by it, than merely a compliment. Besides, as to Drayton, he tells us himself, in his dedication to sir William Aston of “The Owl,” that he leaves the iaurel to those who may look after it. In 1627 was published the second volume of his poems, containing his “Battle of Agincourt, Miseries of queen Margaret, Court of Fairies, Quest of Cynthia, Shepherd’s Syrena, elegies, also, the Moon-Calf,” which is a strong satire upon the masculine affectations of women, and the effeminate disguises of the men, in those times. The elegies are 12 in number, though there are but eight reprinted in the edition of 1748. In 1630 he published another volume of poems in 4to, entitled, the “Muses’ Elyzium:” with three divine poems, on Noah’s flood, Moses’s birth and miracles, and David and Goliath. Draytori died in 1631, and was buried in Westminster-abbey amongst the poets.

, philosopher and alchymist, who was born in 1572, at Aicmaer, in Holland, and died at London, in 1634 at the age of sixty-two, possessed a singular aptitude in the invention of machines; although we cannot give credit to all that is related of the sagacity of this philosopher. We are told that he made certain machines which produced rain, hail, and lightning, as naturally as if these effects proceeded from the sky. By other machines he produced a degree of cold equal to that of winter; of which he made an experiment, as it is pretended, in Westminster-hall, at the instance of the king of England; and that the cold was so great as to be insupportable. He constructed a glass, which attracted the light of a candle placed at the other end of the hall, and which gave light sufficient for reading by it with great ease. Drebel has left some philosophical works; the principal of which is entitled: “De natura elementorum,” Hamburgh, 1621, 8vo. It is also pretended that he was the first who invented the art of dying scarlet; the secret of which he imparted to his daughter; and Cuffler, who married her, practised the art at Leyden. Some authors give to Drebel the honour of the invention of the telescope. It is generally thought that he invented the two useful instruments, the microscope and the thermometer, the former of which was for some time only known in Germany. It appeared for the first time in 1621, and Fontana unjustly ascribed to himself the invention about thirty years afterwards.

He married in 1625, the only daughter of a rich merchant of Paris, by whom he had sixteen children. The first seven were sons the rest intermixed, six sons and three daughters. Laurence, the eldest of all, was at first minister at Rochelle but being obliged to leave that church by an edict, he went to Niort, where he died in 1680, having lost his sight about six months before. He was a very learned man, and a good preacher. He left several fine sermons, and likewise a collection of Christian sonnets, which are extremely elegant, and highly esteemed by those who have a taste for sacred poetry. They had gone through six editions in 1693. Henry, the second son, was also a minister, and published sermons. The third son was the famous Charles Drelincourt, professor of physic at Leyden, to whom we shall devote a separate article. Anthony, a fourth son, was a physician at Orbes, in Switzerland; and afterwards appointed physician extraordinary by the magistrates of Berlin. A fifth son died at Geneva, while he was studying divinity there. Peter Drelincourt, a sixth, was a priest of the church of England, and dean of Armagh.

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.

, a learned German, was born at Erlbrt, the capital of Thuringia, in 1536. The first academical lectures which he heard, were those of Luther and Melancthon, at Wittemberg; but the air of that country not agreeing with his constitution, he was obliged to return to Erfort, where he studied Greek. When he had taken the degree of M. A. in 1559, he read lectures in rhetoric at home; and afterwards taught polite literature and the Greek tongue, in the college of Erfort. Having thus passed sixteen years in his own country, he was invited to Jena, to supply the place of Lipsius, as professor of history and eloquence. He pronounced his inaugural oration in 1574, which was afterwards printed with other of his orations. Some time after, he went to Meissen, to be head of the college there; where having continued six years, he obtained, in 1581, the professorship of polite learning in the university of Leipsic; and a particular pension was settled on him to continue the *' History of Saxony." Upon his coming to Leipsic, he found warm disputes among the doctors. Some endeavoured to introduce the subtleties of Ramus, rejecting the doctrine of Aristotle, while others opposed it; aad some were desirous of advancing towards Calvinism, while others would suffer no innovations in Lutheranism. Dresserus desired to avoid both extremes; and because the dispute concerning the novelties of Ramus greatly disturbed the philosophical community, he was very solicitous to keep clear of it. But the electoral commissary diverted him from this pacific design; and it happened to him, as it happens to many persons who engage late in disputes of this kind, that they are more zealous than the first promoters of them. Ilamism now appeared to Dresserus a horrible monster; and he became the most zealous opposer of it that ever was known in that country.

