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

, archbishop of York, the youngest son of sir John Dawes, baronet, by Jane his wife, the daughter and only child of Richard Hawkins, of Braintree, in the county of Essex, gent, was born Sept. 12, 1671, at Lyons, (a seat which came by his mother) near Braintree, and received the first rudiments of learning at Merchant-taylors’-school in London, from Mr. John Hartcliffe, and Mr. Ambr. Bonwicke, successively masters of that school; under whose care he made great proficiency in the knowledge of the classics, and was a tolerable master of the Hebrew tongue, even before he was fifteen years of age; which was chiefly owing to the additional care that Dr. Kidder, afterwards bishop of Bath and Wells, took of his education. In act term 1687, he became a scholar of St. John’s college in Oxford, and after his continuance there two years or upwards, was made fellow. But his father’s title and estate descending to him, upon the death of his two brothers, which happened about the same time, he left Oxford, and entering himself a nobleman in Catherine-hall, Cambridge, lived in his eldest brother’s chambers; and, as soon as he was of fit standing, took the degree of master of arts. His intention, from the very first, was to enter into holy orders; and therefore to qualify himself for that purpose, among other introductory works, he seems to have made some of our late eminent divines a considerable branch of his study, even before he was eighteen years of age: and he shewed always a serious and devout temper of mind, and a true sense and love of piety and religion. After he had taken his master of arts’ degree, not being of age to enter into holy orders, he thought it proper to visit the estate he was now become owner of, and to make a short tour into some other parts of the kingdom, which he had not yet seen. But his intended progress was, in some measure, stopped by Ims happening to meet with Frances, the eldest daughter of sir Thomas Darcy, of Braxstead-lodge, in Essex, baronet, a fine and accomplished woman, to whom he paid his addresses, and, not long after, married. As soon as he came to a competent -age, he was ordained deacon and priest by Dr. Compton, bishop of London. Shortly after, he was created doctor in divinity, by a royal mandate, in order to be qualified for the mastership of Catherine-hall; to which he was unanimously elected, in 1696, upon the death of Dr. John Echard. At his coming thither he found the bare case of a new chapel, begun by his predecessor; to the completion of which he contributed very liberally, and, among other beneficial acts to his college, he obtained, through his interest with queen Anne, and her chief ministers, an act of parliament for annexing the first prebend of Norwich which should become vacant, to the mastership of Catherine-hall for ever. Not long after his election, he became vice-chancellor of Cambridge, and discharged that dignity with universal applause. In 1696, he was made one of the chaplains in ordinary to king William; and, shortly after, was presented by his majesty without interest or solicitation, and merely, as the king said, by way of pledge of his future favour, to a prebend of Worcester, in which he was installed August 26, 1698, On the 10th of November 1698, he was collated by archbishop Tenison to the rectory, and, the 19th of December following, to the deanery, of Bocking in Essex, and behaved in that parish in a very charitable and exemplary manner. After queen Anne’s accession to the throne, he was made one of her majesty’s chaplains, and became so great a favourite with her, that he had a reasonable expectation of being advanced to some of the highest dignities in the church. Accordingly, though he happened accidentally to miss of the bishopric of Lincoln , which became vacant in 1705; yet her majesty, of her own accord, named him to the see of Chester, in 1707, upon the death of Dr. Nicholas Stratford: and he was consecrated February 8, 1707-8. In 1713-4, he was, by the recommendation of his worthy predecessor Dr. John Sharp, translated to the archiepiscopal see of York, being elected thereto February 26, and enthroned by proxy the 24th of March following. He continued above ten years in this eminent station, honoured and respected by all. At length a diarrhoea, to which he had been subject several times before, ending in an inflammation of his bowels, put a period to his life April 30, 1724, in the fifty-third year of his age. He was buried in the chapel of Catherine-hall, Cambridge, near his lady, who died December 22, 1705, in the twenty-ninth year of her age. By her he had seven children, William, Francis, William, Thomas, who all died young; and Elizabeth, Jane, and Darcy, who survived him. In person he was tall, proportionable, and beautiful. There was in his look and gesture something easier to be conceived than described, that gained every one’s favour, even before he spoke. His behaviour was easy and courteous to all; his civility free from formality; his conversation lively and cheerful, but without any tincture of levity. He had a genius well fitted for a scholar, a lively imagination, a strong memory, and a sound judgment. He was a kind and loving husband, a tender and indulgent parent, and so extraordinary good a master, that he never was observed to be in a passion; and took care of the spiritual as well as the temporal welfare of his domestics. In his episcopal capacity, he visited his large diocese with great diligence and constancy, Nottinghamshire one year, and Yorkshire another; but every third year he did not hold any visitation. He performed all the offices of his function with becoming seriousness and gravity. He took great care and caution, to admit none but sufficient labourers into the Lord’s harvest; and when admitted, to appoint them stipends adequate to their labour. He administered justice to all with an equal and impartial hand; being no respecter of persons, and making no difference between the poor and rich, but espousing all into the intimacy of his bosom, his care, his affability, his provision, and his prayers.

So strict an observer was he of his word, that no consideration whatever could make him break it; and so inviolable in his friendship, that without the discovery of some essential fault indeed, he never departed from it. A great point of conscience it was with him, that his promises should not create fruitless expectances; but when, upon proper considerations, he was induced to do it, he always thought himself bound to employ his utmost interest to have the thing effected; and till a convenient opportunity should present itself, was not unmindful to support the petitioner (if in mean circumstances) at his own expence: for charity indeed was his predominant quality. Both as a bishop and peer of the realm, he considered himself as responsible for the souls committed to his charge in one respect, and as intrusted with the lives and fortunes of his fellow subjects, in the other. If in some parliamentary debates (in which he made a very considerable figure), he happened to dissent from other great men, who might have the same common good in view, but seemed to pursue it in a method incongruous to his sentiments, this ought to be accounted his honour, and a proof of his integrity, but cannot, with any colour of justice, be deemed party prejudice, or a spirit of contradiction in him; because those very men, whom he sometimes opposed, at other times he joined himself to, whenever he perceived them in the right. He associated himself with no party, it being his opinion, that whoever enters the senate house, should always carry his conscience along with him; that the honour of God, the renown of his prince, and the good of his fellow subjects, should be, as it were, the polar-star to guide him; that no multitude, though never so numerous; no faction, though never so powerful; no arguments, though never so specious; no threats, though never so frightful; no offers, though never so advantageous and alluring; should blind his eyes, or pervert him to give any the least vote, not directly answerable to the sentiments of his own breast. After his death appeared “The whole Works of sir William Dawes, bart.” &c. 3 vols. 8vo, with a preface and life, 1733, including those published by himself, viz.

1. “An Anatomy of Atheism,” London, 1693, 4to, a poem, dedicated to sir George Darcy, bart. This poem was written by the author, before he was eighteen years of age.

2. “The Duties of the Closet,” &c. written by him before he was twenty-one years of age. 3. “The Duty of Communicating explained and enforced,” &c. composed for the use of his parish of Bocking, in order to introduce a monthly celebration of the Holy Communion; which used to be administered, before his coming thither, only at the three great festivals of the year. 4. “Sermons preached upon several occasions before king William and queen Anne,” London, 1707, 8vo, dedicated to queen Anne.

, a very eminent English printer in the sixteenth century, was born in St. Peter’s parish, Dunwich, in Suffolk, and is supposed to have descended from a good family in that county. From whom he learned the art of printing, is not clear, unless perhaps Gibson, one of whose devices Day frequently used. He first began printing about 1544, a little above Holborn Conduit, and at that time was in conjunction with William Seres. In 1549 he removed into Aldersgate-street, near St. Anne’s church, where he built a printing-office, but kept shops in various parts of the town, where his books were sold. It would appear that he forbore printing during the reign of queen Mary, yet continued improving himself in the art, as was evident by his subsequent publications. He was the first in England who printed the Saxon letter, and brought that of Greek to great perfection, as well as the Italic and other characters, of which he had great variety. Archbishop Parker, who frequently employed him, considered him as excelling his brethren in skill and industry. He was the first person admitted into the livery of the Stationers’ company, after they obtained their charter from Philip and Mary, was chosen warden in 1564, 1566, 1571, and 1575, and master in 1580. In 1583 he yielded up to the disposal of the company, for the relief of their poor, his right to certain books and copies. He died July 23, 1584, after having followed the business of a printer with great reputation and success for forty years, and was buried in the parish church of Bradley Parva, in the county of Suffolk, with a monument on which are inlaid the effigies of him, his wife, and family, and some lines, cut in the old English letter, intimating his services in the cause of the reformation by his various publications, especially of Fox’s Acts and Monuments; and that he had two wives, and numerous children by both. Besides Fox, he printed several valuable editions of the Bible, of the works of the martyrs, of Ascham, and other then accounted standard authors.

, one of the sons of the preceding, was born in his father’s house in Aldersgate-street in 1566, and entered a commoner of St. Alban’s hall, Oxford, in 1582. In 1588, being then B. A. he was elected a fellow of Oriel college, took his master’s degree, entered into holy orders, and became a very favourite preacher in the university. In the beginning of the reign of James I. with leave of his college, he travelled for three years, improving himself in learning and experience, and, as Wood tells us, “he was about to say,” in Calvinism. After his return he was made vicar of St. Mary’s in Oxford, in 1608, where his preaching obtained him the general respect both of the university and city. But being disappointed in the provostship of his college in 1621, he left Oxford, and was beneficed at Thurlow in Suffolk, where he die-d 1627. Wood gives him the character of a person of great reading, and admirably versed in the fathers, schoolmen, and councils. He published 1 Twelve Sermons,“1615, 4to. 2.” Conciones ad Clerum,“Oxon. 1612 and 1615. 3.” Day’s Dyall, or, his Twelve Howres, that is, Twelve severall lectures by way of Catechisme, as they were delivered by him in the chapel of Oriel college in Oxford, in the years of our Lord God 1612 and 1613,“Oxford, 1614. On the title-page is a dial, and under it the quotation from St. John, ii. 9.” Are there not twelve hours in the day?“4.” Commentaries on the first eight Psalms of David,“ibid. 1620, 4to. His brother, Lionel Day, was of Balliol and Oriel colleges, rector of Whichford, near Brailes in Warwickshire, where he died in 1640. He published a” Concio ad Clerum."

, another son of the celebrated printer, and himself a printer, was educated at Eton school, and in 1571 elected thence to King’s college, Cambridge, where he took his degree of M. A. and became fellow, and being ordained, supplied the place of minister at Ryegate in Surrey, in the room of the martyrologist, Fox. He afterwards appears to have turned his thoughts to his father’s trade, as he was called on the livery of the stationers’ company in 1578. He carried on business in his father’s house in Aldersgate-street, and had an exclusive privilege jointly with him during their lives, and that of the longest liver, to print the Psalms of David in metre. The books he printed himself are dated from 1578 to 1581, after which his copies were printed by his assigns as far as 1597. When he died is not known. He wrote some verses, “Contra papistos incendiaries,” in Fox’s Martyrology, 1576, which Herbert informs us are omitted in the subsequent editions. He translated Fox’s “De Christo triumphante comoedia,” to which he wrote a preface, and two dedications; one in the edition of 1579, to Mr. William Kyllegrewe; the other in the edition of 1607, to William lord Howard, of Effingham. He wrote also a preface and conclusion to the “Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,” and a short Latin preface to P. Baro’s treatises “De fide, &c.” It was in this work that he first introduced a typographical reform in the distinct use of the letters j and i, v and u, which, however, did not generally take place until the following century.

, a poetical and miscellaneous writer, of an eccentric character, was born in Wellclose-square, London, June 22, 1748. His father was an officer in the custom-house, and had been twice married. This son was the issue of his second marriage to Miss Jane Bonham, the only daughter of Samuel Bonham, esq. a merchant in the city. His father died when he was little more than a year old, leaving him a fortune of 1200l. a year, including 300l. as a jointure to his mother, who in a few years married Thomas Phillips, esq. another officer in the customhouse. To this gentleman, who died in 1782, young Day behaved with decent respect, but felt no great attachment. His mother, however, chiefly superintended his education, and accustomed him early, we are told, to bodily exertions, on which he afterwards set so high a value. He was first put to a child’s school at Stoke Newington, and when admissible, was sent to the Charter-house, where he resided in the house and under the instructions of Dr. Crusius, until his sixteenth year. He now entered as a gentleman commoner of Corpus college, Oxford, where he remained three years, but left it without taking a degree.

As soon as he came of age, his property and conduct devolved upon himself. At an early period of life, we are told, he manifested a particular fondness for scrutinizing the human character; and, as if such knowledge could not be acquired at home, he took a journey in 17G6 from Oxford to Wales, that he might contemplate that class of men who, “as still treading the unimproved paths of nature, might be presumed to have the qualities of the mind pure and unsophisticated by art.” What of this description he found in Wales we are not informed; but in pursuit of the same investigation of men and manners, he determined, on coming of age, to go abroad; and accordingly he spent one winter at Paris, another at Avignon, and a third at Lyons, a summer in the Austrian Netherlands, and another in Holland. At Lyons, as every where else, he was distinguished by his humanity and generosity, which made his departure from those places be sincerely regretted, and at Lyons produced an effect singularly characteristic of the class of people on whom he bestowed his bounty. A large body of them assembled at his departure, and very justly considering that they would now be in a worse condition than if he had never relieved them, requested that he would leave a sum of money behind for their future wants. It is probable that these returns to his imprudent liberality had a considerable share in producing the misanthropy which appeared in his future conduct.

He had already formed some very absurd notions of the state of society in England, and had accustomed himself to mistake the reveries of Rousseau for the result of experience. He bad been early rejected by a young lady to whom he paid his addresses, and considering her as a fair sample of her sex, despaired of finding among them a wife such as he would chuse; one that should have a taste for literature and science, for moral and patriotic philosophy; fond of retirement “from the infectious taint of human society;” simple as a mountain girl, in her dress, her diet, and her manners; and fearless and intrepid as the Spartan wives and Roman heroines. Observation soon taught him that there was no such creature ready made, and he must therefore mould some infant into the being his fancy had imaged.

From a comparison of dates it appears to have been in 1769, when he came of age, that he formed this curious project. Accompanied by a Mr. Bicknell, a barrister, rather older than himself, he went to Shrewsbury to explore the Foundling hospital, and from these children, Mr. Day, in the presence of Mr. Bicknell, selected two girls of twelve years each; both beautiful: one fair, with flaxen locks and light eyes, whom he called Lucretia; the other, a clear auburn brunette, with darker eyes, more glowing bloom, and chesnut tresses, he called Sabrina. These girls were obtained on written conditions, for the performance of which Mr. Bicknell was guarantee. They were to this effect: that Mr. Day should, within the twelvemonth after taking them, resign one into the protection of some respectable tradeswoman, giving one hundred pounds to bind her apprentice; maintaining her, if she behaved well, till she married, or began business for herself. Upon either of these events he promised to advance four hundred pounds more. He avowed his intention of educating the girl he should retain, with a view to make her his future wife: solemnly engaged never to violate her innocence; and if he should renounce his plan, to maintain her decently in some creditable family till she married, when he promised five hundred pounds as her wedding portion. It would, probably, be quite unnecessary to make any appeal to the feelings of parents, or to offer any remarks on the conduct of the governors of this hospital respecting this strange bargain, for the particulars of which we are indebted to Miss Seward. The narrative goes on to inform us, that Mr. Day went instantly into France with these girls, not taking an English servant, that they might receive no ideas, except those which himself might chuse to impart, and which he soon found were not very acceptable. His pupils teazed and perplexed him; they quarrelled; they sickened of the small pox; they chained him to their bed-side, by crying if they were ever left alone with any person who could not speak English. Hence he was obliged to sit up with them many nights, and to perform for them the lowest offices of assistance. They lost no beauty, however, by their disease, and came back with Mr. Day in eight months, when Sabrina was become the favourite. He placed Lucretia with a chamber milliner, and she afterwards became the wife of a linendraper in London. With Sabrina he actually proceeded during some years, in the execution of his favourite project; but none of his experiments had the success he wished. Her spirit could not be armed against the dread of pain and the appearance of danger, a species of courage which, with him, was a sine qua non in the character of a wife. When he dropped melted sealing-wax upon her arms, she did not endure it heroically; nor when he fired pistols at her petticoats, which she believed to be charged with balls, could she help starting aside, or suppress her screams. When he tried her fidelity in secret-keeping, by telling her of well-invented dangers to himself, in which greater danger would result from its being discovered that he was aware of them, he once or twice detected her having imparted them to the servants, and to her play-fellows. He persisted, however, in these foolish experiments, and sustained their continual disappointment during a whole year’s residence in the vicinity of Lichfield. The difficulty seemed to be in giving her motive to self-exertion, self-denial, and heroism. It was against his plan to draw it from the usual sources, pecuniary reward, luxury, ambition, or vanity. His watchful cares had precluded all knowledge of the value of money, the reputation of beauty, and its concomitant desire of ornamented dress. The only inducement, therefore, which this girl could have to combat and subdue the natural preference in youth of ease to pain, and of vacant sport to the labour of thinking, was the desire of pleasing her protector, though she knew not how, or why he became such; and in that desire fear had greatly the ascendant of affection. At length, however, he renounced all hopes of moulding Sabrina into the being which his disordered imagination had formed; and, ceasing now to behold her as a wife, placed her at a boardingschool at Sutton Coldfield, Warwickshire, where, durin^ three years, she gained the esteem of her instructress, grew feminine, elegant, and amiable. She is still living, an ornament to the situation in which she is placed.

After this, Mr. Day paid his addresses to two sisters in succession, both of whom rejected him. His appearance and manners were indeed not much calculated to charm, and the austere singularities of his sentiments, and the caprices of his temper, all which were parts of the system of happiness he had formed to himself, were tolerable, even by his friends, for a very short period. With the second of these ladies, indeed, he was so enamoured as to tell her that he would endeavour to acquire external refinements; but, finding the progress he made insufficient to abate her dislike, he returned to his accustomed plainness of garb and neglect of his person; and, notwithstanding these disadvantages, he found a lady, a Miss Milnes of Yorkshire, then residing in London, to whom, after a singular courtship, he was united in 1778. The best part of his conduct in this affair was his settling her whole fortune, which was as large as his own, upon herself, totally out of his present or future controul. What follows is of a less amiable complexion. They retired soon after their marriage, first to Stapleford Abbots in Essex, and afterwards to Anningsley, near Chertsey, in Surrey. Here they had no carriage; no appointed servant about Mrs. Day’s own person; no luxury of any sort. Music, in which she was a distinguished proficient, was deemed trivial. She banished her harpsichord and music books. Frequent experiments upon her temper, and her attachment, were made by him whom she lived but to obey and love. Over these, we are told, she often wept, but never repined; and no wife, bound in the strictest fetters, as to the incapacity of claiming a separate maintenance, ever made more absolute sacrifices to the most imperious husband than did this lady, whose independence had been secured. She is even said to have died broken-hearted for his loss, about two years after his departure.

The whole of their residence at Anningsley, however, was not passed in inflicting or tolerating caprice. Some of Mr. Day’s experiments were of a more praiseworthy kind. His neighbours of the lowest class, being as rough and as wild as the commons on which they dwelt, he tried if by mutual attrition he could not polish both and, though the event fell short of his expectation, he was not wholly unsuccessful. Many of the peasants he took to work on, his farm, and in his selection of them it was always his object to accommodate those who could not find employmerit elsewhere, until they could meet with some fresh job. But so fond were they of their new master, that they wanted frequently to be reminded that their stay was only intended to be temporary. During the winter season they were so numerous, that it was scarcely in the power of a farm of more than two hundred acres, of a family on the spot, and of the contiguous neighbourhood, to raise for them a shadow of employment from day to day. Mr. Day, whenever he walked out, usually conversed with them in the fields, and questioned them concerning their families. To most of them, in their turn, he sent blankets, corn, and butchers meat. He gave advice and medicines to the sick, and occasionally brought them into his kitchen to have their meals for a few weeks among the servants. Once or twice he took them into his service in the house, on the sole account of their bad health, a circumstance which by many persons would have been deemed an ample cause for dismission. When the cases of sickness which came before him were difficult and critical, he frequently applied to London for regular advice; but good diet was often found more salutary than all the materia medica. Mrs. Day aided the benevolent exertions of her husband by employing the neighbouring poor in knitting stockings, which were occasionally distributed amongst the labourers. Mr. Day’s modes and habits of life were such as the monotony of a rural retirement naturally brings upon a man of ingenuity and literary taste. To his farm he gave a personal attention, from the fondness which he had for agriculture, and from its being a source to him of health and amusement. It was an additional pleasure to him, that hence was derived employment for the poor. He had so high an opinion of the salutary effects of taking exercise on horseback, that he erected a riding-house for the purpose of using that exercise in the roughest weather. Though he commonly resided in the country during the whole of the winter season, and was fond of shooting as an art, he for many years totally abstained from field sports, apprehending them to be cruel; but, at last, from, the same motive of humanity, he resumed the gun. He rose about eight, and walked out into his grounds soon after breakfast. But much of the morning, and still more of the afternoon, were usually passed at his studies, or in literary conversations when he was visited by his friends.

At length, Mr. Day, who suffered no species of controul to interfere with whatever he fancied, or undertook, fell a victim to a part of his own system. He thought highly of the gratitude, generosity, and sensibility of horses; and that whenever they were disobedient, unruly, or vicious, it was owing to previous ill usage from men. Upon. his own plan therefore he reared, ted, and tamed a favourite foal, and when it was time it should become serviceable, disdaining to employ a horse-breaker, he would use it to the bit and the burthen himself. The animal, however, disliking his new situation, heeded not the soothing voice to which he had been accustomed, but plunged, threw his master, and instantly killed him with a kick. This melancholy accident happened on Sept. 28, 1789, as he was returning from Anningsley to his mother’s house at Bare-hill, where he had left Mrs. Day. He was interred at Wargrave, in Berkshire, in a vault which had been built for the family.

In the very flattering, and by no means just or discriminative, character of Mr. Day, given in the Biographia Britannica, his life is represented to have been “one uniform system of exertions in the cause of humanity. He thought nothing mis-spent or ill-bestowed, which contributed, in any degree, to the general sum of happiness. In his pursuit of knowledge, though he deemed it highly valuable as a private and personal acquisition, he had a particular view to the application of it to the purposes of philanthropy. It was to be able to do good to others, as well as to gratify the ardent curiosity and activity of his own mind, that he became an ingenious mechanic, a wellinformed chemist, a learned theoretical physician, 'and an expert constitutional lawyer. But though his comprehensive genius embraced almost the whole range of literature, the subjects to which he was the most attached, and which he regarded as the most eminently useful, were those that are comprehended in historical and ethical science. Indeed, every tiling was important in his eyes, not merely as it tended to advance the individual, but in proportion to its ability in disclosing the powers, and improving the general interests, of the human species.”

On this high character, after the facts we have exhibited, it will not be necessary to offer any remarks. As the epithet “constitutional lawyer” is here employed, it remains to be mentioned, that he was admitted of the Middle Temple in 1765, and called to the bar in 1779. Much of this time, we have seen, elapsed in his travels, and pursuits of another kind; nor, although his name remained on the books of the society, did he ever enter seriously into the business of the profession. In politics he attached himself to no party, properly so called; he was neither whig nor tory; but joined many of the popular associations about the close of the American war, to which he was a decided opponent, and wrote some political pamphlets on peace, reform of parliament, and other topics which agitated the nation at that period.

His poetical talents, if not of the first rate, evinced considerable taste and elegance, but were not always equally usefully employed. His first publication, “The Dying Negro,” published in 1773, some part of which was written by his friend Mr. Bicknell, contributed its share to create that general abhorrence of the slave-trade which ended at length in the abolition of a traffic so disgraceful to the nation. His other poems were, “The Devoted Legions,” 1776, and “The Desolation of America,” 1777, both of the political cast. His prose effusions on national affairs consist of “The Letters of Marius, or reflections upon the Peace, the East India Bill, and the present crisis,” 1784; the “Fragment of a letter on the Slavery of the Negroes,” expressing his regret that the friends of freedom in America had not learned to share that blessing with their slaves; “A Dialogue between a justice of peace and a farmer,” 1785; and “A Letter to Arthur Young, esq. on the bill then depending in parliament to prevent the Exportation of Wool,” 1788.

The only works, however, which Mr. Day published that are likely to prolong his name, are those upon education. This was a subject in which we have already seen he tried some bold and ridiculous experiments. His notions, however, became at last more moderate, and his schemes a little more practicable. He had a particular dislike to the fashionable modes of education that prevail in this country. Youth, he thought, should be inspired with a hardy spirit, both of passive and active virtue, and led to form such habits of industry and fortitude as would produce a manly independence of character, and a mind superior to the enticements of luxurious indulgence. With this view he wrote “The History of Sandford and Merton,” 12mo, a work intended for the use of children; the first volume of which appeared in 1783, the second in 1786, and the third in 1789. These soon acquired great p.-polarity, which is now on the decay. They are harmless at least, and amusing, although ill accommodated to the actual state of manners. He published also “The History of little Jack,” a story, the moral of which is this simple truth, that “it is of very little consequence how a man comes into the world, provided he behaves well, and discharges his duty when he is in it.”

, brother to the bishop of Ossory, was born at Saltonstall, in Yorkshire, in 1572. At the age of nineteen he was entered of Merton college in Oxford, and having continued there, and at St. Alban’s hall, until he was admitted doctor in medicine, he went and settled at York. In 1626, he published, at London, “Spadacrene Anglica, or the English Spaw Fountain,” being a brief treatise of the acid or tart fountain in the forest of Knaresborough, in Yorkshire. In a later edition, there are accounts of other mineral waters found in the forest. “Admiranda Chymica, Tractatulus, cum Figuris,” Frankfort, 1630, 8vo, which has been several times reprinted. Sam. Norton, Wood says, was esteemed half author of this book, there being in it some of his tracts; as “Catholicon physicorum,” “Mercurius redivivus,” &c. Deane is supposed to have died about the time the civil wars broke out, but in what year is not known.

, a name of great celebrity in the literary history of the fifteenth century, was born at Pavia in 1399. In his youth he was appointed secretary to Philip-Maria Visconti, and after the death of his master, while struggling for the liberties of the Milanese, Decembrio defended the same cause with ardour, while there was any prospect of success; and when all failed, he quitted Milan for Rome, where pope Nicholas V. made him apostolical secretary. He returned to Milan about twenty years afterwards, and died there in 1477. According to the inscription on his monument, he composed one hundred and twenty-seven works, but few of these appear to be known. The two principal are the lives of Philip-Maria Visconti, and Francis Sforza, both dukes of Milan. Muratori has inserted them in his Script. Rer. Ital. vol. XX. In the first he has imitated the style and manner of Suetonius with considerable success. The second is in hexameter verse, but his facts are more interesting than his poetry. His other printed works are treatises on different subjects; Latin and Italian poems, several translations, particularly of Appian and Quintus Curtius into Italian, &c. It is much to be regretted that his Letters, which are in several of the Italian libraries, have not been published, as they might throw great light on the literary and political history of his age.

, an excellent mathematician, mechanic, and astronomer, was born at Chamberry, the capital of Savoy, in 1611; and descended from a noble family, which had produced several persons creditably distinguished in the church, the law, and the army. He was a great master in all the parts of the mathematics, and printed several books on that subject, which were very well received. His principal performances are, an edition of Euclid’s Elements, where he has struck out the unserviceable propositions, and annexed the use to those he has preserved; a discourse of fortification; and another of navigation. These performances, with some others, were first collected into three volumes in folio, under the title of “Mundus Mathematicus,” comprising a very ample course of mathematics. The first volume includes the first six books of Euclid, with the eleventh and twelfth; an arithmetical tract; Theodosius’s spherics; trigonometry; practical geometry; mechanics; statics; universal geography; a discourse upon the loadstone; civil architecture, and the carpenter’s art. The second volume furnishes directions for stone-cutting; military architecture; hydrostatics; a discourse of fountains and rivers hydraulic machines, or contrivances for waterworks; navigation; optics; perspective; catoptrics, and dioptrics. The third volume has ki it a discourse of music pyrotechnia, or the operations of fire and furnace a discourse of the use of the astrolabe gnomonics, or the art of dialling; astronomy; a tract upon the calendar; astrology; algebra; the method of indivisible and conic sections. The best edition of this work is that of Lyons, printed in 1690; which is more correct than the first, is considerably enlarged, and makes four vols. in folio. Dechales, though not abounding in discoveries of his own, is yet allowed to have made a very good use of those of other men, and to have drawn the several parts of the science of mathematics together with great clearness and judgment. It is said also, that his probity was not inferior to his learning, and that both these qualities made him generally admired and beloved at Paris; where for four years together he read public mathematical lectures in the college of Clermont He then removed to Marseilles, where he taught the art of navigation; and aiterwards became professor of mathematics in the university of Turin, where he died March 28, 1678, aged 67.

, a jurist, who, according to Tiraboschi, attained greater fame during his life than abler men after their death, was born in 1453 at Milan, and is said to have been the natural son of one of the dukes of Milan, but this seems doubtful. He studied law at Pavia under his brother Lancelot, who was professor in that university, and on his removal to Pisa, Philip accompanied him, and continued his studies under Barth, Socinus, Philip Corneus, and others. In 1476 he received his doctor’s degree> and soon after was appointed one of the university profc ssors, in which he distinguished himself by his art in disputing, which he appears to have practised with so little respect for his seniors as to create him many enemies, and render his life a life of contest with his brethren. In the mean time his popularity was augmented by the respect paid to him by kings and popes, of all which he was in full enjoyment, when he died at Sienna in 1536. Of his works, none of which appear to have perpetuated his fame, the most considerable are his “Consilia,” Venice, 1581, 2 vols, fol.; and “De regulis juris,” ibid. fol.

, a pious and learned Jesuit, was born about 1559, at Hazebruck in Flanders, and taught philosophy and scholastic theology at Douay, and afterwards at Louvain. He was then sent on an embassy into Stiria, and became chancellor of the university of Gratz, where he died in 1619, aged 69. His principal work treats of the year of the birth and of the death of Christ. It is entitled, “Velificatio, seu theoremata de anno ortds ac mortis Domini; cum tabula chronographica, a capta per Pompeium lerosolyma, ad deletam a Tito xirbem;” Gratz, 1606, 4to. He was a man of profound erudition, and had acquired great skill in chronology.

, a dramatic writer of very little value, flourished in the reign of James I. The exact periods of his birth and decease are not ascertained; but he could not have died young, as his earliest play bears date 1600, and his latest 1637. Mr. Oldys thinks that he was living in 1638, and that he was in the King’s-bench prison from 1613 to 1616, or longer. It is supposed he had acquired reputation even in the time of queen Elizabeth, whose decease and funeral he commemorates in his “Wonderful Year,” 1603. He was contemporary with Ben Jonson, with whom he quarrelled. Of this we have usually bad the following account: that “Jonson, who certainly could never ‘bear a rival near the throne,’ has, in his ‘ Poetaster,’ the Dnnciad of that author, among many Other poets whom he has satirised, been peculiarly severe on Decker, whom he has characterised under the name of Crispinus. This compliment Decker has amply repaid in his ‘ Satyromastix, or the untrussing a humourous Poet,’ in which, under the title of young Horace, he has made Ben the hero of his piece.” The provocation, however, on the part of Jonson is completely overthrown by Mr. Gilchrist, whose accurate research has established the fact that the Crispinus of Jonson was not Decker, but Marston. In the Biog. Dramatics, is a long list of forgotten plays by Decker; and his “Gull’s Hornbook,” a scarce little tract by him, was elegantly and curiously reprinted in 1813.

, vicar of St. Alkmond’s parish, Shrewsbury, was a native of Ireland, and descended from a very ancient and respectable family in that country, being distantly related to the family of lord Kinsale, to whom he was ordained chaplain. He was educated at Trinity college, Dublin; and his acquaintance with several eminent clergymen brought him to England. In 1770 he accepted the curacy of Shawbury in Shropshire, of which the rev, Mr. Stillingfleet was rector. In January, 1774, he was presented by the lord chancellor to the vicarage of St. Alkmond, which was the subject of a satirical poem, entitled “St. Alkmond’s Ghost,” by an inhabitant of the parish. This was owing to a prejudice conceived against him, as being a methodist, which, however, he soon overcame by his general conduct and talents. To a fund of information derived from reading and reflection, he added a degree of sprightliness and humour, which always rendered his conversation agreeable on every subject. la principle, he was warmly attached to the doctrines of our excellent church, as set forth in her articles and homilies. In the pulpit he was a laborious servant, preaching generally twice, and for some time before his death, three times, every Sunday, and a lecture on Wednesday evening, besides reading the regular service. His sermons were extempore, but in language dignified, in reasoning perspicuous, embellished by apposite allusions, and ornamented with many of the graces of oratory, and he never appealed to the passions of his auditors, but through the medium of the understanding. To the dogmas of Socinus he was an able and unwearied adversary, both from the pulpit and the press, as may be seen by referring to his “Christ Crucified,” 2 vols. 12mo. He was particularly attached to our venerable constitution, and when those pernicious doctrines were broached, which, under the delusive and fascinating title of “Rights of Man,” hurled the monarch of France from his throne, and threatened to involve this country in the same dreadful scenes of ruin and devastation, he strenuously defended the cause of religion and social order. His natural constitution was good, and supported him under many painful fits of rheumatic gout, which weakened his knees so much, as to render it necessary sometimes to sit in the pulpit. Among many temporal losses, none seemed to affect him so much as the death of his youngest son in August, 1803, after serving some time as midshipman under his relation the hon. capt. De Courcy. In the close of his last sermon from Revelation, chap. vi. v. 2. on the evening of the fast day, an allusion to the memory of those whom “we had resigned into the rcy arms of Death,” so far affected him, as to cause an involuntary flow of tears, and obliged him abruptly to conclude. A slight cold taken on that day brought on a return of his disorder, from which he gradually recovered, until a few hours before his death, when a sudden attack in his stomach rendered medical aid useless. Having commended his soul into the hands of his Redeemer, he sunk back, and expired, Nov. 4, 1803. His memory will be long esteemed by his parishioners, and many others who attended his ministry, during a period of thirty years. His remains were interred at Shawbury, on the 9th, and on that occasion a great number of his friends voluntarily joined the funeral procession, and rendered to his memory their last tribute of respect and gratitude. His published works are “Jehu’s Eye-glass on True and False Zeal;” “Nathan’s Message to David, a Sermon;” two Fast Sermons, 1776; “A Letter to a Baptist Minister;” “A Reply to Parmenas,” 1776 “The Rejoinder,” on Baptism, 1777; “Hints respecting the Utility of some Parochial Plan for suppressing the Profanation of the Lord’s Day,” 1777; two Fast Sermons, 1778; “Seduction, or the Cause of injured Innocence pleaded, a Poem,” 1782; “The Seducer convicted on his own Evidence,” 1783; “Christ Crucified,” 1791, 2 vols.; and a Sermon preached at Hawkstone chapel, at the presentation of the standard to the two troops of North Shropshire yeomanry cavalry, in 1798. In 1810, a volume of his “Sermons” was published, with a biographical preface and portrait.

, a great mathematician, and greater enthusiast, the son of Rowland Dee, gentleman sewer to Henry VIII. and grandson of Bedo Dee, standard bearer to lord de Ferrars at the battle of Tournay, was born at London, July 13, 1527; and, after some time spent at school there, and at Chelmsford in Essex, sent to John’s college in Cambridge, where he informs us of his progress in the following words: “Anno 1542, I was sent, by my father Rowland Dee, to the university of Cambridge, there to begin with logic, and so to proceed in the learning of good arts and sciences; for I had before been meetly well furnished with understanding of the Latin tongue, I being then somewhat above 15 years old. In the years 1543, 1544, 1545, I was so vehemently bent to study, that for those years I did inviolably keep this order, only to sleep four hours every night; to allow to meat and drink, and some refreshing after, two hours every day; and of the other eighteen hours, all, except the time of going to, and being at, the divine service, was spent in my studies and learning.” In 1547 he went into the Low Countries, on. purpose to converse with Frisius, Mercator, &c. and other learned men, particularly mathematicians; and in about eight months alter returned to Cambridge, where, upon the founding of Trinity college by Henry VIII. he was chosen one of the fellows, but his bias was to the study of mathematics and astronomy. He brought over with him from the Low Countries several instruments “made by the direction of Frisius, together with a pair of large globes made by Mercator; and his reputation was very high. His assiduity, however, in making astronomical observations, which in those days were always understood to be connected with the desire of penetrating into futurity, brought some suspicion upon him; which was so far increased by a very singular accident that befel him, as to draw upon him the imputation of a necromancer, which he deserved afterwards rather mre than now. This affair happened soon after his removal from St. John’s-college, and being chosen one of the fellows of Trinity, where he” was assigned to he the under-reader of the Greek tongue, Mr. Pember being the chief Greek reader then in Trinity-college. Hereupon,“says he,” I did set forth, and it was seen of the university, a Greek comedy of Aristophanes, named in Greek Eijpwij in Latin, Pax; with the performance of the scarabaeus, or beetle, his flying up to Jupiter’s palace with a man and his basket of victuals on his back; whereat was great wondering, and many vain reports spread abroad of the means how that was effected."

Disturbed with these reports, he left England again in 1548, and went to the university of Louvain; where he distinguished himself so much, that he was visited by the duke of Mantua, by don Lewis de la Cerda, afterwards duke of Medina, and other persons of great rank. While he remained there, sir William Pickering, who was afterwards a great favourite with queen Elizabeth, was his pupil; and in this university it is probable, although not certain, that he had the degree of LL. D. conferred upon him. July 1550 he went from thence to Paris, where, in the college of Uheims, he read lectures upon Euclid’s Elements with uncommon applause; and very great offers were made him, if he would accept of a professorship in that university. In 1551 he returned to England, was well received by sir John Cheke, introduced to secretary Cecil, and even to king Edward himself, from whom he received a pension of 100 crowns a year, which was in 1553 exchanged for a grant of the rectories of Upton upon Severn, and Long Lednam in Lincolnshire. In the reign of queen Mary, he was for some time very kindly treated; but afterwards came into great trouble, and even danger of his life. At the very entrance of it, Dee entered into a correspondence with several of the lady Elizabeth’s principal servants, while she was at Woodstock and at Milton; which being observed, and the nature of it not known, two informers charged him with practising against the queen’s life by inchantments. Upon this he was seized and confined; but being, after several trials, discharged of treason, he was turned over to bishop Bonner, to see if any heresy could be found in him. After a tedious persecution, August 19, 1555, he was, by an order of council, set at liberty; and thought his credit so little hurt by what had happened, that Jan. 15, 1556, he presented “A supplication to queen Mary, for the recovery and preservation of ancient writers and monuments.” The design was certainly good, and would have been attended with good consequences, if it had taken effect; its failure cannot be too deeply regretted, as there was then an opportunity of recovering many of the contents of the monastic libraries dispersed in Edward’s time. Dee also appears to have had both the zeal and knowledge for this undertaking. The original of his supplication, which has often been printed, is still extant in the Cotton library; and we learn from it, that Cicero’s famous work, “De Republica,” was once extant in this kingdom, and perished at Canterbury.

Upon the accession of queen Elizabeth, at the desire of lord Robert Dudley, afterwards earl of Leicester, he delivered somewhat upon the principles of the ancient astrologers, about the choice of a fit day for the coronation of the queen, from whom he received many promises; nevertheless, his credit at court was not sufficient to overcome the public odium against him, on the score of magical incantations, which was the true cause of his missing several preferments. He was by this time become an author; but, as we are told, a little unluckily; for his books were such as scarce any pretended to understand, written upon mysterious subjects in a very mysterious manner. In the spring of 1564 he went abroad again, to present the book which he dedicated to the then emperor Maximilian, and returned to England the same summer. In 1563, he engaged the earl of Pembroke to present the queen with his “Propaedurnata Aphoristica” and two years after, sir Henry Billingsley’s translation of Euclid appeared, with Dee’s preface and notes; which did him more honour than, all his performances, as furnishing incontestable proofs of a more than ordinary skill in the mathematics. In 1571, we find him in Lorrain; where falling dangerously sick, the queen was pleased to send him two physicians. After his return to England, he settled himself in his house at Mortlake; where he prosecuted his studies with great diligence, and collected a noble library, consisting of 4000 volumes, of which above a fourth part were Mss. a great number of mechanical and mathematical instruments, a collection of seals, and many other curiosities. His books only were valued at 2000l. It was upon his leaving the kingdom in 1583, that the populace, who always believed him to be one who dealt with the devil, broke into his house at Mortlake; where they tore and destroyed many things, and dispersed the rest in such a manner, that the greatest part of them were irrecoverable.

In 1572, anew star appeared in Cassiopeia’s chair, which gave Dee an opportunity of distinguishing himself in his own way. March 1575, queen Elizabeth went to his house, to see his library; but having buried his wife only a few hours before, he could not entertain her in the manner he would have done, nor indeed did she enter the house; but he brought out to her majesty a glass of his, which had occasioned much discourse; shewed her the properties of it, and explained their causes, in order to wipe off the aspersion, under which he had so long laboured, of being a magician. In 1577, a comet appearing, the queen sent for him to Windsor, to consult him upon it, and was pleased with his conversation, and promised him her royal protection, notwithstanding the vulgar reports to his prejudice. The year after, her majesty being greatly indisposed, Dee was sent abroad to confer with the German physicians. The queen, hinting her desire to be thoroughly informed as to her title to countries discovered in different parts of the globe by subjects of England, Dee applied himself to the task with great vigour so much, that October 3, 1580, which was not three weeks after, he presented to the queen, in her garden at Richmond, two large rolls, in which those countries were geographically described and historically explained; with the addition of all the testimonies and authorities necessary to support them, from records, and other authentic vouchers. These she very graciously received; and, after dinner, the same day conferred with Dee about them, in the presence of some of her privy-council, and of the lord-treasurer Burleigh especially. His next employment, of consequence enough to be remembered, was the reformation of the calendar; which, though it never took effect until the reign of George II. was one of his best performances, and did him great credit.

We come now to that period of his life, by which he has been most known, though for reasons which have justly rendered him least regarded. He was certainly a man of uncommon parts, learning, and application; and might have distinguished himself in the scientific world if he had been possessed of solid judgment; but he was very credulous, superstitious, extremely vain, and, we suspect, a little roguish; but we are told that it was his ambition to surpass all men in knowledge, which carried him at length to a desire of knowing beyond the bounds of human faculties. In short, he suffered himself to be deluded into an opinion, that by certain invocations an intercourse or communication with spirits might be obtained; from whence he promised himself an insight into the occult sciences. He found a young man, one Edward Kelly, a native of Worcestershire, who was already either rogue or fool enough for his purpose, and readily undertook to assist him, for which he was to pay him 50l. per annum. Dec. 2, 1581, they began their incantations; in consequence of which, Kelly was, by the inspection of a certain table, consecrated for that purpose with many superstitious ceremonies, enabled to acquaint Dee with what the spirits thought fit to shew and discover. These conferences were continued for about two years, and the subjects of them were committed to writing, but never published, though still preserved in Ashmole’s museum. In the mean time, there came over hither a Polish lord, one Albert Laski, palatine of Siradia, a man of great parts and learning; and, as a late writer observes, of large fortune too, or he would not have answered their purpose. This nobleman was introduced by the earl of Leicester to Dee, and became his constant visitant. Having: himself a bias to those superstitious arts, he was, after much intreaty, received by Dee into their company, and into a participation of their secrets. Within a short time, the palatine of Siradia, returning to his own country, prevailed with Dee and Kelly to accompany him, upon the assurance of an ample provision there; and accordingly they went all privately from Mortlake, in order to embark for Holland; from whence they travelled by land through Germany into Poland, where, Feb. 3, 1584, they arrived at the principal castle belonging to Albert Laski. When Laski had been sufficiently amused with their fanatical pretences to a conversation with spirits, and was probably satisfied that they were impostors, he contrived to send them to the emperor Rodolph II. who, being quickly disgusted with their impertinence, declined all farther interviews. Upon this Dee applied himself to Laski, to introduce him to Stephen king of Poland; which accordingly he did at Cracow, April 1585. But that prince soon detecting his delusions, and treating him with contempt, he returned to the emperor’s court at Prague; from whose dominions he was soon banished at the instigation of the pope’s nuncio, who gave the emperor to understand, how scandalous it appeared to the Christian world, that he should entertain two such magicians as Dee and Kelly. At this time, and while these confederates were reduced to the greatest distress, a young nobleman of great power and fortune in Bohemia, and one of their pupils, gave them shelter in the castle of Trebona; where they not only remained in safety, but lived in splendour, Kelly having in his possession, as is reported, that philosophical powder of projection, by which they were furnished with money very profusely. Some jealousies and heart-burnings afterwards happened between Dee and Kelly, that brought on at length an absolute rupture. Kelly, however, who was a younger man than Dee, seems to have acted a much wiser part; since it appears, from an entry in Dee’s diary, that he was so far intimidated as to deliver up to Kelly, Jan. 1589, the powder, about which it is said he had learned from the German chemists many secrets which he had not communicated to Dee.

The noise their adventures made in Europe induced queen Elizabeth to invite Dee home, who, in May 1689, set out from Trebona towards England. He travelled with great pomp and solemnity, was attended by a guard of horse; and, besides waggons for his goods, had uo less than three coaches for the use of his family; for he had married a second wife, and had several children. He landed at Gravesend Nov. 23; and, Dec. 9, presented himself at Richmond to the queen, who received him very graciously. He then retired to his house at Mortlake; and collecting the remains of his library, which had been torn to pieces and scattered in his absence, he sat down to study. He had great friends; received many presents; yet nothing, it seems, could keep him from want. The queen had quickly notice of this, as well as of the vexations he suffered from the common people, who persecuted him as a conjuror, which at that time was not a title equivalent to an impostor. The queen, who certainly listened oftener to him than might have been expected from her good sense, sent him money from time to time: but all would not do. At length he resolved to apply in such a manner as to procure some settled subsistence; and accordingly, Nov. 9, 1592, he sent a memorial to her majesty by the countess of -Warwick, in which he very earnestly pressed her, that commissioners might be appointed to hear his pretensions, and to examine into the justness of his wants and claims. This had a good effect; for, on the 22d, two commissioners, sir Thomas Gorge, knt. and Mr. Secretary Wolley, were actually sent to Mortlake, where Dee exhibited a book, containing a distinct account of all the memorable transactions of his life, those which occurred in his last journey abroad only excepted; and, as he read this historical narration, he produced all the letters, grants, and other evidences requisite to confirm them, and where these were wanting, named living witnesses. The title of this work, the original of which still remains in the Cotton library, and a transcript of it among Dr. Smith’s written collections, runs thus: “The compendious rehearsal of John Dee, his dutiful declaration and proof of the course and race of his studious life for the space of half an hundred years now by God’s favour and help fully spent, and of the very great injuries, damages, and indignities which for these last nine years he hath in England sustained, contrary to her majesty’s very gracious will and express commandment, made unto the two honourable commissioners by her most excellent majesty thereto assigned, according to the intent of the most humble supplication of the said John, exhibited to her most gracious majesty at Hampton-court, ann. 1592, Nov. 9.” Upon the report made by the commissioners to the queen, he received a present, and promises of preferment; but these promises ending like the former in nothing, he engaged his patroness, the countess of Warwick, to present another short Latin petition to the queen, but with what success does not appear. In Dec. 1594, however, he obtained a grant to the chancellorship of St. Paul’s. But this did not answer his end: upon which he applied himself next to Whitgift, archbishop of Canterbury, by a letter, in which he inserted a large account of all the books he had either published or written: and in consequence of this letter, together with other applications, he obtained a grant of the vvardenshipof Manchester-college. Feb. 15D6, he arrived with his wife and family in that town, and was installed in his new charge. He continued there about seven years; which he is said to have spent in a troublesome and unquiet manner. June 1604, he presented a petition to king James, earnestly desiring him that he might be brought to a trial; that, by a formal and judicial sentence, he might be delivered from those suspicions and surmises which had created him so much uneasiness for upwards of fifty years. But the king, although he at first patronized him, being better informed of the nature of his studies, refused him any mark of royal countenance and favour; which must have greatly affected a man of that vain and ambitious spirit, which all his misfortunes could never alter or amend. November the same year he quitted Manchester with his family, in order to return to his house at Mortlake; where he remained but a short time, being now very old, infirm, and destitute of friends and patrons, who had generally forsaken him. We find him at Mortlake in 1607; where he had recourse to his former invocations, and so came to deal again, as he fancied, with spirits. One Hickman served him now, as Kelly had done formerly. Their transactions were continued to Sept. 7, 1607, which is the last date in that journal published by Casaubon, whose title at large runs thus: “A true and faithful relation of what passed for many years between Dr. John Dee, a mathematician of great fame in queen Elizabeth and king James their reigns, and some spirits, tending, had it succeeded, to a general alteration of most states and kingdoms in the world. His private conferences with Rudolph emperor of Germany, Stephen. king of Poland, and divers other princes, about it. The particulars of his cause, as it was agitated in the emperor’s court by the pope’s intervention. His banishment and restoration in part; as also the letters of sundry great men and princes, some whereof were present at some of these conferences, and apparitions of spirits to the said Dr. Dee, out of the original copy written with Dr. Dee’s own hand, kept in the library of sir Thomas Cotton, knt. baronet. With a preface confirming the reality, as to the point of spirits, of this relation, and shewing the several good uses that a sober Christian may make of all. By Meric Casaubon, D. D. Lond. 1659,” fol.

This book made a great noise upon its first publication; and many years after, the credit of it was revived by one of the ablest mathematicians and philosophers of his time, the celebrated Dr. Hooke; who believed, that not only Casaubon, but archbishop Usher, and other learned men, were entirely mistaken in their notions about this book; and that, in reality, our author Dee never fell under any such delusions, but being a man of great art and intrigue, made use of this strange method of writing to conceal things of a political nature, and, instead of a pretended enthusiast, was a real spy. But there are several reasons which will not suffer us to suppose this. One is, that Dee began these actions in England; for which, if we suppose the whole treatise to be written in cypher, there is no account can be given, any more than for pursuing the same practices in king James’s time, who cannot be imagined to have used him as a spy. Another, that he admitted foreigners, such as Laski, Rosenberg, &c. to be present at these consultations with spirits; which is not reconcileable with the notion of his being intrusted with political secrets. Lastly, upon the return of Dee from Bohemia, Kelly did actually send an account to the queen of practices against her life; but then this was in a plain and open method, which would never have been taken, if there had been any such mysterious correspondence between Dee and her ministers, as Hooke suggests. In the latter end of his life he became miserably poor. It is highly probable that he remained under these delusions to his death; for he was actually providing for a new journey into Germany, when, worn out by age and distempers, he died in 1608, aged eighty, and was buried at Mortlake. He left behind him a numerous posterity both male and female, and among these his eldest son Arthur, who is mentioned in our next article.

, son of the preceding, was born at Mortlake, in Surry, July 1 4th, 1579, and educated at Westminster school under Camden, and at the university of Oxford. He accompanied his father in his travels over France, Germany, and Poland, and was early initiated by him in the same mysteries which he himself had so unfruitfully followed. Returning to England, he settled in Westminster, intending to practise medicine there; but, being rejected by the college of physicians, to whom he applied for a licence, he went to Russia, and, on the recommendation of king James, was appointed physician to the czar, an office he continued to hold for fourteen years. He now returned to England, when he soon lost the money he had acquired in Russia, in search of the grand elixir, the reality of the existence of which he never doubted. He is said to have died at Norwich in extreme poverty, in September 1651. He suffered the censures of the college of physicians, Goodall says, for hanging out a table at his door, exposing to sale several medicines, by which he professed to cure diseases. While at Paris he published, in 1631, “Fasciculus chymicus, abstrusoe scientix Hermeticae, ingressum, progressum, coronidem, explicans,” 12mo.

, or Doering, an ingenious but unfortunate physician, was a native of Saxony, who took his degrees in physic at Leyden, and came to England, according to Mr. Martyn, in the train of a foreign ambassador; but another account pays, that soon after he came to London he was appointed secretary to the British ambassador at the Russian court. Both accounts may probably be true. Dr. Pulteney thinks he settled in London about 1720, where he practised physic and midwifery, and having a strong bias to the study of botany, became one of the members of the society established by Dr. Dillenius and Mr. Martyn, which subsisted from 17*1 to 1726. In 1736 he removed to Nottingham, tinder the recommendation of sir Hans Sloane, and was at first well received, and very successful in his treatment of the smallpox, which disease was highly epidemical at that place soon after his arrival; but he incurred the censure of the faculty by his pretensions to a nostrum. In 1737 he published “An Account of an improved method of treating the Small-pox, in a letter to sir Thomas Parkyns, bart.” 8vo. By this it appears, that his medicine was of the antiphlogistic kind, and that he was one of the first who introduced the cool regimen.

Dr. Deering shewed his attachment to botanical pursuits by his assiduity in collecting such ample materials for his “Catalogue,” in less than two years after settling at Nottingham. It was published under the title “A Catalogue of Plants naturally gruuiog and commonly cultivated in divers parts of England, more especially about Netting-­ham, &e.” 1738, 8vo. This useful work might have been greatly enlarged and improved by the author had he been endowed with some degree of prudence, or a happier temper; but owing to the want of these he very early lost the little interest which his character and success had at first gained. Yet he was a man of great learning, and master of nine languages, ancient and modern. He had also a knowledge of designing, and was an ingenious mechanic. After his failure in the practice of medicine, his friends attempted several schemes to alleviate his necessities. Among others, they procured him a commission in the regiment raised at Nottingham on account of the rebellion; but this proved more honourable than profitable. He was afterwards employed in a way more agreeable to his genius and talents; being furnished with materials, and enabled, with the assistance of John Plumtree, esq. and others, to write “The History of Nottingham,” which, however, he did not live to publish. He had been troubled with the gout at a very early period, and in the latter stage of his life he suffered long confinements in this disease, and became asthmatical. Being at length reduced to a degree of poverty and dependence, which his spirit could not sustain, oppressed with calamity and complicated disease, he died April 12, 1749, Two of his principal creditors administered to his effects, and buried him in St. Peter’s church-yard, opposite the house in which he lived. He left a Hortus Siccus of the plants in his “Catalogue,” a volume of paintings of the fungi, by his own hand, and some Mss. His “Nottinghamia Vetus et Nova,” or History of Nottingham, was published by his administrators, George Ayscough, printer, and Thomas Wellington, druggist, at Nottingham, in 1751, 4to, embellished with plates. One of the most remarkable articles in this volume is, a complete description of that curious machine, the stockingframe, invented upwards of two centuries ago by William Lee, M. A. of St. John’s college, Cambridge, a native of Woodborough, near Nottingham. All the parts are separately and minutely described in the technical terms, and illustrated by two views of the whole, and by a large table, delineating with great accuracy, every constituent part of the machine.

, a voluminous and very ingenious political and miscellaneous writer, was born in London about 1663. He was the son of James Foe, citizen and butcher, of the parish of St. Giles’s, Cripplegate: and his grandfather was Daniel Foe, of Elton, in Northamptonshire, yeoman. How he came by the name of De Foe we are not informed; but his enemies have asserted, that he assumed the De to avoid being thought an Englishman. It certainly appeared, from the books of the chamberlain of London (which were some time ago destroyed by a fire at Guildhall) that our author was admitted, by the name of Daniel Foe, to the freedom of the ciiy by birth, Jan. 26, 1687-8. The family of De Foe were protestant dissenters, and Daniel, who had received his education at a dissenting academy at Newington Green, near London, was a dissenter upon principle and reflection. From his various writings, says his biographer, it is plain that he was a zealous defender of the principles of the dissenters, and a strenuous supporter of their politics, before the liberality of our rulers had freed this conduct from danger. He merits the praise which is due to sincerity in manner of thinking, and to uniformity in habits of acting, whatever obloquy may have been cast on his name, by attributing writings to him, which, as they belonged to others, he was studious to disavow.

De Foe commenced author before he was twenty-one. His first publication, in 1633, was a “Treatise against the Turks;” which was written against a sentiment very prevalent, at that time, in favour of the Ottomans, as opposed to the house of Austria. He was a man who would fight as well as write; and, before he was three-and-twenty, in June 1685, he appeared in arms for the duke of Monmouth. Of this exploit he boasted in the latter part of his life, when it was no longer dangerous to avow his participation in that imprudent enterprise. To escape from the dangers of battle was not wonderful; but how he avoided the sanguinary rage of Jefferies has not been accounted for. It is certain, that his zeal was too ardent to be inactive. In a tract against the proclamation for the repeal of the penal laws in 1687, he very efficaciously opposed the unconstitutional measures pursued by king James II.; warning the dissenters against the secret dangers of the insidious toleration with which that infatuated monarch attempted to deceive them. But neither this tract, nor that against the Turks, did he think proper to re-publish in the subsequent collection of his writings.

As he had endeavoured to promote the revolution by his pen and his sword, he had the satisfaction of participating in the pleasures and advantages of that great event. During the hilarity of the moment, the lord-mayor of London asked king William to partake of the city feast on the 29th of October, 1689. Every honour was paid to the sovereign of the people’s choice. A regiment of volunteers, composed of the chief citizens, and commanded by the celebrated earl of Peterborough, attended the king and queen from Whitehall to the Mansion-house. Among these troopers, gallantly mounted, and richly accoutred, was Daniel De Foe.