Dresserus spent the remainder of his life at Leipsic, where he died, in 1607. He married in 1565, and becoming a widower in 1598, he married again two years after. He was a man of great industry, and not easily tired with application, as he shewed at Effort; for he brought all his colleagues, who, except one, were Roman catholics, to consent that the confession of Augsburgh and the Hebrew tongue should be taught in the university. He was the author of several works, the principal of which were, “Rhetoricae libri quatuor,” 1584, 8vo; “Tres libri Progymnasmatum, litteratune Groecae,” 8vo; “Isagoge Historica,” Leipsic, 1587, 8vo, not an accurate work. “De festis diebus Christianorum, Judaeorum et Ethnicoruin liber,” Leipsic, 1597, 8vo.

2. u L Europe illustre," 1755, and the following years. It is a collection of portraits of illustrious persons by Odieuvre; with historical notices by Du Radier, who was paid at the rate of a crown for each, and several of them are very interesting.

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.

, a celebrated Jesuit, was born at Augsburgh in Germany, in 1581, 2nd after a classical education, entered the society of the Jesuits in 1598. He taught rhetoric for some time, but was most distinguished for his talents as a preacher. The elector of Bavaria was so struck with his manner, that he appointed him his chaplain in ordinary, which office he held for twenty-three years. He died at Munich April 19, 1638. Notwithstanding his frequent preaching, and a weak state of health, he found leisure and strength to write a great many volumes for the use of young persons, most of them in a familiar and attractive style, and generally ornamented with very beautiful engravings by Raphael Sadler and others, which made them be bought up by collectors with avidity. Some of them have been also translated into several languages, and one of them, his “Considerations on Eternity,” has been often reprinted in this country from a translation made by S. Dunster in 1710. The whole of Drexelius’s works were collected in 2 vols. folio, Antwerp, 1643, and Lyons, 1658. Many of his pieces have very whimsical titles, and are upon whimsical subjects. In one of them, entitled “Orbis Phaeton, hoc est, de universis vitiis linguæ,” chapter XLI. in which he treats of those who employ their time on trifles, he enters upon a calculation to resolve in how many ways six persons invited to dine may be placed at table, and after six pages of combinations, he gives 720 as the result.

, in low Dutch Dridoens, was born at Turnhout in Brabant, studied at Louvain, and took there the degree of doctor of divinity in August 1512. Hadrian Florent, who was afterwards pope Hadrian VI. performed the ceremony of promoting him to that degree; and having observed that his scholar had applied himself too much to human learning, he put him in mind of the distinction which ought to be made between the mistress-science, and those which are her hand-maids. After this advice Driedo directed his chief application to the study of divinity. He became professor of that science in the university of Louvain, and was also curate of St. James, and canon of St. Peter in that city. He opposed Lutlieranism with great vigour; but if we judge of him by a letter of Erasmus, his zeal was moderate. He died at Louvain in 1535, though those who have published his epitaph, have represented it as affirming that he died August 4, 1555. His works were published in 4 vols. 4to and folio, by Gravius, at Louvain. They relate to the disputes between the Roman catholics and protestants and the principal titles are, “De gratia & libero arbitrio” “De concordia liberi arbitrii & proedestinationis” “De captivitate &. redemptione generis humani” “De Jibertate Christiana;” “De Scripturis &. dogmatibus Ecclesiasticis.”

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.