While our author thus courted notice, he is said to have acted as a hosier in Freeman’s-court, Cornhill; but with the usual imprudence of superior genius, he was carried by his vivacity into companies who were gratified by his wit. He spent those hours with a society for the cultivation of polite learning which he ought to have employed in the calculations of the counting-house; and being obliged to abscond from his creditors in 1692, he attributed those misfortunes to the war, which were probably owing to his own misconduct. An angry creditor took out a commission of bankruptcy, which was superseded on the petition of those to whom he was most indebted, who accepted a composition on his single bond. This he punctually paid, by the efforts of unwearied diligence. But some of those creditors, who had been thus satisfied, falling afterward into distress themselves, De Foe voluntarily paid them their whole claims; being then in rising circumstances from king William’s favour. This is an example of integrity, which it would be unjust to conceal. Being reproached, in 1705, by lord Haversham, with mercenariness, our author feelingly observes, how, with a numerous family, and no helps but his own industry, he had forced his way with undiminished diligence, through a sea of misfortunes, and reduced his debts, exclusive of composition, from seventeen thousand to less than five thousand pounds. He had been concerned Jn some pantile works near Tilbury-fort, and these he continued to carry on, though probably with no great success. While he was yet under thirty years of age, and had mortified no great man by his satire, nor offended any party by his pamphlets, he had acquired friends by his powers of pleasing, who did not, with the usual instability of friendship, desert him in his distresses. They offered to settle him as a factor at Cadiz, where, as a trader, he had some previous correspondence. But as he assures us in his old age, “Providence, which had other work for him to do, placed a secret aversion in his mind to quitting England.” He was prompted by a vigorous mind to think of a variety of schemes for the benefit of his country; and in January 1697, he published his “Essay upon Projects.” In this, among other projects which shew an extensive range of knowledge, he suggests to king William the imitation of Louis XIV, in the establishment of a society for encouraging polite learning, refining the English language, and preventing barbarisms of manners. Prior and Swift afterwards recommended the same, as far as regards language. In 1695, De Foe was appointed accomptant to the commissioners for managing the duties on glass; but he lost, this place in 1699, when the tax was suppressed by act of parliament.

In 1701 appeared the first effort of his satirical muse, “The True-born Englishman,” a vindication of king William, who had been insulted by Tutchen, in a poem entitled “The Foreigners.” The sale of De Foe’s poem was prodigious, and he was amply rewarded, being admitted to personal interviews with the king, who certainly was no reader of poetry. After the piece of Ryswick, he published “An argument to prove that a standing army, with consent of parliament, is not inconsistent with a free government,” and on this interesting topic displays great. powers of reasoning and elegance of language. Afterwards when the grand jury of Kent presented to the commons, MayS, 1701, a petition, which desired them “to mind the public business more, and their private heats less” Messrs. Culpeppers, Polhill, Hamilton, and Champneys, who avowed this intrepid paper, were committed to the Gate-house, in Westminster, amidst the applauses of their countrymen. It was on this occasion that De Foe dictated a remonstrance, which was signed “Legion,” and which, has been recorded in history for its bold truths and seditious petulance. His zeal induced him to assume a woman’s dress, while he delivered this paper to Harley, the speaker, as he entered the house of commons. It was then also that our author published “The Original Power of the collective Body of the People of England, examined and asserted:” This seasonable treatise he dedicated to king William, in a dignified strain of nervous eloquence. ^ It is not the least of the extraordinaries of your majesty’s character,“says he,” that, as yon are king of your people, so yon are the people’s king; a title, which, as it is the most glorious, so it is the most indisputable.“To the lords and commons he addresses himself in a similar tone: the vindication of the original right of all men to the government of themselves, he tells them, is so far from being a derogation from, that it is a confirmation of their legal authority.” Every lover of liberty,“says his biographer, Mr. Chalmers,” must be pleased with the perusal of a treatise, which vies with Locke’s famous tract in powers of reasoning, and is superior to it in the graces of style.“De Foe, soon after, published” The Freeholder’s Plea against Stockjobbing Elections of Parliament Men."

How much soever king William may have been pleased with the “True-born Englishman,” he was perhaps little gratified by our author’s “Reasons against a War with France.” This is one of the finest tracts in the English language. After remarking the universal cry of the people for war, our author declares he is not against war with France, provided it be on justifiable grounds; but, he hopes, England will never be so inconsiderable a nation, as to make use of dishonest pretences to bring to pass any of her designs: and he says, that he who desires we should end the war honourably, ought to desire also, that we begin it fairly. The death of king William deprived De Foe of a protector. Of this monarch’s memory, he says, that he never patiently heard it abused, nor ever could do so: and in this gratitude to a royal benefactor there is certainly much to praise.

In the midst of the furious contest of party, civil and religious, on the accession of queen Anne, our author was engaged in a controversy concerning the Occasional Conformity of Dissenters; a controversy, which in those days occasioned vehement contests between the two houses of parliament, but which is now probably silenced for ever.

“During the first fury of high-flying,” says he, “I fell a sacrifice for writing against the madness of that high party, and in the service of the dissenters.” He alludes here to “The shortest Way with the Dissenters,” which, he published in 1702, and which is a piece of exquisite irony, though there are certainly passages in it that might have shewn considerate men how much the author had been in jest, He complains how hard it was, that this should not have been perceived by all the town, and that not one man can see it, either churchman or dissenter. This is one of the strongest proofs, how much the minds of men were inflamed against each other, and how little the virtues of mutual forbearance and personal kindness existed amid the clamour of contradiction, which then shook the kingdom, and gave rise to some of the most remarkable events in our annals. The commons shewed their zeal, however they may have studied their dignity, by prosecuting several libellists. On Feb. 25, 1703, a complaint was made in the house of commons, of “The Shortest Way with the Dissenters,” and it was ordered to be burnt by the hands of the common hangman.

During the previous twenty years of his life, his biographer observes, De Foe had been unconsciously charging a mine, which now blew himself and his family into the air. He had fought for Monmouth he had opposed king James; he had vindicated the revolution; he had panegyrized king William; he had defended the rights of the collective body of the people; he had displeased lord Godolphin and the duke of Marlborough, by objecting to the Flanders war; he had bantered sir Edward Seymour, and sir Christopher Musgrave, the tory leaders of the commons; he had just ridiculed all the high-flyers in the kingdom; and he was at last obliged to seek for shelter from the indignation of persons and parties, thus overpowering and resistless. A proclamation was issued January 1703, offering a reward of 50l. for discovering his retreat. He was de^ scribed in the Gazette, as “a middle-sized spare man, about forty years old, of a brown complexion, and dark brown hair, though he wears a wig, having a hook nose, a sharp chin, grey eyes, and a large mole near his mouth.” He immediately published an explanation of the reputed libel, but being apprehended, he was tried, found guilty of the libel above-mentioned, and sentenced to the pillory, fine, and imprisonment. Thus was he a second time ruined, for by this affair, he asserts that he lost above 3500l. While in Newgate he amused some of his dreary hours, by “A Hymn to the Pillory,” in which there are some generous sentiments and pointed satire.

In 1703 he corrected for the press a collection of his writings, which, with several things not his, had been already published by a piratical printer. In this collection there are twentv-one treatises in poetry and prose, beginning with the “True-born Englishman,” and ending with “The Shortest Way to Peace and Union.” To this volume was prefixed the first print of De Foe, to which was afterwards added the apt inscription, “Laudatur et alget.” While in prison also, he projected “The Review,” a periodical paper in 4to, first published in February 1704, and intended to treat of news, foreign and domestic; of politics, British and European; of trade, particular and universal. But our author foresaw, that however instructive, the world would never read it, if it were not diverting. He, therefore, skilfully instituted “A Scandal Club,” which discussed questions in divinity, morals, war, trade, language, poetry, love, marriage, drunkenness, and gaming, “Thus it is easy to see,” says Mr. Chalmers, “that the Review pointed the way to the Tatlers, Spectators, and Guardians, which, however, have treated those interesting topics with more delicacy of humour, more terseness of style, and greater depth of learning: yet has De Foe many passages, both of prose and poetry, which, for refinement of wit, neatness of expression, and efficacy of moral, would do honour to Steele or to Addison.”

While he lay friendless in Newgate, his family ruined, and he himself without hopes of deliverance, a verbal message was brought him from sir Robert Harley, speaker of the house of commons, afterwards earl of Oxford, desiring to know what he could do for him. Harley approved, probably, of the principles and conduct of De Foe, and might foresee, that, during a factious age, such a genius could be converted to many uses. Our author was content to intimate a wish only for his release; and when Harley became secretary of state, in April 1704, and had frequent opportunities of representing the unmerited sufferings of De Foe to the queen and to the treasurer, lord Godolphin; yet our author continued four months longer in prison. The queen, however, inquired into his circumstances; and lord Godolphin sent a considerable sum to his wife, and to him money to pay his fine and the expence of his discharge. Here is the foundation, he says, on which be built his first sense of duty to the queen, and the indelible bond of gratitude to his first benefactor, as he calls Harley. “Let any one say, then,” he asks, “what I could have done, less or more than I have done for such a queen and such a benefactor?” All this he manfully avowed to the world, when queen Anne lay lifeless as king William, his first patron; pnd when the earl of Oxford, in the vicissitude of party, had been persecuted by faction, and overpowered, though not conquered, by violence. Being released from Newgate, in August 1704, De Foe, in order to avoid the town-talk, retired to St. Edmund’s Bury; but his retreat did not prevent persecution. Dyer, the newswriter, propagated that De Foe had Hed from justice; Fox, the bookseller, published, that he had deserted his security; andStephen, a state -messenger, every where said, that he had a warrant to apprehend him all which arose from petty malice, for when De Foe informed the secretary of state where he was, and when he would appear, he was told not to fear, as he had not transgressed.

In 1705, De Foe published “The Consolidator; or, Memoirs of sundry Transactions, from the World in the jVloon,” in which he makes the lunar politicians debate the policy of Charles XII. in pursuing the Saxons and Poles, Perhaps it was on this occasion, that the Swedish ambassador was so ill-advised as to complain against De Foe, for merited ridicule of a futile warfare. He was next engaged in a controversy with sir Humphrey Mackworth, about his bill for employing the poor; and in 1705, he published a second volume of the “Writings of the author of the Trueborn Englishman.” His writings, thus collected into volumes, were soon a third time printed, with the addition of a key. The second volume of 1705, contains eighteen treatises in prose and rhyme.

The year 1705 was a year of disquiet to De Foe, from the persecutions of party. When his affairs led him to the west of England in August, September, and October, a project was formed to send him as a soldier to the army, at a time when footmen were taken from the coaches as recruits; but, conscious of his being a freeholder of England, and a liveryman of London, he knew that such characters could not be violated with impunity. When some of the western justices, of more zeal of party than sense of duty, heard from his opponents of De Foe’s journey, they determined to apprehend him as a vagabond; but our author, who had personal courage in a high degree, reflected, that to face danger is most effectually to prevent it. In his absence, real suits were commenced against him for fictitious debts; but De Foe advertised, that genuine claims he would fairly satisfy. All these circumstances were published in “The Review.”

About this time, lord Godolphin, who knew how to discriminate characters, determined to employ De Foe on a very important commission. The queen said to him, while he kissed her hand, she had such satisfaction in his former services, that she had again appointed him for another affair, which was something nice, but the treasurer would tell him the rest. In three days he was sent to Scotland. His knowledge of commerce and revenue, his powers of insinuation, and his readiness of pen, were deemed of no small utility in promoting the union. He accordingly arrived at Edinburgh, in October 1706; and we find him no inconsiderable actor in that greatest of all good works. He attended the committees of parliament, for whose use he made several of the calculations on the subject of trade and taxes. He endeavoured to confute all that was published by the writers in Scotland against the union; and he had his share of danger, since, as he says, “he was watched by the mob; had his chamber windows insulted; but, by the prudence of his friends, and God’s providence, he escaped.” In the midst of this great scene of business and tumult, he collected the documents, which he afterward published for the instruction of posterity, with regard to cne of the most difficult transactions in our annals.

In December 1706, he published “Caledonia,” a poem, in honour of the Scotch nation. Oh Jan. 1C, the act of union was passed by the parliament of Scotland, and De Foe returned to London in February 1707. How he was rewarded by the ministers who derived a benefit from his services, is uncertain. Mr. Chalmers is inclined to think it was by a pension. He published his “History of the Union” in 1709, though he was engaged in other lucubrations, and gave the world a “Review” three times a week. His history seems to have been little noticed when it first appeared, yet it was republished in 1712; and a third time, by his biographer, in 1786, when the union with Ireland had become a popular topic. In 1709 De Foe published his “History of Addresses,” which was followed, in 1711, by a second volume, with remarks serious and comical. His purpose plainly was to abate the public ferment with regard to Sacheverel, whose conduct, by a kind of fatality or folly, occasioned some eventful changes.

De Foe now lived at Newington, in comfortable circumstances, and was principally employed in writing the “Review,” which at last he relinquished after nine years continuance, and began to write “A General History of Trade,” which he proposed to publish in monthly numbers; but this history, which exhibits the ingenuity and strength of De Foe, extended only to two numbers. He appears, at last, to have been silenced by noise, obloquy, and insult, and finding himself treated in this manner, he declined writing at all, and secreted himself, for a time, at Halifax, or on the borders of Lancashire, where, observing the insolence of the Jacobite party, he wrote the following tracts, “A Seasonable Caution;” “What, if the Pretender should come?” “Reasons against the Succession of the House of Hanover;” and “What if the Queen should die:” those pamphlets, whose titles were ironical, were so much approved by the zealous friends of the protestant succcbbiun, that they were diligent to disperse them through the most distant counties; ana 1 yet the reader will learn, with indignation, that for these De Foe wen arrested, obliged to give Soo/. bail, contrary to the bill of rights, and prosecuted by information, in Trinity term, 1713. This prosecution was instituted by the absurd zeal of Mr. auditor Benson. Our author attributes it to the malice of his enemies, who were numerous and powerful. No inconsiderable people were heard to say, that they knew the books were against the pretender, but that De Foe had disobliged them in other things, and they resolved to take this advantage to punish him. He was prompted by consciousness of innocence to defend himself in the “Review” during the prosecution, which offended the judges, who, being infected with the violent spirit of the times, committed him to Newgate in Easter term 1713. He was, however, soon released, on making a proper submission, and the earl of Oxford being still in power, that nobleman procured him the queen’s pardon, in November 1713.

“No sooner was the queen dead,” says De Foe, “but the rage of men increased upon me to that degree, that their threats were such as I am unable to express. Though I have written nothing since the queen’s death; yet a great many things are called by my name, and I bear the answei'ers insults. 1 have not seen or spoken with the earl of Oxford, since the king’s landing, but once; yet he bears the reproach of my writing for him, and I the rage of men for doing it.” — De Foe appears, indeed, to have been stunned by factious clamour, and overborne, though not silenced, by unmerited obloquy. He probably lost his original appointment when the earl of Oxford was finally expelled. Instead of meeting with reward for his zealous services in support of the protestant succession, he was, on the accession of George I, discountenanced even by those who had derived a benefit from his active exertions. Thus cruelly circumstanced, he published in 1715, his “Appeal to Honour and Justice, being a true account of his conduct in public affairs.” As a motive for this intrepid measure, he affectingly says, “By the hints of mortality, and the infirmities of a life of sorrow and fatigue, I have reason to think, that I am very near to the great ocean of eternity; and the time may not be long ere I embark on the last voyage: wherefore, I think I should make even accounts with this world before I go, that no slanders may lie against my heirs, to disturb them in the peaceable possession of their father’s inheritance, his character.” Before he could finish his appeal, he was struck with an apoplexy. After languishing more than six weeks, neither able to go on, nor likely to recover, his friends would delay the publication no longer. “It is the opinion of most who know him,” says Baker, the publisher, “that the treatment which he here complains of, and others of which he would have spoken, have been the cause of this disaster.” When the ardent mind of De Foe reflected on what he had done, and what he had suffered, his heart melted in despair, and the year 1715 may be regarded as the period of our author’s political life. The death of Anne, and the accession of George the first, seem to have convinced him of the vanity of party-writing. And from this eventful epoch, he appears to have studied how to meliorate the heart, and how to regulate the practice of life.

In 1719 he published the “Life and surprising Adventures of Robinson Crusoe,” the most popular of all his performances. The reception of this extraordinary work was immediate and universal; and Taylor, who purchased the manuscript, afrer every bookseller had refused it, is said to have gained by it 1000l. In the same year he published a second volume of this extraordinary work, of which it may be said, that at the distance of a century it has lost none of its original attraction. Had all his other writings perished, the history of the author of Robinson Crusoe must have been an object of literary curiosity. In 172O he published “Serious Reflexions during the Life of Robinson Crusoe, with his vision of the angelic world.” This was intended as a third volume, but the public very justly decided that a third volume was inadmissible, and it was soon forgotten. As to the story, that De Foe had surreptitiously obtained the papers of Alexander Selkirk, a Scotch mariner, who having suffered shipwreck, lived on the island of Juan Fernandez four or five years, it is scarcely worthy of serious refutation. Yet what is needful to repel this charge has been amply afforded by his late biographer. Selkirk, in truth, had no papers to lose; and internal evidence is decidedly in favour of the pure and entire originality of De Foe’s inimitable fiction.

The success of Crusoe induced De Foe to publish, in 1720, “The Life and Piracies of captain Singleton,” though not with similar success. In 1725 he gave “A New Voyage round the World, by a course never sailed before.” In the life of Crusoe we are gratified by continually imagining that the fiction is a fact; in the “Voyage round the World” we are pleased, by constantly perceiving that the fact is a fiction, which, by uncommon skill, is made more interesting than a genuine voyage. In 1720 he published the “History of Duncan Campbell,” who was born deaf and dumb, but who himself taught the deaf and dumb to understand. The author has here contrived that the merriest passages shall end with some edifying moral. The “Fortunes and Misfortunes of Moll Flanders” followed in 1721, the morality of which we cannot commend. The same year he published a work of a similar tendency, the “Life of colonel Jaque,” who was born a gentleman, but bred a pick-pocket. In 1724, appeared the “Fortunate Mistress, or the Adventures of Roxana.” The world, however, has not been made much wiser or better by the perusal of these lives, which may have diverted the lower orders, but are too gross for improvement, and exhibit few scenes which are welcome to cultivated minds. Of a very different quality are the “Memoirs of a Cavalier during the Civil Wars in England.” This is a romance the most like to truth that ever was written; a narrative of great events, drawn with such simplicity, and enlivened with such reflections, as to inform the ignorant, and entertain the wise. It was a favourite book of the great earl of Chatham, who, before he discovered it to be a fiction, used to speak of it as the best account of the Civil Wars extant.

He published his “Tour through England” in 1724 and 1725 and through Scotland in 1727, He was not one of those travellers who seldom quit the banks of the Thames. He had made extensive excursions, with observant eyes and a vigorous intellect. The great art of these volumes consists in the frequent mention of such men and things as are always welcome to the reader’s mind. In 1727 he published, “The Complete English Tradesman,” directing him in the several parts of trade. A second volume followed, addressed to the more experienced and opulent traders. In these treatises are many directions of business, and many lessons of prudence; and, with the same salutary views, he published in 1728, “A Plan of the English Commerce.”

De Foe died in April 1731, in the parish of St. Giles’s Cripplegate. He left a widow, who did not long survive him, and six sons and daughters. His son Daniel is said to have emigrated to Carolina, but had a daughter, Mary, who about 1745, boarded in a private family at Chelmsford, in Essex. She was married about 1749, to Mr. John Thome, a shop-keeper at Braintree, in the same county. She died a widow, about 1775, leaving a son (since dead) and two daughters. She was a zealous dissenter, and seemed to inherit her grandfather’s sarcastic spirit. A sister of her’s, the wife of Mr. Standerwick, haberdasher and milliner, in Cornhill, died in 1787, a widow, at Stoke Newington, where her grandfather, as already mentioned, had so long lived, and where, it may now be added, he paid in April 1721, 10l. to be excused from serving parish-offices. His daughter Sophia, married Henry Baker, the natural philosopher, who died in 1774.

De Foe certainly possessed very uncommon merit, both as a man and as a writer, and yet few men have received more injurious treatment from their contemporaries. He has repeatedly been represented as an unprincipled writer, who had no view but to his own advantage, and who would write for any party by which he was employed; charges which appear to be totally destitute of foundation. He was not rich; and he naturally and reasonably endeavoured to make some pecuniary advantage of his writings; but he seems always to have written in conformity to ins own principles; and, though much abuse has been thrown out against him, no evidence to the contrary has ever been, produced. His prose works are much more valuable than his poetical performances. As a political writer ue had great merit; his sentiments appear to have been generally just, and he expressed himself with force and perspicuity. His pieces on the subject of trade and commerce exhibit uncommon penetration, and very various and extensive knowledge. But nis fame must ever rest on those works which were entirely the offspring of invention, and of these, his “Robinson Crusoe” rises superior to every thing of the kind. Alrnotigh we know of no imitations of this which deserve notice, some critics have placed De Foe at the head of a school, and have instanced Richardson as one of his best scholars. Richardson, says Dr. Kippis, seems to have learned from him that mode of delineating characters, and carrying on dialogues, and that minute discrimination of the circumstances of events, in which De Foe so eminently excelled. If, in certain respects, the disciple rose above his master, as he undoubtedly did, in others tie was inferior to him; for his conversations are sometimes more tedious and diffuse; and his works, though beautiful in their kind, are not by any means so various. Both of these writers had a wonderful ability in drawing pictures of human nature anJ human life. A careful perusal of the “Family Instructor,” and the “Religious Courtship,” would particularly tend to shew the resemblance between De Foe and Richardson. If, however, Richardson is to be traced to De Foe, we have sometimes thought that the latter was, with regard to simplicity of style, somewhat indebted to Bunyan, an author whom he must have read in his youth, and whose religious principles are obvious in the second volume of his “Robinson Crusoe.” After remaining in comparative obscurity for many years, De Foe at last found a biographer in George Chalmers, esq. who has done ample justice to his memory, and has presented the literary world with a more elegant, accurate, and satisfactory account of his personal history and writings, than could have been expected so long after his decease. It is unnecessary to add, that this, and every succeeding account of De Foe, must be indebted to Mr. Chalmers’s researches.

, a voluminous writer on almost every branch of medicine, was the son of a surgeon of Montpellier. In 1691 he was made M. D. and in 1697, professor of chemistry. He was also honoured with the ribbon of the order of St. Michael, and was admitted one of the foreign members of the royal society of London. In 1732, being appointed physician to the galleys, he quitted Montpellier, and went to Marseilles, where he died on the 3d of April, 1746. Of his works, the following have been most noticed: “Experiences sur la Bile, et les cadavres des pestiferes, faites par M. D.; accompagnees des Lettres, &c.” Zurich, 1772. He was at Marseilles while the plague raged there, and attributed the disease to a prevailing acid. He injected bile taken from persons who had died of the plague, into the veins of some dogs, which were almost immediately killed by the venom; an experiment from which no useful result could be expected to follow. He tried inunctions with mercury in the disease; from which, he says, no benefit nor mischief was found to accrue. “Chymie raisonnee, ou Ton tache de decouvrir la nature et la maniere d'agir des remedes chymiques les plus en usage en medicine et en chirurgie,” Lyon, 1715, 12mo. These experiments were also fruitless; they shew, however, an active and inquisitive turn of mind, which, properly directed, might have been productive of some profits. He published three volumes of consultations and observations, which may be read with advantage, the diseases being generally correctly described, and the method of treating them such as is now commonly practised. For the titles and accounts of the remainder of his works, see Haller’s Bib. Med.

, an Irish poetical writer, was the second son of Robert De la Cour, esq. of the county of Cork, in Ireland, and born at Killowen, near Blarney, in that county, in 1709. He was educated at the university of Dublin, where to his classical studies he added an uncommon predilection for poetry, and before he had reached his twenty-first year, produced a poem entitled “Abelard to Eloisa,” in imitation of Pope, which was thought to possess a considerable portion of the spirit and harmony of that master. From this time he proceeded to publish shorter poems and sonnets, which were all favourably received; and in 1733 appeared his principal work, “The Prospect of Poetry.” So creditable a publication, and at such an age, gained him much and deserved applause; and in this list of admirers he had to count on some of the best judges in both countries.

Soon after this he took holy orders, but had little zeal for the profession, and produced his sermons as matters of ordinary duty his muse was the mistress which engaged his principal attention and, as the muses generally love “the gay and busy haunts of men,” this pursuit was of no service to his promotion or clerical character. He unfortunately, too, loved his bottle as well as his muse; and by such indulgences sunk in the esteem of his fellow citizens, who said poetry affected his head; and in a little time they gave him the title of “the mad parson,” under which general character, the graver kind of people grew cautious of his acquaintance, whilst the young ones solicited his company to enjoy his eccentricities. In time he fell so much into this last seduction, that he was the volunteer of any party who would engage him for the night. This conslant dissipation at last enfeebled his understanding; and the charge which malice and ignorance at first fastened on him, was now realized his intellect; were at times evidently deranged and he fancied himself, after the example of Socrates, to be nightly visited by a demon, who enabled him to prophesy all manner of future events.

De La Cour, very confidently, “I'll tell you the precise day; it will be on the 14th of August next” “Do you pledge yourself for that day?” “So much so,” replied the doctor, “that I will stake my character as a prophet on it, and therefore 1 beg you will take a memorandum of it.” The gentleman immediately noted it in his pocketbook; and it so happened, that on that very day we had an account of its surrender to the British arms. A public event thus predicted six weeks before it happened, and falling in so accurately according to the prediction, of course made a great noise in a little place. The common people wondered at, and even philosophers could not resist pausing on the coincidence of circumstances: but the doctor was elated beyond measure. He now claimed the diploma of a prophet, and expected to be consulted on the issue of all important circumstances.

He continued thus many years, prophesying and poetizing; and though in the first he m.ide many mistakes, in the latter he in a great measure preserved the vis poetica; particularly in his satires on individuals, which sometimes exposed and restrained those too cunning for the law, and too callous for the pulpit. He had originally a little estate of about 80l. per year left him by his father, which, with the hospitality of his friends, enabled him to live independent. Towards the latter end of his life, he sold this to his brother-in-law, for a certain sum yearly, and his board and lodging; but at the same time restrained himself from staying out after twelve o'clock at night, under the penalty of one shilling. In consequence of this, the doctor’s balance at the end of the year was very inconsiderable.

, a learned doctor of the house and society of the Sorbonne, seigneur de Sevais in Maine, and prior of St. Martin de Brive-laGaillarde, was born in 1621, of an ancient and illustrious family of Picardy. He was distinguished for learning and integr'ty; accompanied cardinal de Retz, to whom he was related, in his prosperity and his misfortunes, and settled afterwards ut the Sorbonne, where he earnestly devoted himself to deciding cases of conscience with his friend M. de S-iinte Beuve. He was a zealous director to several religious houses; was appointed to attend condemned criminals, and maintained and educated a great number of poor scholars. He died July 10, 1691, at the Sorbonne, aged 70. The greatest part of his decisions, and those of M. Fmrnageau, were collected 1732, 2 vols. fol.