, an eminently patriotic and public-spirited magistrate of Edinburgh, was born June 27, 1687, and educated in that city, principally with a view to active life, in which he very soon maue a distinguished figure. On the accession of queen Anne, when he was of course very young, he assisted the committee appointed by the parliament of Scotland to settle the public accounts of the kingdom. Tn 1707 he was appointed accountant-general of the excise, and assisted, with indefatigable diligence, in putting the accounts of that important branch of the revenue into the same form and method with those in England. In 1710, the then total change of the ministry alarmed the friends of the house of Hanover, and these alarms increasing, in 1713, at a meeting of gentlemen who had formed a society for guarding the country against the designs of the pretender, Mr. Drummond proposed a plan, which was unanimously approved and carried into execution, by which a correspondence was established with every county in the kingdom, and arms imported from Holland, and put into the hands of the friends of liberty every where. In 1715, he gave the first notice to the ministry of the arrival of the earl of Mar, was honoured with the command of a company of volunteers that was raised by the friends of government on that occasion, and was attendant on the duke of Argyle, during his residence in Scotland till the rebellion was extinguished. He assisted at the battle of Sheriffmuir, and dispatched to the magistrates of Edinburgh the earliest notice of Argyle’s victory, in a letter which he dated from the field on horseback. In 1717 he was elected a member of the corporation of Edinburgh, and discharged all the intermediate offices of magistracy until 1725, when he was elected lord provost, an office which he filled with the highest reputation and true dignity. To his indefatigable industry and perseverance it was chiefly owing, that the several professorships in the university were filled with men of the first abilities, and several new ones were founded, as that of chemistry, the theory and practice of physic, midwifery, the belles lettres, and rhetoric, by which means Edinburgh arrived at the rank of one of the first schools in the kingdom, particularly for medicine.

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.

During the civil war, his attachment to the king and church induced him to write many pieces in support of the establishment, which involved him with the revolutionary party, who not only called him to a severe account, but compelled him to furnish his quota of men and arms to fight against the cause which he espoused. It is said that "his estate lying in three different counties, he had not occasion to send one whole man, but halves and quarters, and such-like fractions; upon which he wrote extempore the following verses to his majesty:

His grief for the murder of his royal master is said to have been so great as to shorten his days. He died on the 4th of December 1649, in the sixty-fourth year of his age, and was interred in his own aile, in the church of Lesswade, near to his house of Hawthornden. He left two sons and a daughter, William, who was knighted in Charles II.'s reign, Robert, and Elizabeth, who was married to Dr. Henderson, a physician of Edinburgh.

As a poet he ranks among the first reformers of versification, and in elegance, harmony, and delicacy of feeling, is so superior to his contemporaries, that the neglect with which he has been treated would appear unaccountable if we did not consider that it is but of late the public attention has been drawn to the more ancient English poets. Mr. Headly, however, Mr. Neve the ingenious author of “Cursory Remarks on some of the ancient English Poets,” Dr. Warton, Mr. Pinkerton, Mr. Park, and other critics of unquestionable taste, have lately expatiated on his merit with so much zeal and ability, that he is no longer in danger of being overlooked, unless by those superficial readers who are content with what is new and fashionable, and profess to be amateurs of an art of which they know neither the history nor the principles.

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.