, a clergymnn of Ireland, of considerable celebrity in his day, was born in that kingdom about 1686. His fatiior lived as a servant in the family of sir John fennel, an [rish judge, and afterwards rented a small farm, in which situation he is supposed to have continued to his decease; for, when our author came to be in prosperous circumstances, he was advised by Dr. Swift not to take his parents out of the line of life they were fixed in, but to render them comfortable in it. At what place, and under whom, young Delany received his grammatical education, we are not able to ascertain; but at a proper age he became a sizer in Trinity college, Dublin; went through his academical course; took the customary degree*; and was cnosen, first a junior, and afterwards a senior fellow of the college. During this time he formed an intimacy with Dr. Swift; and it appears from several circumstances, that he was one of the dean of St. Patrick’s chief favourites. It is not unreasonable to conjecture, that, besides his considerable merit, it might be some general recommendation to him, that he readily entered into the dean’s playful disposition. He joined with Swift and Dr. Sheridan in writing or answering riddles, and in composing other slight copies of verses, the only design of which was to pass away the hours in a pleasant manner; and several of Mr. Delany’s exertions on these occasions may be seen in Swift’s works. These temporary amusements did not, however, interfere with our author’s more serious concerns. He applied vigorously to his studies, distinguished himself as a popular preacher, and was so celebrated as a tutor, that by the benefit of his pupils, and ijis senior fellowship, with all its perquisites, he received every year between nine hundred and a thousand pounds. In 1724 an affair happened in the college of Dublin, with regard to which Dr. Delany is represented as having been guilty of an improper interference. Two under-graduates having behaved very insolently to the provost, and afterwards refusing to make a submission for their fault, wefe both of them expelled. On this occasion Dr. Delany took the part of the young men, and (as it is said) went so far as to abuse the provost to his face, in a sermon at the college-chapel. Whatever may have been his motives, the result of the matter was, that the doctor was obliged to give satisfaction to the provost, by an acknowledgement of the otfence. Our author’s conduct in this affair, which had been displeasing to the lord primate Boulter, might probably contribute to invigorate the opposition which the archbishop made to him on a particular occasion. In 1725 he was presented by the chapter of Christ-church, to the parish of St. John’s, in the city of Dublin, but without a royal dispensation he could not keep his fellowship with his new living. Archbishop Boulter, therefore, applied to the duke of Newcastle, to prevent the dispensation from being granted. In 1727 Dr. Delany was presented by the university of Dublin to a small northern living, of somewhat better than one hundred pounds a year; and about the same time, lord Carteret promoted him to the chancellorship of Christ-church, which was of equal value. Afterwards, 1730, his excellency gave him a prebend in St. Patrick’s cathedral, the produce of which did not exceed either of the other preferments. In 1729 Dr. Delany began a periodical paper, called “The Tribune,” which was continued through about twenty numbers. Soon after, our author engaged in a more serious and important work, of a theological nature, the intention of publishing which brought him to London in 1731; it had for title, “Revelation examined with candour,” the first volume whereof was published in 1732. This year appears to have been of importance to our author in a domestic as well as in a literary view; for on the 17th of July he married in England, Mrs. Margaret Tenison, a widow lady of Ireland, with a large fortune. On his return to Dublin, he manifested his regard to the university in which he was educated, and of which he had long been a distinguished member, by giving twenty pounds a year to be distributed among the students. In 1734 appeared the second volume of “Revelation examined with candour,” and so favourable a reception did the whole work meet with, that a third edition was called for in 1735. In 1738 Dr. Delany published a 30th of January sermon, which he had preached at Dublin before the lord-lieutenant, William duke of Devonshire. It was afterwards inserted in the doctor’s volume upon social duties. In the same year appeared one of the most curious of Dr. Delany’s productions, which was a pamphlet entitled, “Reflections upon Polygamy, and the encouragement given to that practice in the scriptures of the Old Testament.” This subject, however, has since been more ably handled by the late ingenious Mr. Badcock, in the two fine articles of the Monthly Review relative to Marian’s “Thelyphthora.” Dr. Deiany was led by his subject to consider in a particular manner the case of David; and it is probable, that he was hence induced to engage in examining whatever farther related to that great Jewish monarch. The result of his inquiries he published in “An historical account of the life and rei^n of David king of Israel.” The first volume of this work appeared in 1740, the second in 1712, and the third in the ame year. It would be denying Dr. Delany his just praise, were we not to say, that it is an ingenious and & learned performance. It is written witli spirit; there are some curious and valuable criticisms in it, and many of the remarks in answer to Bayle are well founded; but it has not been thought, on the whole, a very judicious production. It is not necessary to the honour of the sacred writings, or to the cause of revelation, to defend, or to palliate the conduct of David, in whatsoever respects he acted wrong. It is peculiar to the Scriptures, in the biographical parts, to exhibit warnings as well as examples.

Dr. Delany, on the 9tti of June 1743, married a second time. The lady with whom he formed this connexion was Mrs. Pendarves, the relict of Alexander Pen Janes, esq a very ingenious and excellent woman; of whom some account will be given in the next article. The doctor had lost his first wife December 6, 1741. March 13, 1744, our author preached a sermon before the society for promoting protestant working schools in Ireland. In May 1744, he was raised to the highest preferment which he ever attained, the deanry of Down, in the room of Dr. Thomas Fletcher, appointed to be bishop of Dro no re. In the same year, previously to this promotion, our author published a volume of sermons upon social duties, fifteen in number, to which in a second edition, 1747, were added five more, on the opposite vices. This is the most useful of Dr. Delany’s performances; the objects to which rt relates being of very important and general concern. Dr. Delany’s next publication was not till 174-8, and that was only a sixpenny pamphlet. It was entitled “An Essay towards evidencing the divine original of Tythes,” and had at first been drawn up, and probably preached as a sermon. The text, rather a singular one, was the tenth commandment, which forbids us to covet any thing that is our neighbour’s; and it required some ingenuity to deduce the divine original of tithes from that particular prohibition. After an interval of six years, Dr. Delany again appeared in the world as an author, in answer to the earl of Orrery’s “Remarks on the Life and Writings of Dr. Swift.” Many of Su ill’s zealous admirers were not a little displeased with the representations which the noble lord had given of him in various respects. Of this number was Dr. Delany, who determined therefore to do justice to the memory of his old friend; for which few were better qualified, having been in the habits of intimacy with the dean of St. Patrick’s, from his first coming over to Ireland, and long before lord Orrery could have known any thing concerning him. On the whole, it was thought that this production of the doctor’s enabled the public to form a far more clear estimation of the real character of the dean of St. Patrick’s, than any account of him which had hitherto been given to the world; yet perhaps the fairest estimate must be made by a comparison of both. However zealous Dr. Delany might be for the honour of his friend, he did not satisfy Deane Swift, esq. who, in his Essay upon the life, writings, and character of his relation, treated our author with extreme ill manners and gross abuse; to which he thought proper to give an answer, in a letter to Mr. Swift, published in 1755. In this letter the doctor justified himself; and he did it with so much temper and ingenuity, so much candour, and yet with so much spirit, that the polite gentleman, and the worthy divine, were apparent in every page of his little pamphlet. The year 1754 also produced another volume of sermons; the larger part of them are practical, and these are entitled to great commendation, particularly two discourses on the folly, iniquity, ad absurdity of duelling. During this part of Dr. Delany’s life, he was involved in a law-suit of great consequence, and which, from its commencement to its final termination, lasted more than nine years. It related to the personal estate of his first lady; and although a shade was cast on his character by the decision of the Irish court of chancery, his conduct was completely vindicated by that decree being reversed in the house of lords in England. But he was not so deeply engaged in the prosecution of his law-suit as entirely to forget his disposition to be often appearing in. the world as an author. In 1757 he began a periodical paper called “The Humanist,” whicli was carried on through 15 numbers, and then dropped. In 1761 Dr. Delany published a tract, entitled “An humble apology for Christian Orthodoxy,” and several sermons. It was in 1763, after an interval of nearly thirty years from the publication of his former volumes, that he gave to the world the third and last volume of his “Revelation examined with candour.” In the preface the doctor has indulged himself in some peevish remarks upon Reviewers of works of literature; but from complaints of this kind few writers have ever derived any material advantage. With regard to the volume itself, it has been thought to exhibit more numerous instances of the prevalence of imagination, over judgment than had occurred in the former part of the undertaking. In 1766 Dr. Delany published a sermon against transubstantiation; which was succeeded in the same year by his last publication, which was a volume containing 18 discourses. Dr. Delany departed this life at Bath, in May 1763, in the 83d year of his age. Though in general he was an inhabitant of Ireland, it appears from several circumstances, and especially from his writings, almost all of which were published in London, that he frequently came over to England, and occasionally resided there for a considerable time. Of his literary character an estimate may be formed from what has been already said. With regard to two of his principal works, the “Revelation examined with candour,” and the “Life of David,” they contain so many fanciful ^ul doubtful positions, that all the ability and learning i.,i., played in them will scarcely suffice to hand them down, with any eminent degree of reputation, to future ages. It is on his sermons, and particularly on those which relate to social duties, that will principally depend the perpetuity of his fame. With respect to his personal character, he appears to have been a gentleman of unquestionable piety and goodness, and of an uncommon warmth of heart. This warmth of heart was, however, accompanied with some inequality, impetuosity, and irritability of temper. Few excelled him in charity, generosity, and hospitality. His income, which for the last twenty years of his life was 3006J. per annum, sunk under the exercise of these virtues, and he left little behind him besides books, plate, and furniture. Of a literary diligence, protracted to above fourscore years, Dr. Delany has afforded a striking example; though it may possibly be thought, that if, wben his body and mind grew enfeebled, he had remembered the solve senescentem equum, it would hate been of no disadvantage to his reputation.

We shall conclude this article with an anecdote that has been related, to shew the characteristic absence of our author’s mind. In the reign of king George II. being desirous of the honour of preaching before his majesty, he obtained, from the lord chamberlain, or the dean of the chapel, the favour of being appointed to that office on the fifth Sunday of some month, being an extra-day, not supplied, e x qfficio, by the chaplains. As he was not informed of the etiquette, he entered the royal chapel after the prayers began, and, not knowing whither to go, crowded into the desk by the reader. The vesturer soon after was at a loss for the preacher, till, seeing a clergyman kneeling by the reader, he concluded him to be the man. Accordingly, he went to him, and pulled him by the sleeve. But Dr. Delany, chagrined at being interrupted in his devotions, resisted and kicked the intruder, who in vain begged him to come out, and said, “There was no text.” The doctor replied, that he had a text; nor could he comprehend the meaning, till the reader acquainted him, that he must go into the vestry, and write down the text (as usual) for the closets. When he came into the vestry, his hand shook so much that he could not write. Mrs. Delany, therefore, was sent for; but no paper was at hand. At last, on the cover of a letter, the text was transcribed by Mrs. Delany, and so carried up to the king and royal family.

, the second wife of the preceding, and a lady of distinguished ingenuity and merit, was born at a small country house of her father’s at Coulton in Wiltshire, May, 14, 1700. She was the daughter of Bernard Granville, esq. afterward lord Lansdowne, a nobleraan whose abilities and virtues, whose character as a poet, whose friendship with Pope, Swift, and other eminent writers of the time, and whose general patronage of men eyf genius and literature, have often been recorded in biographical productions. As the child of such a family, sh^ could not fail of receiving the best education. It was at Long-Leat, the seat of the Weymouth family, which was occupied by lord Lansdowne during the minority of the heir of that family, that Miss Granville first saw Alexander Pendarves, esq. a gentleman of large property at Roscrow in Cornwall, and who immediately paid his addresses to her; which were so strenuously supported by her uncle, whom she had not the courage to deny, that she gave a reluctant consent to the match; and accordingly it took place in the compass of two or three weeks, she being then in the seventeenth year of her age. From a great disparity of years, and other causes, she was very unhappy during the time which this connexion lasted, but endeavoured to make the best of her situation. The retirement to which she was confined was wisely employed in the farther cultivation of a naturally vigorous understanding: and the good use she made of her leisure hours, was eminently evinced in the charms of her conversation, and in her letters to her friends. That quick feeling of the elegant and beautiful which constitutes taste, she possessed in an eminent degree, and was therefore peculiarly fitted for succeeding in the fine arts. At the period we are speaking of, she made a great proficiency in music, but painting, which afterwards she most loved, and in which she principally excelled, had not yet engaged her practical attention. in 1724 Mrs. Pendarves became a widow; upon which occasion she quitted Cornwall, and fixed her principal residence in London. For several years, between 1730 and 1736, she maintained a correspondence with Dr. Swift. In 1743, as we have seen in the former article, Mrs. Pendarves was married to Dr. Delany, with whom it appears that she had long been acquainted; and for whom he had many years entertained a very high esteem. She had been a widow nineteen years when this connexion, which was a very happy one, took place, and her husband is said to fcave regarded her almost to adoration. Upon his decease in ftiay 1768, she intended to fix herself at Bath, and was in quest of a house for that purpose. But the duchess dowager of Portland, hearing of her design, went down to the place; and, having in her earl v years formed an intimacy with Mrs. Delany, wished to have near her a lady from whom she had necessarily, for several years, been much separated, and whose heart and talents she knew would in the highest degree add to thejiappiness of her own life. Her <*race succeeded in her solicitalions, and Mrs. Delany now passed her time between London and Bulstrode. On the death of the duchess-dowager of Portland, his present majesty, who had frequently seen and honoured Mrs Delany with his notice at Bulstrode, assigned her for her summer residence the use of a house completely furnished, in St. Alhan’s-street, Windsor, adjoining to the entrance of the castle: and, that the having two houses on her hands might not produce any inconvenience with regard to the expence of her living, his majesty, as a farther mark of his royal favour, conferred on her a pension of three hundred pounds a year. On the 15th of April, 1788, after a short indisposition, she departed this life, at her house in St. James’s-place, having nearly completed the 88th year of her age. The circumstance that has principally entitled Mrs. Delany to a place in this work is her skill in painting, and in other ingenious arts, one of which was entirely her own. With respect to painting, she was late in her application to it. She did not learn to draw till she was more than thirty years of age, when she put herself under the instruction of Goupy, a fashionable master of that time, and much employed by Frederic prince of Wales. To oil-painting she did not take till she was past forty. So strong was her passion for this art, that she has frequently been known to employ herself in it, day after day, from six o'clock in the morning till dinner time, allowing only a short interval for breakfast. She was principally a copyist; but a very fine one. The only considerable original work of hers in oil was the Kaising of Lazarus, in the possession of her friend lady JBute. The number of pictures painted by her, considering how late it was in life before she applied to the art, was very great. Her own house was full of them; and others are among the chief ornaments of Calswich, Welsborn, and Ham, the respective residences of her nephews, Mr. Granville and Mr. Dewes, and of her niece Mrs. Port. Mrs. Delany, among her other accomplishments, excelled in embroidery and shell-work; and, in the course of her life, produced many elegant specimens of her skill in these respects. But, what is more remarkable, at the age of 74 she invented a new and beautiful mode of exercising her ingenuity. This was by the construction of a Flora, of a most singular kind, formed by applying coloured papers together, and which might, not improperly, be called a species of mosaic work. Being perfectly mistress of her scissars, the plant or flower which she purposed to imitate she cut out; that is, she cut out its various leaves and parts in such coloured Chinese paper as suited her subject; and, when she could not meet with a colour to correspond with the one she wanted, she dyed her own paper to answer her wishes. She used a black ground, as best calculated to throw out her flower; and not the least astonishing part of her art was, that though she never employed her pencil to trace out the form or shape of her plant, yet when she had applied all the p eces which composed it, it hung so loosely and gracefully, that every one was persuaded that it must previously have been drawn out, and repeatedly corrected by a most judicious hand, before it could have attained the ease and air of truth which, without any impeachment of the honour of this accomplished lady, might justly be called a forgery of nature’s works. The effect was superior to what painting could have produced; and so imposing was her art, that she would sometimes put a real leaf of a plant by the side of one of her own creation, which the eye could not detect, even when she herself pointed it out. Mrs. Delany continued in the prosecution of her design till the 83d year of her age, when the dimness of her sight obliged her to lay it aside. However, by her unwearied perseverance, she became authoress of far the completest Flora that ever was executed by the same hand. The number of plants finished bv her amounted to nine hundred and eighty. This invaluable Flora was bequeathed by her to her nephew Court Dewes, esq. and is now in the possession of Barnard Dewes, esq. of Welsborn in Warwickshire. The liberality of Mrs. Delany’s mind rendered her at all times ready to communicate her art. She frequently pursued her work in company; was desirous of shewing to her friends how easy it was to execute; and was often heard to lament that so few would attempt it. It required, however, great patience and great knowledge in botanical drawing. She began to write poetry at 80 years of age, and her verses shew at least a pious disposition. Her private character is thus given by her friend, Mr. Keate. “She had every virtue that could adorn the human heart, with a mind so pure, and so uncontaminated by the world, that it was matter of astonishment how she could have lived in its more splendid scenes without being tainted with one single atom of its folly or indiscretion. The strength of her understanding received, in the fullest degree, its polish, but its weakness never reached her. Her life was conducted by the sentiments of true piety; her way of thinking, on every occasion, was upright and just; her conversation was lively, pleasant, and instructive. She was warm, delicate, and sincere in her friendships; full of philanthropy and benevolence, and loved and respected by every person who had the happiness to know her. That sun-shine and serenity of mind which the good can only enjoy, and which had thrown so much attraction on her life, remained without a shadow to the last; not less bright in its setting, than in its meridian lustre. That form which in youth had claimed admiration, in age challenged respect. It presented a noble ruin, become venerable by the decay of time. Her faculties remained unimpaired to the last; and she quitted this mortal state to receive in a better world the crown of a well-spent life.”

Mrs. Delany was buried in a vault belonging to St. James’s church; and, on one of its columns, a stone is erected to her memory, with an inscription, which, after reciting her name, descent, marriages, age, &c. concludes as follows: “She was a lady of singular ingenuity and politeness, and of unaffected piety. These qualities had endeared her through life to many noble and excellent persons, and made the close of it illustrious, by procuring for her many signal marks of grace and favour from their majesties.”

, one of the French Encyclopaedists, was born at Portets, in the vicinity of Bonrdeanx, in January 1726; was at an early age admitted into the college of the Jesuits, and, when only fifteen years old, was invested with their order. He was a youth of much imagination and sensibility, and at the same time strongly addicted to mental melancholy; during which he almost uninterruptedly directed his thoughts to the two great extremes of futurity, heaven and hell, which distressed him with perpetual agitations of mind. Deleyre, however, did not long continue in this state of mind, but quitted the Jesuit society, and with this, we have no small reason to believe, every religious faith whatever. As he was of plebeian birth, he could have no expectations from the court; his only alternatives were philosophy and the law; and the latter did not exactly correspond, we are told by his eulogist, either with his sensibility or his independence of mind. Montesquieu was at this time the Miecenas of Guienne, and became the patron of Deleyre from a thorough conviction of his talents: he introduced him to Diderot, d'Alembert, J. J. Rousseau, and Duclos; and his destiny was fixed: he decided for philosophy, and became a writer in the Encyclopedic. In this new capacity his hardihood was not inferior to that of his colleagues; the famous, or rather infamous, article on fanaticism was soon known to have been of his production, and it was likely to have been essentially detrimental to him; for he had now fixed his attention upon matrimony, and had obtained the consent of a lady; but the priests of the parish in which the ceremony was to have been celebrated, refused to unite them, in consequence of their having heard that Deleyre was the author of this article. His patronage, however, was at this time increased, and he had found a warm and steady friend in the due de Nivernois, who interfered in the dispute, and Deleyre obtained the fair object of his wishes. The duke had before this solicited, and successfully, the appointment for him of librarian to the infant prince of Parma, who was at this period committed to the immediate care of Condillac. In this situation he continued for some considerable time; and although a dispute respecting the mode of educating their pupil at length separated him from this celebrated logician, he appears to have always entertained for him the highest degree of respect.

At the commencement of the revolution, Deleyre proved himself warmly attached to the popular side of the question: he was elected a member of the National Convention and of the Committee of Public Instruction. In revolutionary politics he was a Girondist; and his natural taciturnity prevented him from falling a sacrifice to the tyranny of Robespierre. He made his will while in Italy, in 1772. At this period he seems to have anticipated the approaching misfortunes of his country: “France,” says he, in this curious paper, “the country in which I was born, has, from the corruption of her manners, fallen under the yoke of despotism. The nation is too blind or too indolent to desire or be able to free herself. The government is become odious, and will terminate in despotism.” He adds, that, in consequence hereof, he is tired of life, and that, as he is uncertain whether he shall have patience enough to wait for his decease, or courage sufficient to hasten it, he deems it a duty to be prepared with a testament, explicitly stating all his desires concerning himself and the little he has to bequeath. This sort of language was not uncommon to the Encyclopedists and their immediate friends; but with all their vaunting, they appear to have had more attachment to life, or more dread of dissolution, than the German sentimentalists. With the latter, suicide was common, even among many who seldom boasted of performing it: among the former it was more often threatened than executed. Our philosopher died in the beginning of 1797, in the seventy-first year of his age, of a natural decay. The three chief works in which he engaged during his life-time were, an “Analysis of the Philosophy of Bacon,” in whose general opinions he appears to have been profoundly versed a variety of articles introduced into the body of the Encyclopedic and a “General History of Voyages,” a voluminous publication, which extended to nineteen large octavos. He published also “Le Genie de Montesquieu,” 12mo, and “L'Esprit de St. Evremont,” 12mo. Upon his decease were discovered many inedited works, and among the rest a poetic translation of Lucretius. Of such a translation, France, as well as every other country in Europe, except Italy, is much in want; but, from what we have seen of M. Deleyre’s metrical ballads, we strongly doubt his capacity to do justice to the inimitable beauties of the Roman bard: several of these ballads have, nevertheless, obtained the honour of being set to music by his friend Jean-Jaques Rousseau. It is more to the praise of Deleyre, that he was an enemy to all persecution, and, when in the possession of power, acted with kindness towards many who were of different sentiments from his own, and by whom he had been been undeservedly ill-treated.

, a French monk, was born at Montet in Auvergne, in 1637, and became a monk of Clermont in 1656, where he recommended himself to the notice and respect of his superiors by his application and talents. He was fixed on, at the instigation of the celebrated Arnaud, to give a new edition of the works of St. Augustine, and had made considerable preparation for the publication, when an anonymous tract, entitled “L' Abbe commandataire,” exposing certain ecclesiastical abuses, was imputed to him, it is said unjustly. He must, however, have had no means of disproving the charge, as he was banished for it to Lower Bretagne. He was shortly after called upon to preach at Brest, on some public occasion, when the vessel in which he took his passage was wrecked, and he was among the number of those that were drowned, in October 1676, in the thirty-ninth year of his age. He was author of several works, of little importance now, if we except an historical eulogy, entitled “The Epitaph of Casimir, king of Poland, who, after having abdicated his crown, retired into France, and became abbot of St. Germain de Pres.”

, an excellent painter and engraver, was the son of William Delft, and a near relation (grandson, according to Pilkington) of Michael Miravelt, and born at Delft in 1619. He drew and painted portraits with excellent taste; and having been instructed by Miravelt, acquired a similar mode of design and colouring, and successfully imitated him in the management of his pencil, so that he is said to have equalled Miravelt in force and delicacy. He is, however, more generally known as an engraver; and his best prints are highly finished: some of them are executed in a bold, powerful, open style, which produces a fine effect. Such was his portrait of Hugo Grotius, dated 1652; and others in a neat and much more finished manner, as we find, says Strutt, in the admirable portrait of Michael Miravelt, from a picture of Vandyke. It does not appear that he was ever in England; and yet he engraved several English portraits, as Charles I. of England, Henrietta Maria, his queen, George Villars, duke of Buckingham, &c. and, accor.lmg to lord Orf'ord, styled himself the king’s engraver He died in 1661.

, a learned German mineralogist, was born at Wallhanson in Thuringia in 1728, and died at Florence, Jan. 21, 1779, during a visit he paid to the waters of Pisa. He originally served in the army, but applying himself to the sci< nces, particularly mineralogy, he was appointed professor of the academy of the mines at Chemnitz, and was afterwards employed at Vienna in the department of the mines and mint. Bis principal work was entitled “Enleitung zur BergBaukurst, &c.” Vienna, 1773, 4to, embellished with plates, which was afterwards translated and published by the order and at the expence of the French king, under the title “Traité sur la science de l'exploitation des Mines,” Paris, 177, 4to. He wrote also a work on mountains and their contents.

, a political writer of great abilities, was born at Geneva about 1745. He received a liberal education, and embraced the profession of the law, but diJ not long practise as an advocate before he formed the resolution of quitting his native country, that he might display his lively talents and his literary attainments on a more conspicuous theatre of action, and might personally observe the constitutions and customs of more powerful states. The English) government, in particular, excited his curiosity; and he resolved to study its nature and examine its principles with particular care and attention. He even endeavoured in the first work which he published after his arrival in England, to lead his readers into an opinion that he was a native of this favoured country. It was written in our language, and appeared in 1772, with the title “A parallel between the English Government and the former Government of Sweden; containing some observations on the late revolution in that kingdom, and an examination of the causes that secure us against both aristocracy and absolute monarchy.” Many of our countrymen were apprehensive that our constitution might be subverted like that of Sweden; but the learned doctor (for M. De Lolme had previously taken the degree of LL. D.) by contrasting with the polity of England the government which Gustavus III. had overturned, plausibly argued that such fears were ill-founded.

He soon alter commenced that work which has established his literary and political fame, entitled “The Constitution of England; or an account of the English Government: in which it is compared, both with the republican form of government, and the other monarchies in Europe.” It was applauded, on its first appearance (in Holland) in the French language, as a very ingenious and spirited performance, combining originality of thought with justness of remark and perspicuity of expression. A translation of it being earnestly desired, the author enlarged and improved it, and published the first English edition in June 1775, 8vo. It was supposed that he was the translator of his own work from the French; and his great knowledge of our language was the subject of high encomium. But if the general style of the work be compared with that of the dedication, which, in every sentence, bears marks of a foreign pen, it will readily be concluded, that the body of the publication was chiefly translated by an Englishman, under the author’s eye.

His next publication is said to have proceeded from his aversion to superstition, but it is scarcely reconcileable to decorum in style or matter. This was his “History of the Flagellants; or, Memorials of Human Superstition,” 1783, 4to. His attention being afterwards more usefully called to the subject of the legislative union between England and Scotland, by an intended re-publication of De Foe’s history of that memorable transaction, he wrote, in 1787, a judicious essay, calculated for an introduction to that work. In the following year he published observations relative to the tax upon window-lights, the shop-tax, and the impost upon hawkers and pedlars. In these he urges his objections with humour as well as argument. When the question of the regency agitated the minds of the public, he wrote, in 1789, “Observations upon the National Embarrassment, and the proceedings in parliament relative to the same.” In this pamphlet ho coincides with the plan proposed by Mr. Pitt, and adopted by the par^ liament, with the concurrence of the gre::t majority or the nation. These are supposed to be all Mr. De Lolme’s avowed publications; but he wrote some letters in the newspapers, particularly, we remember, a very ingenious paper on the question, “whether the impeachment of Mr. Hastings abated by a dissolution of parliament?” At what time he left England we have not been able to discover, but he died in Swisserland in 1807, leaving a name certainly of considerable eminence in the annals of literature. His perception was acute, and his mind vigorous. Not content with a hasty or superficial observation of the characters of men and the affairs of states, he examined them with a philosophic spirit and a discerning eye. He could ably speculate on the different modes of government, develope the disguised views of princes and ministers, and detect, the arts and intrigues of demagogues and pseudopatriots. His work on the Constitution of England has been generally supposed the most rational and enlightened survey of the subject; and his last editor is of opinion that even the labours of professor Millar and other British writers do not appear to have discredited or falsified this high character of the work.

By this, we regret to add, De Lolme was not much a gainer. It was discouraged on its first appearance, and although mentioned with high respect by some leading men in parliament, nothing substantial was done for its author. His private life, however, had many singularities, and De Lolme was not a man to be provided for by casual bounty, or casual patronage. He expected, and had reason to expect, some permanent reward that might have led to independence. Disappointed in this, his pride of spirit would not suffer him to solicit inferior rewards. For some years, when inquiries were made by men of rank, who probably meant to have assisted him, it was almost impossible to trace his lodgings, which he frequently changed, and in some of which he passed by fictitious names. He lived on little, and his appearance and personal habits became slovenly. Before he left this country, we are told, he received some aid from the Literary Fund; but how he lived abroad, we have not heard. From personal knowled;. e we can subscribe to the conclusion of Dr. Coote’s character of him “He had the art of pleasing in conversation, though the graces did not appear in his manners or deportment. He had a turn for pleasantry and humour; and has been compared to Burke for the variety of his illusions, and the felicity of his illustrations. His general temper has been praised; but his spirit was considered by many as too high for his fortune; yet, in one respect, his mind assimilated to the occasional penury under which he laboured; for, in his mode of living, he could imitate the temperance and self-denial of a philosopher.” In 1807, an edition of his work on the Constitution was published, illustrated by notes, and a critical and biographical preface by Dr. Charles Coote. Of this last we have availed ourselves in the present sketch. For an account of the early neglect with which De Lolme was treated, the reader may be referred to his own preface.

, a very learned Jesuit, was born at Antwerp of Spanish parents, in 1551. The progress he made in letters, while a very boy, is recorded with wonder. He was taught grammar in the Low Countries, and then sent to Paris to learn rhetoric and philosophy under the Jesuits. Afterwards he went to study civil law in the new university of Do way; but removing from thence to Louvain, he laid aside that pursuit, and applied himself to polite literature, which he cultivated with so much ardour and success, that he surprised the public, when he was only nineteen years of age, with some good notes upon the tragedies of Seneca. “What is more,” says Baillet, “he cited in this work almost 1100 authors, with all the assurance of a man who had read them thoroughly, and weighed their sentiments with great judgment and exactness.” The reputation he acquired by this first essay of his erudition was afterwards increased. He is said to have understood at least ten languages, and to have read every thing, ancient and modern, that was thought worth reading. He was admitted LL. D. at Salamanca in 1574; and was afterwards a counsellor of the parliament of Brabant, and an intendant of the army. In 1580 he became a Jesuit at Valladolid; from whence going into the Low Countries, he taught divinity and the belles lettres, and contracted a firm friendship with Lipsius. He taught also at Liege, at Mentz, at Gratz, and at Salamanca. He died at Louvain, in 1608, about two years after his friend Lipsius.