His wife is supposed to have died in 1599. He had three children by her; a daughter born at Leyden in 1582, and married in 1604 to Abel Curiander, who wrote the life of his father-in-law, from which this account is taken. He had another daughter, born at Franeker in 1587, who died at Ghent, whither she had taken a journey about business. A priest, knowing her to be dangerously ill, went to confess her, and to give her extreme unction; but she immediately sent him away, and her husband (for she was married) threatened to resent his offer. It was with great cxpence and danger that her body was removed into Zealand, for at Ghent it would have been denied burial. He had also a son, John, who, if he had lived longer, would have been a prodigy of learning. He was born at Franeker in 3588, and began at five years old to learn the Latin and Hebrew tongues; at seven he explained the Hebrew psalter with great exactness; at nine he could read the Hebrew without points, and add the points where they were wanting, according to the rules of grammar. He spoke Latin as readily as his mother-tongue; and could make himself understood in English. At twelve he wrote extempore, in verse and prose, after the manner of the Jews. At seventeen he made a speech in Latin to our James I. in the midst of his court, and was admired by all that were present. He had a lively genius, a solid judgment, a strong memory, and an indefatigable ardour for study. He was likewise of an agreeable temper, which made him greatly beloved, and had a singular turn for piety. He died in 1609, of the stone, in England, at the house of Dr. William Thomas, dean of Chichester, who allowed him a very considerable salary. He left several works; a great many letters in Hebrew, verses in the same language, and notes on the Proverbs of Solomon. He had begun to translate into Latin the Itinerary of Benjamin Tudelensisj and the Chronicle of the second Temple; and digested into an alphabetical order the Nomenclature of Elias Levita; to which he added the Greek words which were not in the first edition.

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.

In 16S1 he published his Absalom and Achitophel. This celebrated poem, which was at first printed without the author’s name, is a severe satire on the contrivers and abettors of the rebellion against Charles II. under the duke of Monmouth; and, under the characters of Absalom, Achitophel, David and Zimri, are represented the duke of Monmouth, the earl of Shaftesbury, king Charles, and the duke of Buckingham. There are two translations of this poem into Latin; one by Dr. Coward, a physician of Merton college in Oxford; another by Mr. Atterbury, afterwards bishop of Rochester, both published in 1682, 4to. Dryden left the story unfinished; and the reason he gives for so doing was, because he could not prevail with himself to shew Absalom unfortunate. “Were I the inventor,” says he, “who am only the historian, I should certainly conclude the piece with the reconcilement of Absalom to David. And who knows, but this may come to pass? Things were not brought to extremity, where I left the story: there seems yet to be room left for a composure: hereafter, there may be only for pity. I have not so much as an uncharitable wish against Achitophel; but am content to be accused of a good-natured error, and to hope with Origen, that the devil himself may at last be saved. For which reason, in this poem, he is neither brought to set his house in order, nor to dispose of his person afterwards.” A second part of Absalom and Achitophel was undertaken and written by Tate, at the request and under the direction of Dryden, who wrote near 200 lines of it himself.

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.

At the revolution in 1688, being disqualified by having turned papist, he was dismissed from the offices of poetlaureat and historiographer, which were given to his antagonist Shadwell. The earl of Dorset, however, though obliged, as lord-chamberlain, to withdraw his pension, was so generous a friend and patron to him, that he allowed him an equivalent out of his own estate. This Prior tells us, in the dedication of his poems to lord Dorset, his descendant. In 1688 also he published the “Life of St. Francis Xavier,” translated from the French of father Dominic Bouhours. In 1690 he produced his play of “Don Sebastian.” In 1693 came out, in folio, a translation of “Juvenal and Persius,” in which the first, third, sixth, tenth, and sixteenth satires of Juvenal, and Persius entire, were done by Dryden, who prefixed a long and beautiful discourse, by way of dedication to the earl of Dorset.