, an Athenian, who from a mariner became an orator, was taken prisoner at the battle of Cheronea gained by Philip of Macedon. By his eloquence he acquired a great ascendancy over the mind of that prince. One day, Philip making his appearance before the prisoners with all the ornaments of royalty, and cruelly insulting their misery “I am astonished,” said Demades, “that, fortune having assigned you the part of Agamemnon, you can amuse yourself in playing that of Thersites.” Demades was no less interested than eloquent. Antipater, his friend as well as that of Phocion, complained that he could never make the latter accept of any presents, while he could not bestow on the other enough to satisfy his covetousness. Demades was put to death, under suspicion of treason, in the year 332 before Christ. Nothing of his has come down to us, except the “Oratio de Duodecennali,” Greek and Latin, Hanov. 1619, 8vo, and in the “Rhetorum collectio,” Venice, 1513, 3 torn, folio.

, an ingenious electrician, was born in the parish of St. Martin’s, London, in 1710. His father having escaped from France to Holland, upon the revocation of the edict of Nantes, came over to England with king William. He died soon after the birth of his son, who was brought up by his uncle, an officer in the English service, and page of honour to queen Mary, who placed him at Westminster school. Whilst pursuing his studies there, he boarded in the house of Dr. Desaguliers, who instructed him in the mathematics and natural philosophy. At the age of seventeen, before he had left school, he married; and went to Leyden and followed his studies in the university of that place. In 1740, he began to read lectures in experimental philosophy at Edinburgh, and continued them till he was interrupted by the rebellion. He then took up arms for government, and was a volunteer at the battle of Preston-pans. In 1746, he resumed his lectures, and published his discovery of the effects of electricity upon the growth of vegetables. This discovery was afterwards claimed by abbé Nollet; but is very properly assigned to Dr. Demainbray by Dr. Priestley, in his “History of Electricity.” In 1749, Dr; Demainbray went to Dublin, where he read his lectures with much success, as he did afterwards in several of the French universities, who honoured him with prize medals, and admitted him into their societies. In 1753, being then at Paris, he was invited over to England, to read a course of lectures to his present majesty (then prince of Wales) and the duke of York. On his return to England he married a second wife, his first wife having died about the year 1750. In 1755 he read a public course of lectures in the concert-room in Panton-street, and in 1757 in Carey-street, opposite Boswell-court. After this he gave private courses to other branches of the royal family; and on the arrival of her present majesty in England, instructed her in experimental philosophy, and natural history. In 1768, he was appointed astronomer to his majesty’s new observatory at Richmond, and adjusted the instruments there in time to observe the transit of Venus, which happened the ensuing year. Dr. Demainbray died at Richmond Feb. 20, 1782, and was interred in the churchyard of Northall, where he had purchased a small estate.

, a peripatetic philosopher, and an illustrious ornament of that school, lived in the time of Alexander the Great, and was a scholar of Theophrastus. He is represented as a flowery, rather than a persuasive speaker, and as one who aimed at grace rather than manner. Cicero says he amused the Athenians rather than warmed them; yet such was the influence of his harangues, that at Athens he was almost absolute for ten years. Three hundred and sixty statues were erected in his honour; and not undeservedly, since he is said to have augmented the revenues of it, as well as to have improved and polished its buildings. But envy at length conspiring against him, his statues were pulled down, and himself threatened with death; but he escaped into Egypt, and was protected by Ptolemy Soter. This king, it is said, asked his advice concerning the succession of his children to the throne, viz. whether he ought to prefer those he had by Eurydice to Ptolemy Philadelphus, whom he had by Berenice; and Demetrius advised him to leave his crown to the former. This displeased Philadelphia so much, that, his father being dead, he banished Demetrius, who, unable to support the repeated misfortunes he had met with, put an end to his life, by the bite of an asp. Demetrius composed more works in prose and verse, than any other peripatetic of his time; and his writings consisted of poetry, history, politics, rhetoric, harangues, and embassies. None of his works are extant for as to the piece “De Interpretatione,” which goes under his name, and is usually printed with the “Rhetores Selecti,” there are several internal marks, which shew that it is probably of a later date. He is supposed to be the same with him that collected together 200,000 volumes into the library of Ptolemy Philadelphus, who, to make it complete, caused that translation of the Bible out of Hebrew into Greek to be made, which is commonly called the Septuagint. And if it should be objected, that Demetrius could not possibly be the manager of this affair, since he was banished by Philadelphus as soon as he came to the crown, it has generally been thought sufficient to say, that these books were collected, and this translation made, while Ptolemy Philadelphus reigned with his father Ptolemy Soter. But this story is now generally discredited, and the Septuagint is ascribed to the private labour of the Jews, who were at this time resident in Egypt. When Demetrius was born, and when he died, we know not; but his disgrace at Athens is said to have happened about the year of Rome 436, that is, somewhat about 300 years before Christ.

, a learned writer of the seventeenth century, whose works have but lately been brought to light, was born in the island of Chio; he took the surname of Domesticus, as appears from the title of his works. In 1637, became to Rome to prosecute his studies in the Greek college, and seven years after he returned to his native country. During his studies at Rome, he made so considerable a progress in learning and belles lettres, that he was appointed to teach his fellow-students the Greek language; but an illness, to which he became subject, and which was thought likely to terminate in an epilepsy, obliged him to leave the college, and disabled him from taking the intended order of priesthood. Yet before his return to the island of Chio, he made, with the celebrated Lucas Holstenius, a tour to Florence, in order to examine the Greek Mss. in the Laurentian library. After his return to Chio, though he was not obliged to preach the Roman catholic religion, he attempted to support and defend it by his writings. Controversial divinity appears to have been the main object of his pursuits; though he also cultivated poetry and physic. He composed a great number of iambic verses on sacred subjects; one, among others, entitled “The Triumph of the Catholic Faith.” He wrote also a physical treatise against Galen and his disciples. He married in 1649; but the latter part of his life and his death are not recorded, though by the account of his countrymen he seems to have died at Messina. His works were published for the first time in 1781, at Rome, in 2 vols. 4to, under thfc title “Demetrii Pi-pani Domestic! Chii Opera quie reperiuntur e Grseca in Latinum verr.it et adnotationes adjecit Bernardus Stephanopolus; accedit praefatio Joannis Christophori Amadutii, cujus cura et studio nunc primum eduntur EpistoUe tres Grgeco-Latinae Imperatorum Constantinopolitanorum Joannis et Emanuelis Comneni ad Romanos poutifices Houorium II. et Alexandrum III.” Demetrius’s manuscripts were discovered by signer Stellio Raffaetli, consul for the English East India company at Chio, who sent them in 1776 to cardinal York, and earnestly requested of his eminence to get them published. The cardinal’s zeal for erudition, and for the interests of the Roman catholic religion, prompted him to grant the request, and to charge Stephanopoli and Amaduzzi, two able Greek scholars, to translate the Mss. in question into Latin, and to publish both the text and their version together. They consist chiefly of polemical treatises in favour of some points in dispute between the Roman catholics and protestants, and between the Roman catholics and the Greek church; but the most valuable part of the work is the very learned preface by Amaduzzi, respecting the origin and progress of the vulgar and modern Greek language, in which several of Demetrius’s treatises are written; and another prefixed to the letters mentioned in the title of the work, which may be considered as one of the best essays extant on the ancient Greek hand-writing.

, a man greatly distinguished in the learned world, was born at Berlin, June 2, 1703, being the son of a merchant there. He studied first at the French college at Bering and thence removed to the university of Francfortoa the Oder. He was examined for the ministry in 1725, and after some difficulties obtained it; but the ecclesiastics there being obl'g^d to certain subscriptions, to which he could not absent, he quitted the country soon after. He preached about five years in different towns of the United Provinces, from whence he was invited to London in 1731, and ordained to serve the French chapel in the Savoy. In 1762 he was named by the bishop of London to be one of the French chaplains to the king in his chapel at St. James’s. He died Aug. 10, 1775. He seldom published any thing, except occasionally, in consequence of unforeseen engagements, or at the importunity of friends. Several iittie poetical pieces, essays both in sacred and profane literature, epitomes of books, memoirs, dissertations, &c. by De Missy, with his initials C. D. M. or some assumed name, and frequently anonymous, appeared in different collections and periodical journals in Holland, France, and England, from 1721, many of which are enumerated by Mr. Nichols. He was greatly assisting to many of the learned, in their several undertakings: among others indebted to him, were the late professor Wetstein in his splendid edition of the Greek Testament, Dr. Jortin in his Life of Erasmus, and Mr. Bowyer and Mr. Nichols in “Two Essays on the Origin of Printing.” His name will frequently occur in the works of the learned, and therefore it was necessary that something should be upon record concerning him. The writer of this short extract can add, from his own personal knowledge of him, that he was not only very acute and very learned, but a sincere lover and bold assertor of truth, and a man of many and great virtues. He was twice married, but left no child. After his death were published “Sermons sur divers Textes de PKcriture Sainte, par feu Monsieur Cesar de Mis^y,” '6 vols. 8vo. His valuable library, which was sold by baker and Leigh in 1778, consisted of many books enriched with his ms notes, some of which were purchased lor his majesty’s library, some for the British Museum, and some by Dr. Hunter, who also bought several of his manuscripts.

, one of the most eminent philosophers of antiquity, and of noble descent, was a native of Abdera, a town in Thrace, and born, according to Laertius, in the first year of the 80th olympiad, or 460 B. C. He was contemporary with Socrates, Anaxagoras, Archelaus, Parmenides, Zeno, and Protagoras. He is said to have been instructed by some Chaldean magi in astronomy and theology. After the death of his lather, he determined to travel in search of wisdom, and having received his fraternal portion of his father’s estates in money, amounting to one hundred talents, he went first into Egypt, for the sake of learning geometry from the Egyptian priests; and then turned aside into Ethiopia, to converse with the gymnosophists of that country; after which he passed over into Asia, resided some time among the Persian magi, for the purpose of learning magical philosophy, and, as some assert, travelled into India. Whether, in the course of his travels, he visited Athens, or attended upon Anaxagoras, is uncertain. There can be little doubt, however, that, during some part of his life, he was instructed in the Pythagorean school, and particularly that he was a disciple of Leucippus.

After these travels, he returned to Abdera, rich in philosophic treasures, but destitute of the necessary means of subsistence. His brother Damasis, however, received him kindly, and liberally supplied his exigencies. It was a law in Abdera, that whoever should waste all his patrimony should be deprived of the rites of sepulture. Democritus, desirous of avoiding the disgrace to which this law subjected him, gave public instructions to the people, chiefly from his larger “Diacosmus,” the most valuable of his writings; and in return he received from his hearers many valuable presents, and other testimonies of respect, which relieved him from all apprehension of suffering public censure as a spendthrift. Laertius asserts that his countrymen loaded him with riches, to the amount of five hundred talents; but this, raised in such a town, and bestowed on an individual, seems wholly incredible, especially if we consider that few royal treasuries were at that time able to furnish such a sum. There can be no doubt, however, that Democritus, by his learning and wisdom, and especially by his acquaintance with nature, acquired great fame, and excited much admiration among the ignorant Abderites. By giving previous notice of unexpected changes in the weather, and by other artifices, he had the address to make them believe that he possessed a power of predicting future events and by this means he gained such an ascendancy over tnem, that they not only gave him the appellation of Wisdom, and looked upon nim as something more than mortal, but proposed to entrust him with the direction of their public affairs. From inclination and habit, he, however, preferred a contemplative to an active life, and therefore declined the^e public honours, and passed the remainder of his days in solitude.

It is said, that, from this time, Democritus ppent his days and nights in caverns and sepulchres; and that in one of these gloomy retreats, whilst he sat by his midnight lamp busily engaged in writing, he was on a sudden visited by several young men, who, in order to terrify him, had clothed themselves in black garments, and put on masks, pretending to be ghosts; but that, upon their appearance, he coolly requested them not to play the fool, and went on with the studies in which they found him employed. Others relate, that Democritus, in order to be more perfectly master of his intellectual faculties, by means of a burning glass deprived himself of the organs of sight. But the former of these stories has the air of fable; and the latter is wholly incredible, since the writers who relate it affirm, that Democritus employed his leisure in writing books, and in dissecting the bodies of animals, neither of which could very well have been effected without eyes. Cicero, who was not destitute of credulity, mentions the story, but at the same time intimates his own doubts concerning its truth. Nor is greater credit due to the tale, that Democritus spent his leisure hours in chemical researches after the philosopher’s stone, the dream of a later age; or to the story of his conversation witli Hippocrates, grounded upon letters, which are said to have passed between that father of medicine and the people of Abdera, on the supposed madness of Democritus, but which are so evidently spurious, that it would require the credulity of the Abderites themselves to suppose them genuine. All that is probable concerning this conversation, so circumstantially and eloquently related in the epistles ascribed to Hippocrates, is, that Hippocrates, who was contemporary with Democritus, admired his extensive knowledge of nature, and reprobated the stupidity of the Abderites, who imputed his wonderful operations to a supernatural intercourse with daemons, or to madness. The only reasonable conclusion which can be drawn from these marvellous tales, is that Democritus was, what he is commonly represented to have been, a man of sublime genius and penetrating judgment, who, by a long course of study and observation, became an eminent master of speculative and physical science; the natural consequence of which was, that, like Roger Bacon in a later period, he astonished and imposed upon his ignorant and credulous countrymen. Petronius relates, that he was perfectly acquainted with the virtues of herbs, plants, and stones, and that he spent his life in making experiments upon natural bodies.

Democritus has been commonly known under the appellation of the Laughing Philosopher; and it is gravely related by Seneca, that he never appeared in public, without expressing his contempt of the follies of mankind by laughter. But this account is wholly inconsistent with what has been related concerning his fondness for a life of gloomy solitude and profound contemplation; and with that strength and elevation of mind, which his philosophical researches must have required, and which are ascribed to him by the general voice of antiquity. Thus much, however, may be easily admitted, on the credit of yElian and Lucian, that a man so superior to the generality of his contemporaries, and whose lot it was to live among a race of men, the Abderites, who were stupid to a proverb, might frequently treat their follies with ridicule and contempt. Accordingly we find that, among his fellow-citizens, he obtained the appellation of yeAflwivof, or the derider.

He appears to have been in his personal character chaste and temperate; and his sobriety was repaid by a healthy old age. He lived, and enjoyed the use of his faculties, to the term of an hundred years (some say several years longer), and at last died through mere decay. The following singular circumstance is said to have happened just before his death. His sister, who had the care of him, observing him to be near his end, expressed great regret that his immediate death would prevent her celebrating the approaching festival of Ceres; upon which Democritus, who was now unable to receive any nourishment, that he might if possible gratify her wish by living a few days longer, desired her often to bring hot bread near his nostrils: the experiment succeeded, and he was preserved alive without food for three days. His death was exceedingly lamented by his countrymen and the charge of his funeral was defrayed from the public treasury. He wrote much y but none of his works are extant. A catalogue of them may be seen in Diogenes Laertius.

Brucker gives the following analysis of his doctrines: concerning truth Democritus taught, that there are two kinds of knowledge, one obscure, derived from the senses, and another genuine, obtained by the exercise of thought upon the nature of things. This latter mode of acquiring certain knowledge he confessed to be very difficult; and, therefore, he used to say, that truth lay in a deep well, from which it is the office of reason to draw it up. Concerning physics, it was the doctrine of this philosopher, that nothing can ever be produced from that which has no existence, and that any thing which exists can never be annihilated. Whatever exists must consequently owe its being to necessary and self-existent principles, of which he conceived there were two; viz. atoms, and a vacuum, both infinite, the former in number, the latter in magnitude. Atoms are solid, and the only beings; vacuum, or entire space, can neither be said to be existent nor non-existent, being neither corporeal nor incorporeal. Atoms have the property of figure, magnitude, motion, and weight, being heavy in proportion to their bulk. They are various in figure and in magnitude; and are perfectly solid, indivisible, and unalterable. These atoms have been eternally moving in infinite vacuum or space, in a direction perpetually deviating from a right line; and thus collisions are produced, which occasion innumerable combinations of particles, from which arises the various form of things that exist. These primary corpuscles are moved and united by that natural necessity, which is the only fate that creates and governs the world. The system of nature is one, consisting of parts, differing in their figure, order, and situation. The production of an organized body is occasioned by the suitable arrangement of atoms, adapted in their nature to form that body; if it be diversified, alteration takes place; if it be entirely destroyed, dissolution. The qualities of bodies are not essential to their nature, but the casual effect of arrangement; and this occasions the different impressions which they make upon the senses. In infinite space there are innumerable worlds, some similar, others dissimilar; but all subject to growth, decay, and destruction. The world has no animating principle, but all things are moved by the rapid agitation of atoms. The sun and moon are composed of light particles, revolving about a common centre. The heavenly bodies are arranged in the following order; first, the fixed stars, then, the planets, then the sun, then the moon: all move from east to west, and those which are nearest revolve with the least velocity; so that the sun, the inferior planets, and the moon, move more slowly than the rest.

A comet is a combination of planets, which approaching near each other, appear as one body. The earth at first was so small and light, as to wander about in the regions of space; but at length increasing in density, it became immoveable. The sea is continually decreasing, and will at length be dried up. Man was at first produced from water and earth. Our knowledge of his existence arises from consciousness. The soul, or principle of animal life and motion, is the result of a combination of round or fiery particles, consisting of two parts, one seated in the breast, which is the rational, the other diffused through the whole body, which is the irrational. The soul perishes with the body; but human bodies, though they perish, will revive. Different animal beings possess different senses. Perception is produced by e'tiuba, images, which flow from bodies according to their respective figures, and strike upon the organ of sense.

The fundamental difference between the doctrine of Democritus, and that of former philosophers, concerning atoms, is, that the latter conceived small particles endued with various qualities; whereas this philosopher conceived the qualities of bodies to be, as we have already said, the mere effect of arrangement. Democritus, in his whole system, pays no regard to an external efficient cause, but absurdly supposes, that the intrinsic necessity, which gives motion to atoms, is alone sufficient to account for the phaenomena of nature. Whatever he is said to have taught concerning nature, fate, or providence, he merely asserted, that the fire, which resulted from the combination of certain subtle atoms, and which has been called the soul of the world, is a mechanical agent in nature, causing by its rapid motion the changes which take place in the universe. Plutarch says, that Democritus considered the sun and moon as ignited plates of stone; but this is not consistent with his general system, and with his knowledge of nature. The belief of the materiality of the soul was the natural result of the atomic system; for if the soul be a mere composition of atoms, when these are dispersed, it must perish; As to the reviviscence of human bodies, he can only be supposed to mean, that the atoms composing any human soul, would, after their dispersion, coalesce again, in some distant period, and recover their former life. The term eiJaXov^ or image, seems to have had, in his use of it, two different significations: it denoted those images which he supposed to flow from external objects, and, striking upon the senses, excite ideas in the mind, and also, those divine beings that existed in the air, and which he called gods. Although Democritus rejected the notion of Deity, and allowed him no share in the creation or government of the world, he endeavoured to conceal his impiety, by admitting the popular belief of divinities inhabiting the aerial regions, and teaching that they make themselves visible to some favoured mortals, and enable them to predict future events.

, a celebrated mathematician, of French original, but who spent most of his life in England, was born at Vitri in Champagne May 26, 1667. His father was a surgeon, and spared no pains in his education, and sent him early to school, where he wrote a letter to his parents in 1673, a circumstance which filial affection made him often mention with great pleasure. For some time he was educated under a popish priest, but was afterwards sent to a protestant academy at Sedan, where his predilection for arithmetical calculations so frequently took the place of classical studies, that his master one day pettishly asked, what the “little rogue meant to do with those cyphers?” He afterwards studied at Saumur and Paris, at which last place he began his mathematics under Ozanam. At length the revocation of the edict of Nantz, in 1685, determined him, with many others, to take shelter in England; where he perfected his naathematical studies. A mediocrity of fortune obliged him to employ his talent in this way in giving lessons, and reading public lectures, for his better support: in the latter part of his life too, he chiefly subsisted by giving answers to questions in chances, play, annuities, &c. and it is said many of these responses were delivered at a coffee-, house in St. Martin’s-lane, where he spent much of his time. The “Principia Mathematica” of Newton, which chance is said to have thrown in his way, soon convinced Demoivre how little he had advanced in the science he professed. This induced him to redouble his application; which was attended by a considerable degree of success; and he soon became connected with, and celebrated among, the first-rate mathematicians. His eminence and abilities in this science opened him an entrance into the royal society of London, and into the academies of Berlin and Paris. By the former his merit was so well known and esteemed, that they judged him a fit person to decide the famous contest between Newton and Leibnitz, concerning the invention of Fluxions.

The collection of the academy of Paris contains no papers of this author, who died at London, Nov. 27, 1754, at eighty-seven years of age, soon after his admission into ic; an honour which he said he considered as equivalent to lettres de noblesse. But the Philosophical Transactions of London have several, and all of them interesting, viz. in the volumes 19, 20,22, 23, 25,27, 29, 30, 32, 40, 41, 43. His separate publications are: 1. “Miscellanea Analytica, de Seriebus & Quadraturis, &c.” 1730, 4to. But perhaps he has been mqre generally known by his 2. “Doctrine of Chances; or Method of calculating the Probabilities of Events at Play.” This work was first printed 1718, in 4to, and dedicated to sir Isaac Newton; it was reprinted in 1738, with great alterations and improvements; and a third edition was afterwards printed. 3. “'Annuities on Lives,” first printed 1724, in 8vo. In 1742 the inger njoqs Thomas Simpson (then only thirty-three years of age) published his “Doctrine of Annuities and, Reversions,” in which tie paid some handsome compliments to our author. Notwithstanding which, Demoivre presently brought out a second edition of his Annuities, in the preface to which be passed some harsh reflections upon son. To these the latter gave a handsome and effectual answer, 1743, in “An Appendix, containing some Remarks on a late book on the same subject, with answers to some personal and malignant misrepresentations in the preface thereof.” At the end of this answer, Mr. Simpson concludes, “Lastly, I appeal to all mankind, whether, in his treatment of me, he has not discovered an air of selfsufficiency, ill-nature, and inveteracy, unbecoming a gentleman.” Here it would seem the controversy dropped: Mr. Uemoivre published the third edition of his book in 1750, without any farther notice of Simpson, but omitted the offensive reflections that had been fn the preface.

, a Cynic philosopher, who flourished during the reign of Adrian, in the second century, was a native of Cyprus, and descended from a family of wealth and high rank; but preferring a life of philosophic study to the employments which his birth and fortune might have commanded, he removed to Athens while he was young, and there spent the remainder of his days. In his manners and habits, he was in some respects the imitator of Diogenes, and hence he obtained a rank among the Cynics, though he never professed himself to be of any sect. From them all he selected what was excellent, and most favourable to moral wisdom; and like Socrates, he endeavoured to make philosophy not a speculative science, but the rule of life and manners. He was virtuous without ostentation, and was able to reprove vice without acrimony, and with the happiest effect. So high was his reputation, that the greatest deference was paid to his opinion in the assemblies of the Athenian people. After his death, which was not till he had attained the age of an hundred, he was honoured with a public funeral, attended with a numerous train of philosophers, and others who lamented the loss of so estimable a character. Lucian, from whom alone we have any account of Demonax, furnishes also the following anecdotes. Soon after Demonax came to Athens, a public charge was brought against him for neglecting to offer sacrifice to Minerva, and to be initiated into the Eleusinian mysteries. Appearing before the assembly in a white garment, he pleaded that Minerva did not stand in need of his offerings; and that he declined initiation into the mysteries, because, if they were bad, he ought not to conceal them; and if they were good, his love to mankind would oblige him to disclose them: upon which he was acquitted. One of his companions proposing to go to the temple of Esculapius, to pray for the recovery of his son from sickness, Demonax said: “Do you suppose that Esculapius cannot hear you as well from this place?” Hearing two ignorant pretenders to philosophy conversing, and remarking that the one asked foolish questions, and the other made replies which were nothing to the purpose, he said, “One of these men is milking a he-goat, while the other is holding a sieve under him.” Advising a certain rhetorician, who was a wretched declaimar, to perform frequent exercises, the rhetorician answered, “I frequently practise by myself.” “No wonder,” replied Demonax, “that you are so bad a speaker, when you practise before so foolish an audience.” Seeing a Spartan beating his servant unmercifully, he said to him, “Why do you thus put yourself upon a level with your slave?” When Demonax was informed that the Athenians had thoughts of erecting an amphitheatre for gladiators, in imitation of the Corinthians, he went into the assembly, and cried out, “Athenians, before you make this resolution, go and pull down the altar of mercy.”

, one of the greatest orators of antiquity, was born at Athens, in the second year of the 101st olympiad; or about 370 years before Christ. He was first placed under Plato and Euclid of Megara to study philosophy; but, observing with what applause Callistratus pleaded before the people, he applied to the study of oratory, under Isocrates and Isa3us. He was left fatherless when very young, and much neglected and defrauded by his guardians; on which account he pleaded against them at seventeen years of age, and with so much success, that they were condemned to pay him 30 talents; but, it is said, he forgave them. This was the first time that he distinguished himself by his eloquence, which at length he improved to such perfection, that Philip said “it was of more weight against him, than all the fleets and armies of the Athenians” and that “he had no enemy but Demosthenes” and Demetrius Phalereus and Eratosthenes said, “he actually appeared like one inspired.” He could present an object in any light he pleased, and give it whatever colouring best answered his purpose; and where he found it difficult to convince the judgment, he knew how to seduce the imagination. He was not perhaps so universal an orator as Cicero, not so powerful in panegyric, nor had he his turn for raillery; and Longinus says, whenever he attempted to jest, the laugh was sure to turn upon himself. But then he had a force of oratory, which, as Longinus observes, bore down, like a torrent, all before it. He opposed Philip of Macedon with his full strength, and Alexander after him. Alexander requested of the Athenians to have Demosthenes given up to him, but this was refused; yet when Antipater his successor made the same request afterwards, after his victory, these same Athenians, as the price of their pardon, were obliged to sacrifice Demosthenes and the orators of the same party. On the motion of Demades, a decree having passed condemning them to death, Demosthenes took sanctuary in the temple of Neptune at Calauria, but apprehending that attempts would be made to seize him, he provided himself with poison; and when taken by an emissary of Antipater, he retired to the interior part of the temple, and swallowed the dose. Immediately turning to Archias, the messenger of Antipater, who had been a player, he said, “Now you may perform the part of Creon as soon as you please, and cast out this carcase unburied.” Then turning to the altar, he exclaimed, “O gracious Neptune! I depart alive from thy temple without profaning it, which the Macedonians would have done by my murder.” Staggering as he attempted to retire, he fell by the altar, and expired at the age of fifty-nine, in the year B. C. 322. The Athenians not long after, erected his statue in brass, and decreed that the eldest of his family should be maintained at the public expence.

Although the regard that has been paid to the memory of Demosthenes has chiefly been on account of his eloquence, he was likewise a very able statesman, and a patriot; and, from the accounts we have of the embassies and expeditions, the treaties and alliances, and other various negotiations in which he was employed, together with the zeal and integrity with which he acted in them, we may conclude that he excelled as much in those capacities, as in that of an orator; though it must be confessed that his eloquence was the foundation of his advancement in other respects. But though he arrived to such perfection in this arc, he set out under great disadvantages; having an impediment in his speech, which for a long time would not suffer him to pronounce the letter R. He had likewise a weak voice, a short breath, and a very uncouth and ungracious manner, yet by dint of resolution and infinite pains, he overcame all these defects. He accustomed himself to climb up steep and craggy places to facilitate his breathing, and strengthen his voice; he declaimed with pebbles in his mouth, to remedy the imperfection in his speech; he placed a looking-glass before him, to correct the awkwardness of his gesture; and he learned of the best players the proper graces of action and pronunciation, which he thought of so much consequence, that he made the whole art of oratory in a manner to consist of them. But whatever stress he laid upon tt;e exterior part of speaking, he was also very careiul about the matter and the style, the latter of which he formed upon the model of Thucydides, whose history, for that purpose, he transcribed eight several times. He was so intent upon his study, that he would often retire into a cave of the earth, and shave half his head, so that he could not with decency appear abroad till his hair was grown again. He also accustomed himself to harangue at the seashore, where the agitation of the waves formed to him an idea of the commotions in a popular assembly, and served to prepare and fortify him against them. From this strict discipline, which he imposed upon himself, he became an instance how far parts and application may go towards perfection in any profession, notwithstanding the strongest natural impediments.

With respect to his character as a man of integrity and a patriot, Philip was not wanting in endeavours to corrupt him, as he had endeavoured to corrupt, and with success, most of the other leading men in Greece; but Demosthenes withstood all his offers; and Plutarch says, that all the gold of Macedonia could not bribe him. And yet, as inflexible as he was to Philip, he became more pliable in the reign of his successor, and gave occasion to his enemies to accuse him of bribery; for which he was fined and imprisoned, and afterwards banished; but the charge has by some been thought groundless and malicious, and the rather because he was not allowed to justify himself'. That accomplished scholar and lawyer, Mr. Charles Yorke, is said to have written a dissertation upon this subject, in which all the evidence supplied by the writers of antiquity is carefully collected, and judiciously examined, and in which Mr. Yorke’s decision is in favour of Demosthenes. It is to be regretted that this curious dissertation is still allowed to remain unpublished. Another circumstance in. the character of Demosthenes is more singular. He who with such constancy and intrepidity opposed all the measures of the foreign and domestic enemies of his country, and who so often at the hazard of his life braved the madness of the people in their assemblies, was yet unable to stand an enemy in the field. He chose, says Plutarch, to swear by those who fell at Marathon, though he could not follow their example; yet he afterwards refused life when it was offered him, and died with great fortitude. With all this mixture of character, however, Demosthenes did more service to the state than any of his contemporaries, and was the chief bulwark, not only of Athens, but of Greece in general, and almost the only obstacle to Philip’s designs of enslaving it.

In his Olynthiacs and Philippics, which are his capital orations, he had a fine field for the display of his talents, the object he had in view being to excite the indignation of his countrymen against Philip, and to guard them against the insidious measures by which that crafty prince endeavoured to lull them into security. In the prosecution of this, he adopts every proper method for animating a people once renowned for justice, humanity, and valour, but in many instances now become corrupt and degenerate. He boldly taxes them with their venality, indolence, and indifference to the public cause; whilst with consummate art, he calls to their remembrance the glory of their ancestors, and leads them to consider that they were still a flourishing and powerful people, the natural protectors of the liberty of Greece, and that they only wanted the inclination to exert themselves, in order to make Philip tremble. With his contemporary orators, who were in the interest of Philip, or who persuaded the people to peace, he keeps no measures, but reproaches them as the betrayers of their country. Phocion was of this number; he on all occasions opposed the violence of the people; and when Demosthenes once told him that the Athenians would some day murder him in a mad fit, he answered, “And you too, perhaps, in a sober fit.” These orations are strongly animated, and abounding with the impetuosity and fire of public spirit. The figures which he uses rise naturally from the subject, and are employed sparingly, for splendour and ornament do not distinguish the compositions of Demosthenes. His character, as an orator, depends upou an energy of thought peculiar to himself, which elevates him above all others. Things, and not words, appear to be the objects of his attention. He has no parade and ostentation; no methods of insinuation; no laboured introductions; but like a man fully possessed by his subject, after preparing his audience by a sentence or two for hearing plain truths, he enters directly on business, warming the mind, and impelling to action.

His style, says Dr. Blair, whom we have already partly followed, “is strong and concise, though sometimes, it must not be dissembled, harsh and abrupt. His words are very expressive; his arrangement is firm and manly; and though far from being unmusical, yet it seems difficult to find in him that studied but concealed number and rhythmus, which some of the ancient critics are fond of attributing to him. Negligent of these lesser graces, one would rather conceive him to have aimed at that sublime which lies in sentiment. His action and pronunciation are recorded to have been uncommonly vehement and ardent: which, from the manner of his composition, we are led to believe. The character which one forms of him, from reading his works, is of the austere, rather tban the gentle kind. He is, on every occasion, grave, serious, passionate, taking every thing in a high tone; never lets himself down, nor attempts any thing like pleasantry. If any fault can. be found with his admirable eloquence, it is that he sometimes borders on the hard and dry. He may be thought to want smoothness and grace; which Dionysius of Halicarnassus attributes to his imitating too closely the manner of Thucydides, who was his great model for style. But these defects are far more than compensated, by that admirable and masterly force of masculine eloquence, which, as it overpowered all who heard it, cannot, at this day, be read without emotion.” However just this remark, it must be received with some limitation. No modern reader, and no modern nation can now be so affected with mere eloquence as to be sensible of the effects produced by that of Demosthenes, which after all, like the merits of a great player, must rest principally on historical evidence. Demosthenes is said to have composed sixty-five orations, of which a small proportion has reached our tirfies; nor has he been so fortunate in his editors as the majority of the classic writers. The best editions are those of Wolfius, Francfort, 1604, folio; of Taylor, vols. II. and III, Cambridge, 1748 57, 4to; the first volume never appeared; and of Reiske, Leipsic, 1770, 12 vols. 8vo. The best English translations are those of Dr. Leland and Mr. Francis.

, a French physician, but better known as an oculist, was born in 1702, and was the son of Anthony Demours, an apothecary at Marseilles, under whom he received the early part of his education, which was continued at Avignon, where he resided, until he had taken the degree of doctor, in 1728. He then removed to Paris, and was placed for two years under M. Du Verney, for the study of anatomy. On the death of Du Verney, he was associated with M. Chirac in the care of the cabinet of natural history, in the royal garden at Paris. Having bestowed niHch attention and many experiments on the structure of the eye, in 1741 he sent to the royal academy of sciences a memoir on the subject, in which he shews that the vitreous humour is of a cellular texture, and that the cells comii unicate with each other, circumstances which bad not been before observed. He now employed himself, almost exclusively, in attending to the diseases of the eye, and soon attracted so much notice as to be appointed oculist to the king. In 1767, he published “Retire q. M. Petit,” on the subject of a disease in the eyes, occurring in a patient who had been inoculated with the small-pox. As he had acquired a competent knowledge of the English language, he translated into French the Edinburgh medical essays, which he published at Paris, in eleven volumes, 12 mo, Baker’s Natural History of the Polypus, Hales’s account of a Ventilator, Ranby’s treatise of Gunshot Wounds, and several volumes of essays on medicine, and on natural history, taken frqm the Philosophical Transactions, which procured him to be elected one of the foreign members of the royal society. He had been before associated with the royal academy of sciences at Paris. Demours died June 26, 1795, aged ninety-three.

, a man of considerable learning and singular character, was born in Scotland in 1579. He is said to have been descended from a noble family, and was instructed in grammar learning at Aberdeen; but being obliged at an early age to leave Scotland, on account of the commotions that then prevailed in that country, he went into England, where he studied for some time at Pembroke-hall in Cambridge. From thence he went to France, where he gave out, that he had left givat estates in his own country, on account of his attachment to the Roman catholic religion. He also assumed the title of Baron of Muresk, which is said to have been one of the titles of his father; but the low state of his finances obliged him to undertake to teach classical literature at Paris. In that city he also published, in 1613, in one volume, fol. “Antiquitatum Romanarum corpus absolutiss mum, in quo praeter ea quse Joannes Rosinus delineaverat, inlimta supplentur, mutantur, adduntur, ex criticis, et omnibus utriusque linguae auctoribus collectum: poetis, oratoribus, historicis, jurisconsultis, qui laudati, explicati, correctique.”

But during his stay at Paris, Dempster did not wholly spend his time in his studies, or in the business of education. “He was as quick,” we are told, “at drawing his sword, and as quarrelsome, as a professed duellist. He either fought with a sword, or boxed almost every day; so that he was the terror of all schoolmasters.” As a teacher, he appears to have been a rigid disciplinarian; and one spirited exertion of his authority in that capacity, in the college of Beauvais, produced such consequences, as obliged him for a time to quit Paris. He then went to England, where he found not only a place of refuge, but also a very handsome wife, whom he afterwards carried back with him to Paris. Besides teaching in that city, it appears that he also disputed for a professor’s chair at the academy of Nismes, and carried it with great applause against many competitors. From France he went into Italy, and taught philological learning in the university of Pisa, where he had good appointments. Returning one day from the college, he found that his wife had been stolen away, his own scholars having assisted in the elopement. “He bore his loss,” says Bayle, “like a stoic; and, perhaps, was not sorry to be delivered from a treasure that he had found so difficult to keep.” From Pisa he removed to Bologna, and was appointed professor in the university of that city, in which situation he continued till his death. He was also admitted into the academy Delia notte.

Dempster was in his person a very tall, stout, and wellInade man, and possessed great personal courage. He appears to have been a man of warm passions, a zealous friend, and a violent enemy. His literary acquisitions were very considerable, as is manifest from his works; and it is said, that he was accustomed to study fourteen hours a day without intermission. His memory was uncommonly tenacious, so that he said of himself, that he knew not what it was to forget; and he was sometimes styled a speaking library; but his judgment was by no means equal to his erudition. Archbishop Usher says of him, that he was “homo multa? lectionis, sed nullius plane judicii,” but Vossius styles him, “eruditus Scotus, beneque de literis meritus.”

Two years after Dempster’s death, was published at Bologna, in 1627, in one volume 4to, from his manuscript, te Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis Scotorum, Lib. XIX.“This work contains a very long list of Scottish saints, and accounts of some literary men; and, at the end of the book, a few particulars concerning Dempster himself were added by Matthaeus Peregrinus. But the disregard to truth which Dempster has displayed in this work, has justly exposed him to the censure of many writers, particularly Baillet, who says,” Thomas Dempster has given us an Ecclesiastical History of Scotland, in nineteen books, in which he speaks very much of the learned men of that country. But though he was in some respects an able man, he did not possess sound sense, or a solid judgment, nor was he very conscientious. He would have wished that all learned men had been Scotchmen. He forged the titles of books that never appeared in the world, in order to raise the glory of his country; and he committed several literary frauds, which have discredited him among men of learning.“Bishop Nicolson says that” Dempster reckons a great many writers of Scottish history, who are allowed to be counterfeits.“And sir James Ware remarks, that” Dempster, in his Catalogue of Scotch Authors, has not only inserted those of England and Wales, at his own pleasure; but, to prove his assertions, has also frequently quoted imaginary authors, and fictitious treatises, times, and places." Archbishop Usher repeatedly censures Dempster for his inventions and his falsehoods; and in one place speaks of it as being a practice of Dempster’s, to enumerate books which were never written, and that had no existence but in his own idle brain. Cave also speaks of Dempster with great contempt, on account of his fictions with respect to Scottish authors. Indeed, Dempster seems to have thought it highly meritorious to advance the grossest falsehoods, if those falsehoods would, in any degree, contribute to the honour of his country.

He also published in his own life-time the following pieces: “Strena Kal. Januar. 1616. ad iilustriss. virum Jacobum Hayum, Dominum ac Baronem de Saley,” &c. Lond. 1616, 4to. “Menologium Scotorum, in quo nullus nisi Scotus gente aut conversatione, quod ex omnium gentium monimentis, pio studio Dei gloriae. Sanctorum honori. Patrias ornamento,” &c. Bonon. 1622, 4to. “Scotia illustrior, seu, Mendicabula repressa,” Lugd. 1620, 8vo. He is likewise said to have been the author of four books of epistles, of some tragedies and tragi-comedies, of fourteen books of different kinds of poetry, and of various pieces. Notwithstanding his attachment to the Romish religion, some of his books were condemned by the inquisition. A very elaborate and learned work of Dempster was elegantly printed at Florence, with many copperplates, in two volumes, folio, in 1723 and 1724, under the care of Thomas Coke, esq. (afterwards earl of Leicester,) at the expence of Cosmo III. and John Gasto, dukes of Tuscany, to which the following title was prefixed: “ Thomae Dempster! a Muresk Scoti Pandectarum in Pisano Lyceo professoris ordinarii de Etruria regali libri Septem, opus postumum, in duas partes divisum.” We are told in the preface, that when Dempster, in 1619, was about to remove to Bologna, he left this work in the hands of the grand duke, by whose order it had been composed, although he had not quite finished it. It is divided into seven books, treating of the ancient inhabitants of Etruria, their kings, their inventions, geography, ancient and modern, &c. with a short history of the house of Medici. The ancient monuments which are given on ninety-three engravings, are illustrated by some explanations and conjectures by M. Bonarota. Upon the whole, this splendid publication appears to be the best of Dempster’s productions, and affords a very high idea of his abilities as a classical antiquary. One of his dissertations on the Roman Kalendar is inserted in Groevius’s Roman Antiquities, vol. VIII. Passeri published a Supplement to his History of Etruria, in 1767, fol. and an edition of his Roman Antitiquities, much enlarged.

, an eminent English poet, the only son of sir John Denham, knt. of Little Horseley in Essex, by Eleanor, daughter of sir Garret More, knt. baron of Mellefont in Ireland, was born at Dublin in 1615, his father having been some time before chief baron of the exchequer in Ireland, and one of the lords commissioners of that kingdom; but, upon his being made, in 1617, one of the barons of the exchequer in England, he was brought by him to London, and educated there in school-learning. In 1631 he was entered a gentleman-commoner of Trinitycollege in Oxford “but being looked upon,” says Wood, “as a slow and dreaming young man by his seniors and contemporaries, and given more to cards and dice than his study, they could never then in the least imagine that he could ever enrich the world with his fancy, or issue of his brain, as he afterwards did.” When he had continued there three years, and undergone a public examination for his degree of B. A. he went to Lincoln’s Inn with a view of studying the law; but his love of gaming continuing, he squandered away all the money he could get. His father being informed of this, and threatening to disinherit him if he did not reform, he wrote a little “Essay upon Gaming,” which he presented to his father, in order to shew him what an abhorrence he had conceived towards it: this gentleman’s death, however, no sooner happened, in 1638, than he returned to his former habits, and presently lost several thousand pounds.

In 1641 he published his tragedy of the “Sophy;” which was so much admired by Waller that he took occasion from this piece to say of the author, that “he broke out like the Irish rebellion, threescore thousand strong, when nobody was aware, or in the least suspected it.” Soon after he was pricked high sheriff of Surry, and made governor of Farnham-castle for the king; but, not being skilled in military affairs, he quitted that post soon after, and retired to his majesty at Oxford. Here, in 1643, he published his “Cooper’s Hill;” a poem, which, Drydeu says, for majesty of style, is, and ever will be, the standard of good writing. Pope has celebrated this poem very highly in his “Windsor Forest;” and indeed it is thought so much superior to his other poems, that some have suspected him, though without any just foundation, not to have been author of it. Thus, in the “Session of the Poets,” printed in Dryden’s Miscellanies, we have the following insinuation:

Was writ by a vicar, who had forty pounds for 't.

In 1647 he was entrusted by the queen with a message to the king, who was then in the hands of the army, and to whom he got admittance by the help of his acquaintance Hugh Peters; “which trust,” says he, in the dedication of his poems to Charles II. “I performed with great safety to the persons with whom we corresponded: but about nine months after, being discovered by their knowledge of Mr. Cowley’s hand, 1 happily escaped both for myself and them.” In April 1648 he conveyed away James duke of York into France, as Wood says; but Clarendon assures us, that the duke went off with colonel Bamfield only, who contrived the means of escape. Not long after, he was sent sent ambassador from Charles II. to the king of Poland; and William (afterwards lord) Crofts was joined in the embassy with him. Among his poems is one entitled, “On my lord Crofts’s and my journey into Poland, from whence we brought 10,000l. for his majesty, by the decimation (or tithing) of his Scottish subjects there.” About 1652 he returned to England; and, his paternal estate being greatly reduced by gaming and the civil wars, he was kindly entertained by lord Pembroke at Wilton; where, and sometimes at London, he continued with that nobleman above a year. At the restoration he entered upon the office of surveyor-general of all his majesty’s buildings; and at the coronation of the king, was created K. B. Wood pretends, that Charles I. had granted our poet the reversion of that place, after the decease of the famous Inigo Jones, who held it; but sir John himself, in the dedication of his poems, assures us, that Charles II. at his departure from St. Germain’s to Jersey, was pleased, freely, without his asking, to confer it upon him. After his promotion to tbis office, he gave over his poetical lines, and “made it his business,” he says, “to draw such others as might be more serviceable to his majesty, and, he hoped, more lasting.” Uponsome discontent arising from a second marriage, he had the misfortune to be deprived of his reason. Dr. Johnson notices a slight circumstance omitted by other writers, which is, that when our poet was thus afflicted, Butler lampooned him for his lunacy. “I know not,” adds the doctor, “whether the malignant lines were then made public; nor what provocation incited Butler to do what no provocation can excuse.” On his recovery, which was soon, he wrote his fine verses upon the death of Cowley; whom yet he survived but a few months; for he died at his office near Whitehall, which he had before built, March 1668, and was interred in Westminster-abbey, near Chaucer, Spenser, and Cowley. Sir John was an early member of the royal society.

His works have been several times printed together in one volume, under the title of “Poems and translations, with the Sophy, a tragedy.” The sixth edition is that of 1719, and besides this collection, Wood mentions: 1. “A Panegyric on his excellency the lord general George Monk, commander in chief,” &c. printed at London in 1659, and generally ascribed to him, though his name is not to it, S. “A New Version t>f the Book of Psalms.” 3. A prologue to his Majesty at the first play presented at the Cockpit in Whitehall, being part of that noble entertainment which their majestes received on November 20, 16-0, from his grace the duke of Albemarle. 4. “The True Presbyterian without disguise: or, a character of a Presbyterian’s ways and actions,” Lond. 1680. Our author’s name is to tiiis poem; but it was then questioned by many, whether he was the author of it. In 1666 there were printed by stealth, in 8vo, certain poems, entitled “Directions to a Painter,” in four copies or parts, each dedicated to Charles II. They were very satirically written against several persons engaged in the Dutch war in 1665. At the end of them was a piece, entitled, “Clarendon’s House-warming,” and after that his epitaph; both containing bitter reflections on that excellent nobleman. Sir John Denham’s name is to these pieces; but they were generally thought to be written by the well-known Andrew Marvel: the printer, however, being discovered, was sentenced to stand in the pillory for the same.

“Denham,” says Dr. Johnson, “is deservedly considered as one of the fathers of English poetry. Denham and Waller, according to Prior, improved our versification, and D:yden perfected it. He appears to have had, in common with almost all mankind, the ambition of being upon proper occasions a merry fellow; and, in common with most of them, to have been by nature, or by early habits, debarred from it. Nothing is less exhilarating than the ludicrousness of Denham. He does not fail for want of efforts: he is familiar, he is gross; but he is never merry, unless the * Speech against Peace in the close Committee‘ be excepted. For grave burlesque, however, his imitation of Davenant shews him to have been well qualified. His poem on the death of Cowley was his last, and, among his shorter works, his best performance: the numbers are musical, and the thoughts are just. ’ Cooper’s Hill' is the work that confers upon him the rank and dignity of an original author. He seems to have been, at least among us, the author of a species of composition that may be denominated local poetry, of which the fundamental subject is some particular landscape, to be poetically described, with the addition of such embellishments as maybe supplied by histosical retrospectioi incidental meditation. To trace a new scheme of poetry has in itself a very high claim to praise, and its praise is yet more when it is apparently copied by Garth and Pope; after whose names little will be gained by an enumeration of smaller poets, that have left scarce a corner of the island undignified by rhyme, or blank verse. He appears to have been one of the first that understood the necessity of emancipating translation from the drudgery of counting lines and interpreting single words. How much this servile practice obscured the clearest and deformed the most beautiful parts of the ancient authors, may be discovered by a perusal of our earlier versions; some of them the works of men well qualified not only by critical knowledge, but by poetical genius; who yet, by a mistaken ambition of exactness, degraded at once their originals and themselves. Denham saw the better way, but has not pursued it wiih great success. His versions of Virgil are not pleasing: but they taught Dryden to please better. His poetical imitation of Tully on Old Age has neither the clearness of prose, nor the spriteliness of poetry.” Most of the lesser faults pointed out in Dr. Johnson’s critique “are in Denham’s first productions, when he was less skilful, or at least less dextrous in the use of words; and though they had been more frequent, they could only have lessened the grace, not the strength, of his composition. He is one of the writers that improved our taste, and advanced our language, and whom we ought therefore to read with gratitude, though, having done much, he left much to do.”

It has not been generally remarked that Denham continued to improve and polish his poems as long as he lived. Pope wrote on his copy of “Cooper’s Hill” the following note: “This poem was first printed without the author’s name in 1643. In that edition are a great many verses to be found, since omitted, and very many others since corrected and improved. Some few the author afterwards added, and in particular, the celebrated lines on the Thames,” O could I flow like thee," &c. all with admirable judgment; and the whole read together is a very strong proof of what Mr. Waller says,

, an eminent German bibliographer, and principal librarian of the imperial library of Vienna, was born at Sclarden, in Bavaria, in 1729, and died at Vienna in 1800, in the seventy -first year of his age. He published several works on subjects of philology, bibliography, literary, and even natural history, and poetry. The principal of these are, 1. A translation into German of “Ossian’s poems,” Vienna, 1768—1772, 3 vols. 4to, and 8vo. This translation is truly poetical; but the author appears to have committed an error in judgment, in giving the preference to hexameters, by which he has given a refinement and a connection to the whole, which does not correspond with the original. 2. “The Songs of the Bard Sined,” (Denis) with a preliminary dissertation on the ancient poetry of the North, Vienna, 1772, 8vo. 3. “A systematic catalogue of Butterflies in the environs of Vienna,” ibid. 1776, 4to, with plates. 4. “An Introduction to the knowledge of Books,” 2 vols. 4to, 1777 — 1778. This, which like most of his works, is written in German, contains a division of Bibliography into three periods. The first relates to the state of book-writing, previous to Christianity; the second comprehends the state of Bibliography from the introduction of Christianity to the restoration of letters, or the invention of printing; and the third extends from this latter period to the present times. Each of these periods contains an historical and mechanical account of book-making. The historical account of the first period exhibits the origin, progress, and decline of the art of writing and preserving books in different nations; and the other part of this same period contains a description of the alphabets, paper, and instruments employed in writing, and the form of books in these early times. In the second period is the history of printing; and in the third, an account of the most celebrated libraries of that time in Italy, England, France, Holland, Spain, Sweden, Poland, Russia, Germany, and Vienna, comprehending printed books and manuscripts. In this exhibition, the books are reduced, like the sciences, under the distinct classes of theology, law, philosophy, physic, mathematics, history, and philology, and are considered with respect to their number, their qualities, their rarity, &c. and the manuscripts, whether Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Gothic, Lombard, French, or Anglo-Saxon, are enumerated, though without many critical illustrations. 5. “A Typographical History of Vienna from the year 1482 to 1560,” ibid. 1782, 4to. 6. A publication in Latin, “8. Augustini Sermones inediti, admixtis quibusdarn dubiis,” ibid. 1792, fol. These were copied from a manuscript of the twelfth century in the imperial library. 7. “Codices manuscripti theologici Latiui aliarumque occidentis linguarum bibliothecae Palatinse Vindobon.” vol. I. 1793, fol. vol. II. 1801, intended as a continuation of Lambecius’s very elaborate catalogue. The two together form a complete catalogue of every article in the imperial library of the theological kind, except ecclesiastical history, and the canon-law. 9. “Carmina qusedam,” Vienna, 1794, 4to, a collection of Latin poems.

, an English divine and theological writer, became a student of Baliiol college, Oxford, in the beginning of 1590; and, when he had taken the degree of M. A. entered into holy orders, and was afterwards admitted to the degree of D. D. He was domestic chaplain to George duke of Buckingham, and to James I. and successively vicar of all the three churches in Reading; being instituted to St. Lawrence’s, Jan. 7, 1603; to St. Giles’s, July 9, 1612; and to St. Mary’s, March 31, 1614. He died at Reading, in Jan. 1628-9, and was buried in St. Mary’s church. Besides some sermons, enumerated by Wood, he published, 1. “A threefold resolution necessary to salvation, &c.” Loud. 1616, 8vo, 4th edit. 2. “Justification of kneeling at the Sacrament,” ibid. 16!9, 8vo. 3. “On the two Sacraments, Baptism and the Lord’s Supper,” ibid. 1621, 4to, and some controversial pieces, the most distinguished of which is a work on auricular confession, in answer to cardinal Bellarmine on that subject. The title is, “De confessionis auricularis vanitate, adversus Card. Bellarmini sophismata,” Oxon. 1621, 4to. Dr. Denison gave several valuable books to the Bodleian library, as appears by a letter of sir Thomas Bodley to Dr. King, dean of Christ-church, and vice-chancellor, which on July 8, 1628, was read in convocation.

, D. D. an eminent divine and antiquary, descended from a family of good note in the county of Kent, was the eldest son of John Denne, gent, who had the place of woodreve to the see of Canterbury, by a patent for life from archbishop Tenison. He was born at Littlebourne, May 25, 1693, and brought up in the freeschools of Sandwich and Canterbury. He went thence to Cambridge, and was admitted of Corpus Christi college, under the tuition of Mr. Robert Dannye, Feb. 25, 1708; and was afterwards a scholar of the house upon archbishop Parker’s foundation. He proceeded B. A. in 1712; M. A. in 1716; and was elected fellow April 20, in the same year. Soon after, he took upon him the office of tutor, jointly with Mr. Thomas Herring, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury; and was ordained deacon on Trinity Sunday 1716, by bishop Trimnell; and priest Sept. 21, 1718. Not long afterwards he was nominated by the college to the perpetual cure of St. Benedict’s church, in Cambridge; whence he was preferred in 1721, to the rectory of Norton-Davy, alias Green’s Norton, in Northamptonshire, upon a presentation from the king; but this he exchanged, Sept. 30, 1723, for the vicarage of St. Leonard, Shoreditch, in London. In 1725 he was appointed preacher of Mr. Boyle’s lecture, and continued so for three years. His next promotion, immediately after taking the degree of D. D. was to the archdeaconry of Rochester, with the prebend annexed, being collated thereto July 22, 1728, by bishop Bradford, to whom he had been domestic chaplain for many years, and whose youngest daughter Susanna he married in 1724. He was instituted July 24, 1729, to the vicarage of St. Margaret’s, Rochester, but this he resigned, on taking possession of the rectory of Lambeth, Nov. 27, 1731, through the patronage of archbishop Wake. He died August 5, 1767, and was buried in the south transept of Rochester cathedral. His widow survived him upwards of thirteen years, dying on the 3d of December, 1780.

Dr. Denne was yet more frequently useful by his researches as an antiquary, and the valuable assistance he contributed to many eminent antiquaries in the publication of their works. At the time of his becoming a member of the chapter of Rochester, not a few of its muniments and papers were in much confusion; these he digested, and by that means rendered the management of the affairs of the dean and chapter easy to his contemporaries and their successors. He was particularly conversant in English ecclesiastical history; and this employment afforded him an opportunity of extending his knowledge to many points not commonly accessible. His attention to such matters began at a very early period; whilst a fellow of Corpus Christi college, he transmitted to Mr. Lewis, from M8S. in the libraries of the university of Cambridge, many useful materials for his “Life of Wicliff,” and when that learned divine was afterwards engaged in drawing up his “History of the Isle of Thanet,” he applied to Mr. Denne for such information as could be collected from archbishop Parker’s Mss. in his college. He also collated Hearne’s edition of the “Textus Rorfensis,” with the original at Rochester, and transcribed the marginal additions by I ambarde, Bering, e. carefully referred to the other Mss. that contain these instruments, as Reg. Temp. Ruff, and the Cotton library, with all which he furnished the late venerable Dr. Pegge. It was evidently his intention to have written a history of the church of Rochester, and his reading and inquiry were directed to that object, which, however, he delayed until his health would not permit the necessary labour of transcription and arrangement.

, youngest son of the preceding, was born at the deanry in Westminster, Jan. 13, 1710; admitted of Corpus Christi, or Bene't college, 1748, where he proceeded B. A. 1754, M. A. 1756, and was elected F. S. A. 1783. He was presented in 1754 by the dean, and chapter of Rochester, to the vicarage of Lamberhurst, in Kent; and in 1767 to that of Wilmington, near Dartford; and the same year to the vicarage of Darent, having resigned Lamberhurst. For nearly forty years of his life he was afflicted with a bilious complaint, winch frequently interrupted his studies, and gradually impaired his constitution. For the last two months he was confined to a chair in his library, in which he was supported by a pillow, and although frequently sinking under an oppressive languor, his faculties remained entire to the last. He died Aug. 3, 1799, and was interred near his father in Rochester cathedral.