In 1695, while employed on his translation of Virgil, begun in 1694, he published a translation, in prose, of Dr. Fresnoy’s “Art of Painting;” the second edition of which, corrected and enlarged, was afterwards published in 1716. It is dedicated to the earl of Burlington by Richard Graham, esq. who observes in the dedication, that some liberties have been taken with this excellent translation, of which he gives the following account: “The misfortune that attended Mr. Dryden in that undertaking was, that, for want of a competent knowledge in painting, he suffered himself to be misled by an unskilful guide. Monsieur de Piles told him, that his French version was made at the request of the author himself; and altered by him, till it was wholly to his mind. This Mr. Dryden taking upon content, thought there was nothing more incumbent upon him than to put it into the best English he could, and accordingly performed his part here, as in every thing else, with accuracy. But it being manifest that the French translator has frequently mistaken the sense of his author, and very often also not set it in the most advantageous light; to do justice to M. du Fresnoy, Mr. Jervas, a very good critic in the language, as well as in the subject of the poem, has been prevailed upon to correct what he found amiss; and his amendments are every-where distinguished uith proper marks.” Dryden tells us, in the preface to the “Art of Painting,” that, when he undertook this work, he was already engaged in the translation of Virgil, “from whom,” says he, “I only borrowed two months.” This translation was published in 1697, and has passed through numerous editions in various forms. The pastorals are dedicated to lord Clifford; and Dryden tells his lordship, that “what he now offers him, is the wretched remainder of a sickly age, worn out with study, and oppressed with fortune, without other support than the constancy and patience of a Christian;” and he adds, “that he began this work in his great climacteric.” The Life of Virgil, which follows this dedication, the two prefaces to the Pastorals and Georgics, and all the arguments in prose to the whole translation, were given him by friends; the preface to the Georgics, in particular, by Addison. The translation of the Georgics is dedicated to the earl of Chesterfield; and that of the ^neis to the earl of Mulgrave. This latter dedication contains the author’s thoughts on epic poetry, particularly that of Virgil. It is generally allowed that his translation of Virgil is excellent. Pope, speaking of Dryden’s translation of some parts of Homer, says, “Had he translated the whole work, I would no more have attempted Homer after him, than Virgil; his version of whom, notwithstanding some human errors, is the most noble and spirited translation I know in any language.” In the same year he published his celebrated ode of “Alexander’s Feast,” which is commonly said to have been finished in one night; but, according to Mr. Malone, occupied him for some weeks.

His leg having become mortified, his surgeon recommended an amputation of the limb, with a view to stop the further progress of the disorder; but he would not undergo the operation, saying, that as by the course of nature he had not many years to live, he would not attempt to prolong an uncomfortable existence by a painful and uncertain experiment, but patiently submit to death. This account, which was given by a contemporary writer, not long afterwards, is strongly corroborated by the unquestionable testimony of Mrs. Elizabeth Creed, his kinswoman; who informs us, that he received the notice of his approaching dissolution with perfect resignation and submission to the Divine Will; and that in his last illness he took the most tender and affectionate farewell of his afflicted friends, “of which sorrowful number she herself was one.” Twentytwo years afterwards this very respectable lady, who was then in her eightieth year, erected a monument at Tichmarsh, in honour of our poet and his parents, on which these circumstances so much to his honour are recorded. (See Creed, vol. X.)

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.”

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.”

a distinguished clergyman of the established church of Scotland, the third son of the rev. John Drysdale, minister of Kirkaldy, was born April 29, 1718, and educated there in classical learning. In 1732, he was sent to finish his studies at the university of Edinburgh; and in 1740, was licensed to preach by the presbytery of Kirkaldy, was several years assistant minister of the collegiate church in Edinburgh, and in 1748 was presented to the church of Kirkliston. After residing there for fifteen years, he was presented to lady Yester’s church, by the town-council of Edinburgh. This being the first instance in which the magistrates of that city had exercised their right of presentation, which was thought to reside in the parishioners, and Mr. Drysdale being suspected of favouring in his discourses the Arminian tenets, a very common objection to the modern church of Scotland, a formidable opposition was made to his institution; but the magistrates proving victorious, he obtained a settlement in lady Yester’s church. The sermons he preached there, says professor Dalzel, although his mode of delivery was by no means correct, always attracted a great concourse of hearers, whom he never failed to delight and instruct by an eloquence of the most nervous and interesting kind. His natural diffidence for some prevented his appearing as a speaker in the ecclesiastical judicatures; but he was at length induced to co-operate with Dr. Robertson, in defence of what was termed the moderate party in the church of Scotland. In 1765, the university of Aberdeen, unsolicited, conferred upon him the degree of D, D. by diploma, and on the death of Dr. Jardine, he was preferred to the church of Tron, and appointed a king’s chaplain, with the allowance of one-third the emoluments arising from the deanery of the chapel royal. In 1773, having obtained the character of an able and impartial divine, he was unanimously elected moderator of the general assembly of the Scottish kirk; “the greatest mark of respect,” observes his biographer, “which an ecclesiastical commonwealth can bestow.” In 1784 he was re-elected, by a great majority, to the same dignity. In May, 17s8, he appeared at the general assembly, and the first day acted as principal clerk, but was taken ill, and died on the 16th of June following, aged seventy years. His general character was that of betievolence and inflexible integrity. His candour obtained him many friends; and even such as were of different sentiments in church affairs, and held different religious tenets, esteemed the man, and with these he kept up a friendly intercourse. “Indeed,” adds the professor, “never any man more successfully illustrated what he taught by his own conduct and manners.” His reputation as a preacher was very great; and on an occasional visit he made to London, Mr. Strahan, the late printer, endeavoured to persuade him to publish a volume of sermons. On his return to Scotland he began a selection for the purpose, but his modesty hindered his proceeding, and induced him, finally, to relinquish the plan. After his death, his son-in-law, the late professor Dalzel, who h;,d the inspection of his manuscripts, made a selection of his sermons, and published them in two 8vo volumes, with biographical anecdotes of his life, which were published also in the " Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh.