Like his father, much of his life was devoted to researches into ancient history and antiquities. The only publications of his not of this kind, were “A Letter to sir Robert Ladbroke, &,c. on the confinement of Criminals in separate apartments,” &c. 1771, and an anonymous pamphlet signed Rusticus, relative to the hardships experienced by the families of clergymen who happen to die just before the time of harvest. The “History and Antiquities of Rochester,” published by T. Fisher in 1772, was avowedly his compilation; and in 1795, he published “Historical particulars of Lambeth parish and Lambeth palace, in addition to the Histories of Dr. Ducarel in the Bibliotheca Topographica Britannica.” The works which he assisted by valuable contributions of essays, dissertations, &c. are the “Archacologia,” vols. VI. XIII.; Thorpe’s “Custumale Roffense;” Gough’s “Sepulchral Monuments;” Hasted’s Kent; “Biblioth. Topog. Britannica” Nichols’s “Illustrations of the Manners and Expences of ancient times in England” Atterbury’s “Epistolary Correspondence” the “Topographer;” Ellis’s “History of Shoreditch;” and the Gentleman’s Magazine, to which he was a very frequent contributor, from vol. XLI. to the time of his death; his signatures were T. Row, and W and D, the initials of his two livings Wilmington and Darent. Many of his as well as his father’s books, were illustrated with manuscript notes, and are now dispersed in various libraries One of these, a copy of Letsome’s “Preacher’s Assistant,” filled with additions by him and his father, is now in the possession of the rev. Robert Watts, librarian of Sion college, who is preparing a new edition of that very useful work.

, a portrait painter of considerable eminence, for minuteness of labour at least, if not of genius, was born at Hamburgh in 1685, and after studying his art at Altena and Dantzic, improved himself by copying the best pictures in the latter city, and also studied diligently after living models. His first great attempt was the portrait of Duke Christian Augustus, administrator of Holstein Gottorp, which he executed in miniature with such success as to establish his credit at that court, where he also painted, in one very large picture, twenty-one portraits of the family of that prince, and introduced his own. He was principally employed by the princes of Germany; and the king of Denmark, and George I. having seen some of his works at Hanover, promised to sit to him, if he would come over to England Denner accordingly arrived here, but succeeded so ill in the pictures of two of the king’s favourite German ladies, that he did not obtain the footing he had expected at court. His fame, however, rose very high, on his exhibiting the head of an “Old Woman,” that he brought over with him, about sixteen inches high, and thirteen wide, in which the grain of the skin, the hairs, the down, the glassy humour of the eyes, were represented with the most exact minuteness; but it gained him more applause than custom, for a man could not execute many works who employed so much time to finish them. The emperor of Germany, however, gave him six hundred ducats for the picture. He finished here an “Old Man,” as a companion to it, which he had begun at Hamburgh; and also painted himself, his wife, and children, with the same circumstantial detail. Mr. Fuseli very justly remarks of him that he was born to be a fac-similist, and not a painter. With the most anxious transcription of parts, he missed the whole, and that air of life which is the result of imitation. He left England in 1728, and died, probably in his native country, in 1747. His “Old Woman” has been exhibited, or a copy from it, within these few years in London. Lord Orford adds that “the portrait of John Frederic Weichman of Hamburgh, painted by him, is said to be in the Bodleian library at Oxford.” But in the catalogue of pictures there, this is stated to have been painted as well as given by Weichman himself.

, a poet, a political writer, and a critic, was born in the city of London in 1657. His father was a sadler, and a citizen of reputation who determining to give him a liberal education, sent him to Harrow-on-theHill, where he received his grammatical instruction under Dr. William Horn, a school-master in high esteem for piety and literature. In the eighteenth year of his age he was removed to the university of Cambridge, where he was entered of Caius college, January 13, 1675, and continued there till he took his bachelor’s degree in 1679; after which he became a member of Trinity-hall, and in 1683, was admitted to the degree of master of arts. It is related, by the author of the Biographia Dramatica, that he was expelled from college, for literally attempting to stab a person in the dark, which, has been since confirmed by Dr. Farmer, by an extract from the Gesta book of Caius college: by this it appears that he was expelled March 4, 1680, for assaulting and wounding one Glenham with a sword. This accounts for his removing to Trinity hall.

Not satisfied with obtaining the best education his own country could afford, Mr. Dennis determined to improve his understanding, and increase the extent of his knowledge abroad, and made the tour of France and Italy; in the course of which it is said that his observations on the evil effects arising from, despotic government, greatly contributed to strengthen in him those principles of whiggism, and that zeal for liberty which he had early imbibed, and which he invariably maintained to the close of his life. On fris return to England, such was the opinion entertained of his accomplishments, that he found an easy admission int the company of several of the most distinguished men of the age for genius, wit, and learning, particularly the earls of Pembroke and Mulgrave, Charles Montague, esq. afterwards earl of Halifax, Walter Moyle, esq. Mr. Wycherley, and the celebrated poets Dryden, Congreve, Southern, and Garth. All these thought highly of his talents; but certainly had not the same reason to think well of his discretion; his pride and passion hurrying him into actions which were injurious to his reputation. It is related, that on his first introduction to Charles Montague, esq. he got intoxicated with some very fine wines, to which he had not been accustomed, and becoming impatient of contradiction, suddenly rose, rushed out of the room, and overturned the sideboard of plate and glasses as he went. Next morning, seeing Mr. Moyle, he told him, that he had forgotten every thing which had happened, and desired to know in what manner he went away. “Why,” said Moyle, “You went away like the devil, and took one corner of the house with you.”

If Dennis was originally designed for any particular profession, he was probably diverted from it by the company he kept, or, having some fortune left him by an uncle, he might determine to devote himself wholly to poetry, politics, and criticism. The greater part of his poems are printed in his select works, published by him, in two volumes, in 1718. The editor of the Biographia Britannica has bestowed much unnecessary criticism on this collection of poems, few of which will bear the test, either of originality, poetic spirit, or elegance, although verses not much superior have unquestionably been admitted into Dr. Johnson’s and other bodies of English poetry. Few readers will now be disposed to make Dennis’s poetry the object of their attention. Independently of its other deficiencies, the subjects to which it was devoted were not calculated to confer upon it any lasting degree of popularity. Political, and especially panegyrical poems are only fitted to excite a temporary admiration.

As a dramatic writer, his first performance was a comedy, entitled “A Plot and no Plot, or Jacobite Credulity,” acted at the theatre royal in Drury-laue, in 1697, and intended as a satire on the party devoted to king James. In the story, Mr. Dennis justly claims the merit of original invention, and many of the scenes abound with wit; but several of the incidents are very absurd and unnatural. His second dramatic production was “Rinaldo and Armida,” a tragedy, acted at Lincoln’s-inn Fields, in 1699; the hint of the chief characters is borrowed from Tasso’s Gierusalemme. As, however, Mr. Dennis was not satisfied with the manners of that great Italian, he has taken the liberty to change them, and to form the characters according to what he apprehended to be more agreeable to the subject. The scene lies on a top of a mountain in the Canaries; and the musical entertainments that accompanied the work were composed by Mr. John Eccles, excepting a chorus in the fourth act, which is borrowed from Mr. Henry Purcell’s frost scene. Another tragedy, “Iphigenia,” was produced by our author in 1700, and brought on at the theatre in Little Lincoln’s-inn Fields, where it was condemned; but although there are undoubtedly many irregular lines in it, and perhaps some passages savour of turgidity, upon the whole, it is a pathetic and interesting performance. It must not, however, be concealed that Mr. Dennis has derived his chief excellence from Euripides’s Iphigenia in Tauris, whence his story is taken, and indeed his obligations to Euripides are so numerous, that he ought to have openly acknowledged them. With less merit than “Iphigenia,” a comedy of Mr. Dennis’s, which was produced by him in 1702, was somewhat more successful at the theatre. The title of it is, “The Comical Gallant, with the Amours of Sir John Falstaff,” a very indifferent alteration of Shakspeare’s “Merry Wives of Windsor.” When it was published, a large essay was added of taste in poetry, and the causes of its degeneracy.

In 1704, our author brought out a tragedy, entitled “Liberty asserted,” the scene of which is laid at Agnie (which name, he says, for the sake of a better sound, he has altered to Angie) in Canada; and the plot is an imagined one, from the wars carried on among the Indian nations. In the dedication to Anthony Henley, esq. Mr. Dennis owns himself to be indebted to that gentleman for “the happy hint upon which it was formed.” This was by far the most successful of all our author’s dramatic productions; having been represented many times at Lincoln’s-inn Fields with very great applause. This was probably owing, in a considerable degree, not to its own merit, but to the abuse which is plentifully scattered through it upon the French nation, which, during a season of war, was congenial to the feelings of the auditory. Its success, however, produced an odd effect on Dennis’s imagination, which was never well regulated. Thinking that the severity of the strokes against the French could never be forgiven, and consequently, that Louis XIV. would not consent to a peace with England, unless be was delivered up a sacrifice to national resentment, he carried this apprehension so far that when the congress for the peace at Utrecht was in agitation, he waited on the duke of Marlborough, who had formerly been his patron, to entreat his interest with the plenipotentiaries, that they should not consent to his being given up. With great gravity the duke informed him, that he was sorry it was out of his power to serve him, as at that time he had no connexion with the ministry, adding, that he fancied his case not to be quite so desperate as he seemed to imagine; for that, indeed, he had taken no care to get himself excepted in the articles of peace; and yet he could not help thinking that he had done the French almost as much damage as even Mr. Dennis. Another instance of our author’s terror, arising from his selfimportance, is thus related. Having been invited down to a gentleman’s house on the coast of Sussex, where he was very kindly entertained, as he was walking one day near the beach, he saw a ship sailing, as he imagined, towards him. Upon this, supposing that he was betrayed, he immediately made the best of his way to London, without even taking leave of his host, whom he believed to have been concerned in the plot against him, and to have decoyed him to his house, with no other view than to give notice to the French, who had fitted out a vessel on purpose to carry him off, if he had not luckily discovered their design.

Mr. Dennis’s next dramatic attempt was in a comedy, entitled “Gibraltar, or the Spanish Adventure;” and which was performed in 1705, at the theatre royal in Drury-lane; but without success. “Orpheus and Eurydice,” a masque, which was produced by our author in 1707, does not appear to have been acted. It is printed in the “Muse’s Mercury,” for the month of February in that year. In 1709, Mr. Dennis brought upon the stage, at Drury-lane, “Appius and Virginia,” a tragedy, which was not very successful; but is remarkable for a circumstance little connected with its literary merit. Dennis, expressly for the use of this play, had invented a new species of thunder, which was approved of by the actors, and is the sort at present used in the theatre. Some nights after his tragedy had been laid aside, Dennis being in the pit at the representation of Macbeth, heard his own thunder made use of; upon which he rose in a violent passion, and exclaimed, with an oath, that it was, his thunder. “See,” said he, “how these rascals use me They will not let my play run and yet they steal my thunder” Our author’s last dramatic production was “Coriolanus, the Invader of his country; or, The Fatal Resentment;” a tragedy, altered from Shakspeare’s Coriolanus. After it had been represented three nights, the managers Wilks, Cibber, and Booth, who were not satisfied with the profits derived from it, to the astonishment and indignation of Mr. Dennis, gave out another play for the next evening. Upon this he published his tragedy, with a dedication to the duke of Newcastle, at that time lord chamberlain of his majesty’s household, in which he has given full scope to his resentment against the patentees, and especially against Mr. Cibber. The last gentleman, instead of the author’s epilogue, had substituted one of his own, which was spoken by Mrs. Oldfield, an additional cause of offence to our poet, who, in an advertisement, has represented it as a wretched medley of impudence and nonsense; and, indeed, it does not appear to be entitled to commendation. Dennis, as already noticed, derived some fortune from an uncle; but that was probably spent in a little time. As he wrote for government when the whigs were in power, and was patronised by lord Halifax, there can be no doubt but that he occasionally received pecuniary gratifications, either from the bounty or through the interest of that nobleman. For his poem on the battle of Blenheim the duke of Marlborough rewarded him with a present of a hundred guineas. But, previously to the writing of that poem, he had experienced his grace’s patronage in a much more important instance; for the duke had procured for him the place of a waiter at the Custom-house, worth a hundred and twenty pounds a year. This office he held for six years; during which he managed his affairs with so little discretion, that, in order to discharge some pressing demands, he was obliged to dispose of his waitership. The earl of Halifax, having heard of his design, sent for him, and, in the most friendly manner, expostulated with him wpon the folly and rashness of disposing of his place, by which his lordship told him that he would soon become i beggar. In reply, our author represented the exigencies? to which he was reduced, and the importunate nature of the demands that were made upon him. The ear), however, insisted, that, if he must sell his place, he should reserve to himst-If an annuity out of it for a considerable term of years; such a term as his lordship thought Mr. Dennis was not likely to survive; yet this he did survive, and was exposed in his old age to great poverty. With such a disposition as Mr. Dennis possessed, it is not surprizing that he was often liable to arrests from his creditors. An instance of sir Richard Steele’s friendship to him in this respect he is said to have ill-repaid. Sir Richard, if the story be true, once became bail for him, and afterwards was arrested on his account; but, when he heard of it, he only exclaimed, “'Sdeath! why did he not keep out of the way, as I did?” In the latter part of our poet’s life, he resided within the verge of the court, for the security of his person, but one Saturday night, he happened to saunter to a public-house, which, in a short time, he discovered to be out of the verge. As he was sitting in an open drinking-room, a man of a suspicious appearance entered, about whom Mr. Dennis imagined there was something that denoted him to be a bailiff. Being seized with a panic, he was afraid that his liberty was now at an end, and sat in the utmost solicitude, but durst not offer to stir, lest he should be seized upon. After an hour or two had passed in this painful anxiety, at last the clock struck twelve; when Mr. Dennis, addressing himself to the suspected person, cried out in an extacy, “Now, sir, bailiff or no bailiff, I don't care a farthing for you you have no power now.” The man was astonished at his behaviour; and, when it was explained to him, was so much affronted with the suspicion, that, had not our author been protected by his age, he would probably have taken personal revenge.

On Mr. Dennis’s character as a political writer it is not necessary to enlarge. It is probable that, in this capacity, he may have been the author of several tracts, which are now forgotten, and with regard to which there would be no utility in endeavouring to rescue them from oblivion. In his select works are inserted the productions of this kind which he himself thought of the most consequence, and the most worthy of preservation. The first of them was published in 1702, and is an answer to a discourse of the famous Henry Sacheverell, called “The Political Union.' 7 Dennis’s piece is entitled” Priestcraft dangerous to Religion and Government;“and is a defence of low-church principles and toleration. In 1703 he printed” A Proposal for putting a speedy End to the War, by ruining the commerce of the French and Spaniards, and securing our own, without any additional expence to the uation.“The scheme was, to form such a junction of the English and Dutch fleets, and such a combination and disposition of a large number of smaller armed vessels, as should effectually carry into execution the purpose intended. Our author has explained his project with sufficient ingenuity; but, like many other projects which voluntary politicians have been so ready to contrive for the public good, it met with no degree of regard. Indeed, the views and measures of die then subsisting ministry were more directed to exertions by land than at sea. In 1711 he produced” An. Essay upon Public Spirit; being a Satire, in prose, upon the manners and luxury of the times, the chief sources of our present parties and divisions," a violent and not very judicious declamation against the vices of his own age, in contrast with the virtues of our remote ancestors.

The last political production of Mr. Dennis appeared in the beginning of king George the First’s reign, and is entitled, “Priestcraft distinguished from Christianity;” but this, perhaps, may rather be considered as a theological than a political work, and was principally intended to expose those high claims of churchmen, and those arbitrary principles of government, which were hostile to the interests of the house of Hanover.

We are now to consider Mr. Dennis in his critical capacity, in which he so frequently exerted himself that he came to be called the Critic, by way of distinction. For sustaining this character he was not ill qualified by his knowledge, learning, and judgment. He maintained it likewise with reputation for some time; but at length he displayed this talent with so little judgment or delicacy, and against men of such eminence and superiority, that they succeeded in reducing him to a low degree of estimation with the public. His first criticism was entitled “Observations on Blackmore’s Prince Arthur;” the third edition of which poem was printed in 1696, and which might afford sufficient scope for a variety of strictures but that in this instance he was more mild than usual, is probable, from his afterwards corresponding with sir Richard Blackmnore on very friendly terms. In 1696 or 1697, he published “Letters upon several occasions,” written partly by himself, and partly by Mr. Dryden, Mr. Wycherley, Mr. Moyle, and Mr. Congreve. The subjects of them are in some degree miscellaneous; but chiefly critical; and, among other things, they contain Mr. Congreve’s Observations concerning Humour in Comedy. A very high opinion of our author was at this time entertained by Dryden and Congreve. In 1701 he gave to the public a critical discourse, entitled “The Advancement and Reformation of modern Poetry,” divided into two parts the design of the first of which is to shew,that the principal reason why the ancients excelled the moderns in the higher species of poetry was, because they mixed religion with it. In the second, Mr. Dennis endeavours to prove, that by joining poetry with the religion revealed to us in sacred writ, the modern poets might equal the ancient. Whether he has entirely succeeded in the positions he maintains, may, perhaps, be doubtful; but he has supported them with some ingenuity and ability.

Thus far Mr. Dennis pursued his critical inquiries without giving any peculiar offence. He might, indeed, occasionally deliver with freedom his sentiments concerning the writings of his contemporaries, and in some few instances might express himself with severity. But still he did not run into such excesses as to bring on any material personal controversy, until in 1711, soon after the commencement of the Spectator, he entered into a contest with Addison, Steele, and Pope. He imagined himself to be attacked so early as in the second or third number of that paper; and was particularly displeased with the thirty-ninth and fortieth numbers, in which a doctrine was advanced, with regard to poetical justice, very different from what he had always maintained. Accordingly, he addressed a letter to the Spectator on the subject, at the conclusion of which he says, “Thus I have discussed the business of poetical justice, and shewn it to be the foundation of all tragedy; and therefore, whatever persons, whether ancient or mo dern, have written dialogues which they call tragedies, where this justice is not observed, those persons have entertained and amused the world with romantic lamentable tales, instead of just tragedies, and or' lawful fables.” That our critic was extremely anxious in support of this point, is apparent from several other parts of his works. He has particularly insisted upon it in a letter to sir Richard Blackmore on the moral and conclusion of an epic poem; and has certainly conducted his argument with great ingenuity. Another opportunity which the Spectator afforded Mr. Dennis for the exercise of his critical skill, was by the illustrations in the seventieth and seventy-fourth numbers of the ballad of Chevy Chase, though the subject was scarcely important enough to deserve an elaborate discussion of nearly thirty pages. A farther attack upon the Spectator was particularly levelled at sir Richard Steele. That gentleman, it is said, had promised our critic to take some opportunity of mentioning his works in public with advantage, and thereby of promoting his reputation. It however unfortunately happened, that Mr, Addison, who perhaps knew nothing of sir Richard’s engagement, quoted, in his paper upon Laughter, the two following lines, which he calls humourous and well-expressed, from Mr. Dennis’s translation of a satire of Boileau’s:

Mistaking this quotation for the performance of sir Richard Steele’s promise, our author published a letter to the Spectator full of resentment, and which strongly marks the irritability of his disposition. What particularly displeased him was, that some far superior specimen was not exhibited of his poetic excellence; and he pointed out a passage in his poem on the Battle of Ramillies, which he thinks might have been preferred to the forementioned couplet.

Mr. Dennis’s contest with the Spectator was speedily followed by his more unfortunate attack upon Mr. Pope; occasioned by the publication of the “Essay on Criticism.” In. that essay were some lines, which our author considered as having a reference to himself, and wrote a pamphlet, of which Dr. Johnson says, that it is such as rage might be expected to dictate. In a few instances his strictures were just; but in general his desire to do mischief was greater than his power. The only extenuation of the personal abuse he threw out against Mr. Pope was his conviction of that gentleman’s having given the first offence. “Thus,” observes Dr Johnson, “began the hostility between Popa and Dennis, ivhich, though suspended for a short time, never was appeased. Pope seems, at first, to have attacked him wantonly; but, though he always professed to despise him, he discovers, by mentioning him very often, that he felt his force or his venom.” Dennis afterwards criticized several of Mr. Pope’s other poems; but without success; and that he should upon that account have a place assigned to him in the “Dunciacl,” is no more than what might have been expected. He took his revenge, such as it was, by writing against the “Rape of the Lock,” remarking that the machinery is superfluous; and that, by all the bustle of preternatural operation, the main event is neither has-, tened nor retarded; but the “Rape of the Lock” was not to be thus assailed, and Dennis never discharged his critical artillery with less effect. What, indeed, could be more ridiculous, than his pretending to find a latent meaning in the incidents of this inimitable poem, and therefore accusing Pope of being an enemy to his king and country? This, liuwever, produced a piece of exquisite humour, “The Key to the Lock.”

In 1713, Mr. Addison’s Cato was produced upon the stage with a degree of applause, which, we believe, was never before given to any dramatic composition. But though the play was acted in the cause of whiggism, and Dennis himself was so zealous a whig, he could not bear the success with which it was attended. That in this hewas actuated by personal animosity, cannot be denied; since it is acknowledged by himself, in a letter to the duke of Buckingham, that the motive which induced him to write his remarks upon Cato was, his having been attacked in several numbers of the Spectator. His principle of action we condemn; but the abilities with which he has executed his purpose are unquestionable, “He found,” says Dr. Johnson, “and shewed many faults: he shewed them, indeed, with anger; but he found them with acutejncss, such as ought to rescue his criticism from oblivion;” and Dr. Johnson has thought a large extract from this pamphlet worthy of transcription into his Life of Add son, who himself maintained a profound silence. Pope, however, took upon him to avenge his cause, in a pamphlet entitled “The Narrative of Dr. Robert Norris, concerning the strange and deplorable frenzy of Mr. John Dennis, an officer in the custom house,” a piece of humour which does little credit to Pope’s heart, and must excite the disapprobation of every benevolent mind. Pope, however, left Dennis’s objections to Cato in their full force, “and therefore discovered more desire of vexing the critic, than of defending the poet. Addison, who was no stranger to the world,” says Dr. Johnson, “probably saw the selfishness of Pope’s friendship; and resolving that he should have the consequences of his officiousness to himself, informed Dennis by Steele, that he was sorry for the insult; and that whenever he should think fit to answer his remarks, he would do it in a manner to which nothing could be objected.” Mr. Dennis, having been successful in displaying the faults of Cato, with regard to the probability of the action, and the reasonableness of the plan, proceeded, in the pride of conquest, to attack the sentiments of the play in seven letters. But here his strictures are, in general, trifling and insignificant; containing such petty cavils, and minute objections, as the malignity of criticism, united with some degree of sagacity, might be capable of exercising against the most perfect productions of the human mind.

In 1718, Mr. Dennis published, in two volumes, 8vo, his “Select Works;” and printed, likewise, in the same year, by subscription, in two volumes, large 8vo, “Original Letters, familiar, moral, and critical,” a collection which does credit to our author’s abilities. Among the pieces not yet mentioned, he has made some ingenious remarks upon the vis comica, with the want of which Terence was charged by Julius Caesar; and there are several other disquisitions that are not unworthy of a perusal. In a letter to Mr. Jacob Tonson, senior, on the conspiracy against the reputation of Mr. Dryden, our author has manifested a high regard for the honour of that great poet. The character, however, which Mr. Dennis gives of himself, in the same letter, is very different from what the public, both at that time and ever since, has entertained. “Whatever,” says he, “the mistaken world may think, I am always willing to be pleased; nay, am always as greedy of pleasure as any Epicurean living; and whenever I am naturally touched, I give myself up to the first impression, and never look for faults.”

The relief which Mr. Dennis obtained by these publications, though considerable, was not permanent. Being much distressed very near the close of his life, it was proposed to act a play for his benefit, and Thomson, Mallet, Mr. Benjamin Martin, and Pope, took the lead upon the occasion. The play, which was “The Provoked Husband,” was represented at the Little Theatre in the Haymarket, December 18, 1733; and Pope wrote a prologue, which was spoken by Theophilus Cibber. Dennis had at this time become blind; Mr. Pope’s benevolence was not so pure as could be wished; for his prologue was throughout a sneer upon the poor old critic, who happily, either from vanity, or the decay of his intellects, did not perceive its tendency. Warburton styled it “benevolent irony.” Mr. Dennis survived this assistance only twenty days, dying on the 6th of January, 1733-4, in the seventyseventh year of his age.

The character of Mr. Dennis must in general be sufficiently apparent from what has already been said. Illnature has been ascribed to him with too much shew of reason; though perhaps it belonged to him more as a writer than as a man. In a letter to a friend he has endeavoured to vindicate himself from the charge; but not, we think, with entire success. This at least is certain, from several transactions, that he was very irritable in his temper. Till he was five and forty, he was intimately conversant with the first men of the age, both with respect to rank and abilities; and when he retired from the world, he continued to preserve some honourable connections. Such was the estimation in which he was held, that he experienced the patronage of gentlemen whose political principles were extremely different from his own. George Granville, esq. in particular, afterwards lord Lansdowne, behaved to him with distinguished generosity, as did the earl of Pembroke, bishop Atterbury, and sir Robert Walpole.

, knt. one of the gentlemen of the privy chamber to king Henry VIII., was the second son of Thomas Denny, of Cheshunt, in the county of Hertford, esq. by Elizabeth, daughter of Thomas Mannock. He had his education in St. Paul’s school, London, under the celebrated grammarian Lilly; and afterwards in St. John’s college, Cambridge; in both which places he so improved himself, that he became an excellent scholar, as well as a person of great worth. His merit having made him known at court, he was constituted by Henry VIII. one of the gentlemen of the bed-chamber, groom of the stole, and a privy counsellor; and likewise received the honour of knighthood from that prince; with whom being in great favour, he raised a considerable estate on the ruins of the dissolved monasteries. In 1537, Henry gave him the priory of Hertford, together with divers other lands and manors; and in 1539, Dec. 15, the office of steward of the manor of Bedwell and Little Berkhamstead, in Herts; besides which sir Anthony also obtained the manor of Buttenvick, in the parish of St. Peter in St. Alban’s, the manors of the rectory and of the nunnery, in the parish of Cheshunt; and of Great Amwell, all in the county of Hertford. In 1541, there was a large grant made to him by act of parliament, of several lands that had belonged to the abbey of St. Alban’s, lately dissolved; and not content with all this, he found means to procure a thirty-one years’ lease of the many large and rich demesnes that had been possessed by Waltham-abbey, in Essex; of which his lady purchased aftenvards the reversion. In 1544 the king gave him the advantageous wardship of Margaret, the only daughter and heir of Thomas lord Audley, deceased. On the 31st of August, 1546, he was commissioned, with John Gate and William Clerk, esquires, to sign all warrants in the king’s name. Though somewhat rapacious, he was liberal; in this reign he did eminent service to the great school of Sedberg in Yorkshire, belonging to the college wherein he had received his education; the building being fallen to decay, and the lands appropriated thereto sold and embezzled, he caused the school to be repaired, and not only recovered, but also settled the estate so firmly, as to prevent all future alienations. He was also a more faithful servant than his brother courtiers, for when Henry VIII. was on his death-bed, he had the courage to put him in mind of his approaching end, and desired him to raise his thoughts to heaven, to think of his past life, and to call on God for mercy through Jesus Christ. So great an opinion had that capricious monarch of him, that he appointed him one of the executors of his will, and one of the counsellors to his son and successor Edward VI. and hequeathed him a legacy of 300l. He did not live long after this; for he died in 1.550. By his wife Joan, daughter of sir Philip Champeruon, of Modbury, in Devonshire, a lady of great beauty and parts, he had six children; of whom, Henry, the eldest, was father of Edward Denny, knighted in 1589, summoned to parliament in 1605, and advanced Oct. 24, 1626, to the dignity of earl of Norwich. Of sir Anthony Denny’s personal character, one of his contemporaries informs us, that his whole time and cares were employed about religion, learning, and the care of the public, and has highly commended him for his prudence and humanity. He was the early friend and patron of Matthew Parker, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury. The learned Henry Howard, earl of Surrey, wrote an excellent epitaph for him some years before his decease; tfnd sir John Cheke, who had a great esteem for him, honoured his memory with an elegant heroic poem.

, was born at Nicosia, in the island of Cyprus, of one of the principal families in that country, and which, according to his account, was originally from Normandy. When Cyprus was taken by the Turks in 1570, he lost all his property, and retired into Italy, where he had before made some stay; and, settling at Padua, was appointed professor of moral philosophy, 1577. He died in that city, 1590, of grief, occasioned by the banishment of his only son, who had killed a noble Venetian in a quarrel. Denores was well acquainted with the peripatetic philosophy, and had a superstitious veneration for Aristotle. He engaged in a dispute with Guarini about pastoral tragi-comedies, and published a great number of his own works; some in Latin, some in Italian. Possevin esteems his rhetoric. His Italian works are, “Poetica,” Padua, 1588, 4to; “Dell'ottima republica,” Venice, 1578, 4to, which he models by that of Venice. “Del Mondo,” Venice, 1571, 8vo; “Delia Retorica,” Venice, 1584, 4to. His Latin works are, “Institutio in Philosuphiam Ciceronis,” Patavii, 1576, 8vo; “De arte dicendi,” Venetiis,“1553, 8vo; Parisiis, 1554, 8vo.” De Constitutione Philosophise Aristotelis,“Patavii, 1584, 4to and” In Epistolam Q. Horatii de Avte Poetica," Venice, 1553, 8vo Paris, 1554, 8vo, the first and preferable edition, but both are very rare.