, professor of civil law at Bourges, was born at St. Brien, a city of Bretagne, in France, 1509. He was the son of John Duaren, who exercised a place of judicature in Bretagne; in which place he succeeded his father, and performed the functions of it for some time. He read lectures on the Pandects, at Paris, in 1536; and, among other scholars, had three sons of the learned Budaeus. He was sent for to Bourges in 1538, to teach civil law, three years after Alciat had retired, but quitted his place in 1548, and went to Paris, being very desirous to join the practice to the theory of the law. He accordingly attended the bar of the parliament of Paris, but conceived an unconquerable aversion to the chicanery of the court, and fortunately at this time advantageous offers were made him by the duchess of Berri, sister of Henry II. which gave him a favourable opportunity to retire from the bar, and to resume with honour the employment he had at Bourges. He returned to his professorship of civil law there, in 1551; and no professor, except Alciat, had ever so large a stipend in the university as himself, nor more reputation, being accounted the first of the French civilians who cleared the civil-law-chair from the barbarism of the glossators, in order to introduce the pure sources of the ancient jurisprudence. It was however his failing to be unwilling to share this honour with any person; and he therefore viewed with an envious eye his colleague Eguinard Baron, who blended likewise polite literature with the study of the law. This jealousy prompted him to write a book, in which he endeavoured to lessen the esteem the world had for his colleague, yet, as if ashamed of his weakness, after the death of Baron, he shewed himself one of the most zealous to immortalize his memory 7 and erected a monument to him at his own expence. He had other colleagues, who revived his uneasiness; and Duaren may serve as an example to prove that some of the chief miseries of human life, which we lament so much, and are so apt to charge on the nature and constitution of things, arise merely from ur own ill-regulated passions. He died at Bourses in 1559, without having ever married. He had great learning and judgment, but so bad a memory, that he was obliged always to read his lectures from his notes. Although a protestant, he never had the courage to separate from the church of Home. His treatise of benefices, published in 15 Jo, rendered him suspected of heresy, and Baudouin, with whom he had a controversy, accused him of being a prevaricator and dissembler, which, however, appears to have been unjust.

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.”

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.”

, bishop of Olmutz in Moravia, in the sixteenth century, was bora at Piltzen in Bohemia, and died Sept. 6, 1553, with the reputation of a pious and enlightened prelate. The funclions of the episcopate did not prevent him from being ambassador in Silesia, afterwards in Bohemia, and president of the chamber instituted for trying the insurgents who had been concerned in the troubles of Smalkalde. Dubraw is the author of several works: the principal of which is a History of Bohemia in 33 books; executed with fidelity and accuracy. The best editions are those of 1575, with chronological tables; and that of 1688, at Francfort, augmented with the history of Bohemia by Æneas Sylvius. The first edition of 1552 is uncommonly rare, as a small number only were printed for distribution among the author’s friends.

, 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.