, an English divine, author of some small controversial pieces, was born in 1625, and educated at Clare-hall, Cambridge, and was admitted sizar and pupil to Mr. David Clarkson, on the 4th of May, 1646, as appears from the register of the college. He was ejected by the act of uniformity in 1662, from the living of Oswaldkirk, near Helmsley, in Yorkshire, and not from that of Bolton, as Dr. Calamy affirms in his account, p. 818, who has rectified that mistake in his Continuation, p. 950, though, as it seems, without knowing that it was a mistake, it being indeed Mr. Nathan, and not Mr. John Denton, who was ejected from Bolton upon Dearn, or more properly Darwent. Mr. John Denton afterwards conformed; and being re-ordained by Dr. Thomas Barlow, bishop of Lincoln, was collated to the living of Stonegrave, within two miles of Osvvaldkirk, and a prebend of the church of York, both which he held till his death, January 4, 1708, in the eighty-third year of his age, as is evident from the inscription on his tomb-stone in the church of Stonegrave, in which living he was succeeded by his son, Mr. Robert Denton, who was educated at Catherine-hall, in Cambridge, and died about 1748. Mr. John Denton having contracted an intimate friendship with Mr. Tillotson, at Clare-hall, they kept up a constant correspondence during his grace’s life.

, a clergyman who is entitled to a place in this Dictionary, as having been a contributor to the first edition of it, was born at Sebergbam, in Cumberland, of an ancient family, in 1724, and was educated under the rev. Josiah Ralph, of whose poems he superintended a handsome edition published by subscription. From school he went to Queen’s-college, Oxford, when be took his master’s degree June 16, 1752. On leaving college, he became curate to the rev. Dr. Graham, of Netherby, at Arthuret, and Kirkandrews; and here he printed a local poem, entitled “Gariston,” which is now scarce a as he only circulated a few copies among his friends. In 1753, Dr. Graham removed him to be his curate at Ashted, in Surrey, in which living, upon the doctor’s resignation, Mr. Demon succeeded him. He died here June 27, 1777, leaving three sons and four daughters. As he had had no opportunity to make much provision for this family, the late lord Suffolk generously gave his widow the next presentation to the living, which bounty was so well managed by a judicious friend, as to secure a very comfortable annuity to her and her children. Mr. Denton was a man of unassuming, modest manners; serene and placid, rather than cheerful; and a facetious man, rather than a man of humour. In discharging the duties of his profession, he was exemplarily decent, and his parishioners loved him when living, and lamented him dead. Early in life he reformed, and published a very useful manual of devotions, entitled “Religions retirement for one day in every month,” from the original of Gother, a popish writer. This he undertook “to free from the peculiarities of the Romish church, and to fit it for the use of Protestants.” He is, however, better known by two well-written poems, “Immortality, or the Consolation of human life, a Monody,” printed separately in 4to, 1755, and afterwards reprinted in Dodsley’s Collection; and “The House of Superstition,” a vision, 1762, 4to, afterwards prefixed by Mr. Gilpin to his “Lives of the Reformers.” In both he has proved himself no unsuccessful imitator of the style of Spenser. He also compiled the supplemental volume to the first edition of the Biographical Dictionary, in which the lives are given with equal candour and accuracy.

, the youngest son of sir T. Denton, of Hillesden, in Buckinghamshire, was born at Stow, in April 1605. He received his education at Magdalenhall, in Oxford, where he was initiated into the practice of medicine, under Dr. Henry Ashworth. In 1634 he took his degree of doctor, and going to reside in London, he was appointed physician to the king Charles I. in 1636, and attended his majesty to Scotland in 1639. During the troubles which succeeded, he continued to practise in London, without interfering in the factions of the time; and on the restoration of Charles II. was made one of his physicians in ordinary, and was soon after admitted fellow of the college of physicians. He lived to the accession of king William and queen Mary, to whom, in 168D, he dedicated “Jus Regiminis,” being a jnsiiticntion of defensive arms in general, shewing that the revolution was the just right of the kingdom. He died at his house in Coventgarden, on the yth of May, 1691, and was buried at Hillesden. His daughter was married to George Nicholas, son of sir Edward Nicholas, sometime secretary of state under the kings Charles I. and II. His works are all on political subjects 1. “Horie Subseciva?, or a treatise shewing the original, grounds, reasons, and provocations, necessitating our sanguinary Laws against Papists, made in the days of queen Elizabeth,” 1664, 4to. 2. “The Burnt Child dreads the Fire, or an examination of the merits of the Papists, relating to England, mostly from their own pens, in justification of the late act of parliament for preventing dangers which may happen from popish recusants,” London, 1675, 4to, 3. “Jus Cassaris et Ecclesiae vere dicta?,” 1681, fol. to which he added, on a single sheet, “An Apology for the Liberty of the Press”

D‘Kon (Chevalier de). This extraordinary person, who is styled in the register of St. Pancras, where he was buried, Charles Genevieve Louise Auguste Andre Timothee D’Eon de Beaumont, is now known to have been the son of a gentleman of an ancient and respectable family at Tonnerre in Burgundy, where he was born Oct. 2, 1728. Although the register of his baptism, which bears date Oct. 5, distinctly states the child to have been a male, some have conceived that the sex was originally doubtful, and that family reasons induced the parents, who had not long before the birth of the chevalier lost their then only son, to educate the infant as one of that sex to which nature eventually proved that he belonged. In the early part of his life, he was educated under his father’s roof, whence at the age of thirteen, he was removed to the Mazarin college at Paris. He had scarcely finished his studies, when the sudden death of his father, and of an uncle from whom the family had great expectations, left him doubly an orphan, and threw him on the world dependent on his own exertions for advancement. He was, however, at this period fortunate in obtaining the patronage of the prince de Conti, who had long known and esteemed his father, and by the prince’s means was introduced to Louis XV. who presented him with a cornetcy of dragoons. Soon after this b'Eon was placed in the onHce of mons. Bertier de Savigny, intendant of the generalit of Paris, where he gave great satisfaction to his superiors, by the industry and talent he displayed in the office, and gained considerable credit by one or two small publications on finance.

In 1755 he was employed under the chevalier Douglas, in transacting a negociation of the most delicate and important nature at the court of Petersburg!), by which, after many years suspension of all intercourse, a reconciliation was effected between the courts of France and Russia. After some years residence at Petersburg!], D‘Eon joined his regiment, then serving under marshal Broglio on the Rhine, and during the campaign of 1762, acted as aid-ducamp to that celebrated olKcer. When the duke de Nivernois came over to England, as ambassador, to negociate the peace of 1763, D’Eon appeared as his secretary; and so far procured the sanction of the government of England, that he was requested to carry over the ratiticat.on of the treaty between the British court and that of Versailles, in consequence of which the French king invested him with the order of St. Louis. He had also behaved, in the character of secretary, so much to the satisfaction of the duke, that that nobleman, upon his departure for France, in May 1763, procured D‘Eon to be appointed minister-pleriiputeutiary in his room. In October following, however, the count de Guerchy having arrived here as ambassador from the court of Versailles, the chevalier received orders, or rather was requested, to act as secretary or assistant to the new ambassador. This, we are told, mortified him to such a degree, that, asserting that the letter of recall, which accompanied it, was a forgery, he refused to deliver it; and by this step drew on himself the censure of his court. On this, either with a view of exculpating himself, or from a motive of revenge, he published a succinct account of all the negociations in which he had been engaged, exposed some secrets of the French court, and rather than spare. his enemies, revealed some things greatly to the prejudice of his best friends. Among other persons very freely treated in this publication was the count de Guerchy, for which D’Eon was prosecuted and convicted in the court of King’s Bench, in July 1764. It was but natural that this conduct should draw down the resentment of the court of France, and the chevalier either feared or affected to fear the greatest danger to his person. Reports were spread, very probahly by himself, that persons were sent over here to apprehend him secretly, and carry him to France. On this occasion he wrote four letters, complaining of these designs, as known to him by undoubted authority. The one he sent to lord chief justice Mansfield, the second to the earl of Bute, the third to earl Temple, and the fourth to Mr Pitt. Of these personages he requested to know, whether, as he had contracted no debt, and behaved himself in all things as a dutiful subject, he might not kill the first man who should attempt to arrest him, &c. In March 1764 he took a wiser step to provide for his safety, if there had been any cause for his fears, by indicting the count de Guerchy for a conspiracy against his life, but this came to nothing; and the chevalier, not having surrendered himself to the court of King’s-bench to receive judgment for the libel on the count de Guerchy, was, in June 1765, declared outlawed. The chevalier, however, still continued in England until the death of Louis XV.

About the year 1771, certain doubts respecting his sex, which had previously been started at Petersburgh, became the topic of conversation, and, as usual in this country, the subject of betting; and gambling policies ef assurance to a large amount were effected on his sex; and in 1775, more policies on the same question were effected. In July 1777, an action was brought on one of these before lord Mansfield. The plaintiff was one Hayes, a surgeon, and the defendant Jaques a broker, for the recovery of 700l.; Jacques having some time before received premiums of fifteen guineas per cent, for every one of which he stood engaged to return an hundred, whenever it should be proved that the chevalier was a woman. Two persons, Louis Le Goux, a surgeon, and de Morande, the editor of a French newspaper, positively swore that D'Eon was a woman. The defendant’s counsel pleaded that the plaintiff, at the time of laying the wager, was privy to the fact, and thence inferred that the wager was unfair. Lord Mansfield, however, held that the wager was fair, but expressed his abhorrence of the whole transaction. No attempt having been made to contradict the evidence of the chevalier’s being a woman, which is now known to be false, Hayes obtained a verdict with costs. But the matter was afterwards solemnly argued before lord Mansfield in the court of King’s-bench, and the defendant pleading a late act of parliament for non-payment, it was admitted to be binding, by which decision all the insurers in this shameful transaction were deprived of their expected gains. In the mean time, the chevalier, who was now universally regarded as a woman, was accused by his enemies as having been an accomplice in these gambling transactions, and a partaker of the plunder. In consequence of repeated attacks of this nature he left England in August 1777, having previously asserted in a newspaper his innocence of the fraud, and referred to a former notice, inserted by him in the papers in 1775, in which he had cautioned all persons concerned not to pay any sums due on the policies which had been effected on the subject of his sex, and declared that he would controvert the evidence exhibited on the above trial, if his master should give him leave to return to England. It is in vain now to inquire why he should delay for a moment disproving what a moment would have been sufficient to disprove.

On his return to France, however, we find him confirming the rumours against him by assuming the female dress. In excuse for this we are told that this was not a matter of choice, but insisted on by the French court, and submitted to on his part with much reluctance. Monstrous as this absurdity seems to be on the part of the French government, it is now ascertained that whilst the business of the policies was going on in this country, the celebrated Caron de Beaumarchais was actually employed by that government in negociating with D‘Eon, not only for the delivery of some state-papers in his possession, and his return to France, but for the immediate assumption of the female dress and character. When D’Eon returned to France, he shewed no disposition to comply with the wishes or injunctions of his royal master, but continued for some time to wear the military uniform; and it was not till after an imprisonment of some weeks in the castle of Dijon, that the apprehension of consequences still more unpleasant, and on the other hand, a promise of the most substantial marks of court favour, induced him to assume the female character and garb, which having once adopted, he ever after continued to support, maintaining the most inviolable secrecy on the subject of his sex to the day of his death. In consequence of this compliance with the pleasure of his court, the peusion formerly granted by Louis XV. was continued, with permission to retain the cross of St. Louis; a most flattering acknowledgment was made of past services, civil and military, and the metamorphosed chevalier was even appointed to a situation in the household of the queen of France.

In 1785 he returned to England, where he continued to reside till his death. He was deprived of his pension in consequence of the French revolution, although in June 1792, he presented a petition to the national assembly (as madame D‘Eon) desiring to be employed in their service as a soldier, to have his seniority in the army, and permission to raise a legion of volunteers for the service of his country. This petition was probably disregarded, as he remained in England, where his circumstances became embarrassed. For a few years he gained a subsistence by the sale of part of his effects, and by a public exhibition of his skill in fencing, which was the greater object of curiosity, from the general belief that it was a female performance. When incapable of these exertions by years and infirmities, ho was relieved by occasional contributions. For the two last years, he scarcely ever quitted his bed, his health gradually declined, and at length an extreme state of debility ensued, which terminated in his death, May 21, 1810. Immediately after, the corpse being examined by professional gentlemen and others, was discovered to be that of a man, yet it is said that there were peculiarities in his person which rendered the doubts that had so long subsisted respecting his sex the less extraordinary, and appeared to have given facility to his occasional assumption of the female character before his final adoption of it. He had assumed the female character at Petersburg!! for the purposes of political intrigue about the year 1750, when only twenty-two years of age, and had occasionally adopted it during his first residence in England; but it may be doubted whether all this will be sufficient to explain the mysteries of the chevalier’s conduct, or the more strange conduct of the court of France. The chevalier D’Eon, who was distinguished as a scholar, and was well acquainted with the ancient and most of the modern languages, had a very valuable library, part of which he sold for the roller' of his necessities, and part has been sold since his death. His works according to the Diet. Historique are: l. “JMemoires,” 8vo and 4to, relative to his disputes with the count de Guerchy. 2. “Histoire des Papes.” 3. “Histoire politique.de la Pologne.” 4. “Recherches sur les royaumesde Naples etdeSicile.” 5. “Recherches sur le Commerce et la Navigation.” 6. “Pensees sur le Celibat, et les maux qu'il cause a la France,” against the celibacy of the French clergy. 7. “Memoires sur la Rus-sie ct son Commerce avcc les Anglois.” 8. “Histoire d'Eudoxie Feeclerona.” 9. “Observations sur le royaimie d'Angleterre, son government, ses grands officiers,” &c. 10. “Details sur l‘Ecosse, sur les possessions de l’Angleterre en Amerique.” 11. “Sur la regie de bles en France, les mendians, les domains des rois,” c. 12. “Details sur toutes les Parties des Finances de France.” 13. “Situation de la France dans Plnde avant la paix de 1763.” 14. “Loisirs du Chevalier D'Eon,” 1775, 13 vols. 8vo, a brief statistical account or' the principal countries in Europe. He left behind some Mss. among which are ample materials for a life of himself. These are now in the hands of a gentleman who is preparing them for publication, and who communicated some particulars to Mr. Lysons, of which we have partly availed ourselves in this sketch. This intended biographer concludes a very favourable character of the chevalier in these words: “In religion, Mons. D‘Eon was a sincere catholic, but divested of all bigotry: few were so well acquainted with the biblical writings, or devoted more time to the study of religious subjects. The shades in his character were, the most inflexible tenacity of disposition, and a great degree of pride and self-opinion; a general distrust and suspicion of others; and a violence of temper which could brook no opposition. To these ’failings may be traced the principal misfortunes of his life; a life in which there was much labour and suffering, mixed with very little repose.” The French editor of his life, in noticing the poverty in which he died, adds, that it does him the more honour as he had refused the offers of the English government to turn their manifestoes against his country into French.

, an excellent philosopher and divine, was born at Stoughton near Worcester, Nov. 26, 1657; and educated in grammar-learning at Ulockley in. that county. In May 1675 he was admitted of Trinity college, Oxford and when he took his degree of B. A. was already distinguished for his learning and exemplary character. He was ordained deacon by Compton bishop of London, in May 1681; priest by Ward bishop of Salisbury, in July 1682; and was the same month presented to the vicarage of Wargrave in Berkshire. August 1689, he was presented to the valuable rectory of Upminster in Essex: which living, lying at a moderate distance from London, afforded him an opportunity of conversing and corresponding with the most eminent philosophers of the nation. Here in a retirement suitable to his contemplative and philosophical temper, he applied himself with great eagerness to the study of nature, and to mathematics and experimental philosophy; in which he became so eminent, that in 1702 he was chosen F. R. S. He proved one of the most useful and industrious members of this society, frequently publishing in the Philosophical Transactions curious observations and valuable pieces, as may be seen by their Index. In his younger years he published separately, “The artificial Clock-maker; or, a treatise of watch and clock-work, shewing to the meanest capacities the art of calculating numbers to all sorts of movements; the way to alter clock-work; to make chimes, and set them to musical notes; and to calculate and correct the motion of pendulums. Also numbers for divers movements: with the ancient and modern history of clockwork; and many instruments, tables, and other matters, never before published in any other book.” The fourth edition of this book, with large emendations, was published in 1734, 12mo. In 1711 and 1712 he preached “Sixteen Sermons” at Boyle’s lectures; which, with suitable alterations in the form, and notes, he published in 1713 under the title “Physico-theology; or, a demonstration of the beine: and attributes of God from his works of creation,” 8vo. In pursuance of the same design, he published, in 1714, “Astro-theology or, a demonstrationof the being and attributes of God from a survey of the heavens,” illustrated with copper-plates, 8vo. These works, the former especially, have been highly and justly valued, translated into French and several other languages, and have undergone several editions. In 1716 he was made a canon of Windsor, being at that time chaplain to the prince of Wales; and in 1730 received the degree of D. D. from the university of Oxford by diploma, on account of his learning, and the services he had done to religion by his culture of natural knowledge “Ob libros,” as the terms of the diploma run, “ab ipso editos, quibus physicam & mathesin auctiorem reddidit, & ad religionem veramque fidem exornandam revocavit.” When Eleazer Albin published his natural history of birds and English insects, in 4 vols. 4to, with many beautiful cut?, it was accompanied with very curious notes and observations by our learned author. He also revised the “Miscellanea Curiosa,” published in three volumes, 1726, 8vo. He next published “Christo-theology or, a demonstration of the divine authority of the Christian religion, being the substance of a sermon preached at Bath, Nov. 2, 1729, and published at the earnest request of the auditory, 1730,” 8vo. The last work of his own composition was “A Defence of the Churches right in Leasehold Estates. In answer to a book called ‘An Inquiry into the customary estates and TenantRights of those who hold lands of the Church and other Foundations,’ published under the name of Everard Fleetwood, esq.” 1731, 8vo. But, besides his own, he published some pieces of Mr. Ray, and gave new editions of others, with great additions from the author’s own Mss. To him the world is likewise indebted for the “Philosophical Experiments and observations of the late eminent Dr. Robert Hooke, and other eminent virtuosos in his time, 1726,” 8vo; and he communicated to the royal society several pieces, which he received from his learned correspondents.

This great and good man having thus spent his life, making all his researches subservient to the cause of religion and virtue, died, in his 78th year, April 5, 1735, at Upminster, where he was buried. He left behind him a valuable collection of curiosities; among the rest, a specimen of insects, and of most kinds of birds in this island, of which he had preserved the male and female. It may be necessary just to observe, that Dr. Derham was very well skilled in medical as well as physical knowledge; and was constantly a physician to the bodies as well as souls of his parishioners.

The late Dr. Kippis, in his additions to the life of this excellent man, says, “It sometimes happens that clergymen of the greatest wisdom, learning, and merit, are far from being good preachers. Dr. Derham is understood to have made but a very poor figure in this respect; and to his other defects in the pulpit, was added some disadvantage with regard to his person, for he was wry-necked.” Lord Kaimes accuses Dr. Derham of not having paid sufficient attention to one subject which properly came before him in his *' Physico-theology,“namely, the natural history of animals with relation to pairing, and the care of their progeny.” M. Buffon,“says he,” in many large volumes, bestows scarcely a thought on that favourite subject, and the neglect of our countrymen, Ray and Derham, is still less excusable, considering that to display the conduct of Providence was the sole purpose of their writing natural history." This defect lord Kaimes has endeavoured to supply by some ingenious observations of his own: which, however, he considers as hints merely tending to excite farther curiosity.

, a puritan divine of the sixteenth century, was a native of the county of Kent, and related to the Derings of Surrenden. He was educated at Christ’s college, Cambridge, of which he was chosen fellow ia 1668, and then took his degree of bachelor of divinity. The year before, according to Mr. Cole, he was admitted lady Margaret’s professor of divinity. He was also one of the preachers at St. Paul’s, and in 1569 obtained the rectory of Pluckley in the diocese of Canterbury, and became chaplain to the duke of Norfolk. On Dec. 20, 1571, he was presented by the queen to the prebend of Chardstoke in the cathedral of Salisbury. He was much celebrated for his eloquence in the pulpit, and for his general learning and acuteness as a disputant, of which last he gave a proof, in a work written against the popish Dr. Harding, entitled “A Sparing Restraint of many lavish Untruths,” &c. 1568, 4to. But at length he not only adopted the sentiments of Cartwright and others on the subject of habits and ceremonies, but contended in the pulpit for the entire change of church government by bishops, &c. for which he was, after a long examination and controversy, suspended from preaching in 1573. Strype has given a particular account of his prosecution and answers. He died June 26, 1576, lamented for his piety and usefulness. But he appears to have carried his resistance to the established religion to a greater height than most of his brethren, and did not spare the queen herself. Once when preaching before her majesty, he told her, that when she was persecuted by queen Mary, her motto was tanquam ovis (“like a sheep”), but now it might be tanquam indomita juvjenca (“like an untamed heifer”). The queen, however, retained so much of her milder character as only to forbid his preaching at court; to which Neal, who quotes Fuller for this anecdote, adds that “he lost all his preferments in the church,” although no such words are to be found in Fuller. His principal works are, 1. a A Lecture or Exposition upon a part of the fifth chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews, as it was read in St. Paul’s, Dec. 6, 1572,“Lond. 1581, Itnno. This work was extended to” Twenty-seven Lectures or Readings upon part of that Epistle,“1576. 2.” A Sermon preached before the Queen’s Majesty, Feb. 25, 1569,“Lond. 1584. 3.” A Sermon preached at the Tower of London, Dec. 11, 1569,“ibid. 158-k These three are noticed, with extracts, in the Bibliographer, vol. I. 4.” Certain godly and comfortable Letters, full of Christian consolation," &c. no date, 4to, all which, with some other tracts of Dering’s, were collected and printed in one vol. 8vo, by Field in 1595. His correspondence with lord Burleigh may be seen in Strype’s Annals.

, a young man who acquired a short-lived reputation as a poet, was born in the south of Ireland, January 1775. His father, who was a schoolmaster at Ennis for some years, is said to have employed his son, when only in his ninth year, in the situation of Greek and Latin assistant at his own school, and to increase the wonder, we are told time he had written as much genuine poetry at ten, as either Cowley, Milton, or Pope had produced at nearly double that age. At ten, too, he. ran away to Dublin, where he acquired the patronage of a Dr. Houlton, in whose house he resided about ten weeks, giving astonishing proofs of his acquaintance with the Greek and Roman classics, and producing poetical translations ad aperturam libri. This gentleman, when obliged himself to leave Dublin, gave him some money, which he soon spent, and wandered through the streets without a settled home, until he found an asylum with a scene-­painter belonging to the theatre. The scene-painter introduced him to the players, and some attempts were laudably made by them to place him in a situation where he might prosecute his studies; but the depravity of his disposition appears to have been as early wonderful as his poetical talents. The latter, however, procured him one patron after another, all of whom he disgusted by his ingratitude and licentious conduct. At length, abandoned by every person of character, he entered as a private in the 108th regiment, commanded by the earl of Granard, and behaving with some decency under the check of military discipline, he was progressively advanced to the ranks of corporal and serjeant; and in September 1794, in the nineteenth year of his age, embarked with the regiment for England. He accompanied it afterwards abroad in the expedition under the earl of Moira, and appears to have behaved so well, that his lordship promoted him to a second-lieutenancy in the waggon corps, but on the reduction of this army, Dermody was put on the half-pay list.

He now came to London, and soon dissipated his money and other supplies which lord Moira generously contributed, in the same low vices he had practised in Ireland, until he was arrested, and sent to the Fleet prison. From this situation lord Moira released him, with a threat, however, tp withdraw his protection, unless he amended his conduct: but all admonition was in vain. Dermody could feel his disappointments for the moment, but there does not appear to have been a corner in his heart for repentance. His resources being now exhausted, he took shelter in a garret in Stratton-street, Westminster, where he represents himself as “stabbed by the murd'rous arts of men,” although he had found a kind friend in every man to whom he was known, and had mocked the liberality of every friend he found. His biographer, Mr. Raymond, relieved him on this occasion, and assisted him in the publication of a volume of poems. “The zeal,” says that gentleman) “of the few friends who were now acquainted with his distresses, soon procured him a number of advocates. His story became extensively known; and among the arbiters of wit, and the admirers of poetical compositions, his talents and situation were frequent subjects of discourse. The force of his genius was universally ac-r knowledged; and from many who interested themselves in his behalf, he reaped more solid advantages than praise and admiration. But neither poverty, experience, nor the contempt of the world, had yet taught him prudence: he had no sooner excited their compassion, and profited by their generosity, than he neglected their advice.” He thus went on from one scene of low depravity to another, until his constitution was undermined; and at length, wasted with disease, the consequence of habitual intemperance, he died at an obscure hovel near Sydenham, July 15, 1802, in the twenty-eighth year of his age.

Dermody’s first publication was a small volume of poems, written in his thirteenth year, and printed in 1792. In 1793 he published a pamphlet on the subject of the French revolution, entitled “The Rights of Justice, or Rational Liberty,” to which was annexed a poem called “The Reform.” At this time, we are told, “his state became so desperate that he would have undertaken to defend or promote any cause which promised to afford the least immediate supply.” During his residence in London, he published a volume of poems in 1800, a second in 1801; and afterwards a poem called “The Battle of the Bards,” occasioned by the rencounter between Dr. Wolcot, alias Peter Pindar, and a brother bard. In 1806, Mr. James Grant Raymond published 2 vols. cr. 8vo, “The Life of Thomas Dermody,” to which we are indebted for the particulars in the above sketch.

, a native of Ireland, was born in 1724. Being intended for trade, he was some time placed with a linen-draper in Dublin; but disliking his business, he quitted it and his country about 1751, and commenced author in London. Soon after he arrived at the metropolis, he indulged an inclination which he had imbibed for the stage, and appeared in the character of Gloucester in “Jane Shore,” but with so little success, that he never repeated the experiment. After this attempt he subsisted chiefly by his writings; but being of an expensive disposition, running into the follies and excesses of gallantry and gaming, he lived almost all his time the slave of dependence, or the sport of chance. His acquaintance with people of fashion, on beau Nash’s death, procured him at length a more permanent subsistence. He was chosen to succeed that gentleman in his offices of master of the ceremonies at Bath and Tunbridge. By the profits of these he might have been enabled to place himself with ceconomy in a less precarious state; but his want of conduct continued after he was in the possession of a considerable income, by which means he was at the time of his death, March 7, 1769, as necessitous as he had been at any period of his life. He translated one piece from the French of the king of Prussia, called “Sylla,” a dramatic entertainment, 1753, 8vo; “A Voyage to the Moon,” from the French of Bergerac, 1753; “Memoirs of the Count de Beauval,” from the French of the marquis d'Argens,“1754, 12mo;” The third Satire of Juvenal translated intoJEnglish VC.rse,“1755, 4to and he edited an edition of Dryclen’s poetical works, with a life and notes, 1762, 4 vols. ^vo, a beautifully printed work, which had very little success. In 1759 he published a” View of the Stage,“under the na^e of Wilkes in 1762,” The Battle of Lora,“a poem in 1763,” A Collection of Voyages,“2 vols. 12mo, and some other compilations, with and without his name, which, indeed, in ibe literary world, was of little consequence. The most amffsing of his works, was his” Letters written from Liverpool, CilSSter, &c." 2 vols. 12mo. Derrick lived rather to amuse than instruct the public, and his vanity and absurdities were for many years the standing topics of the newspaper wits. A few, not unfavourable, anecdotes of Derrick are given in Boswell’s Life of Johnson.

, an eminent experimental philosopher, was born at Rochelle, in France, on the 12th of March 1683. He was brought to England when about two years of age, by his father, the rev. Mr. John Desaguliers, who, being a French protestant, was obliged to quit his native country in consequence of the persecution which followed upon the revocation of the edict of Nantes, which took place in 1685. He was instructed in grammar learning by his father, and read the classics under him; after which he was sent to Christ Church college, Oxford, where he took the degree of B. A. and entered into deacon’s orders in 1710. The same year he read lectures in experimental philosophy at Hart-hall, whither he had removed from Christ Church, in the room of Mr. Keill (afterwards Dr. Keill) who at this time accompanied the Palatines to New England, in consequence of his being appointed their treasurer. In 1712 he married Miss Joanna Pudsey, daughter of William Pudsey, esq. and, on the third of May the same year, took the degree of M. A. The following year he removed to the metropolis, and settled in Channel-row, Westminster, where he continued his courses of experimental philosophy several years.

On the 29th of July 1714, he was elected a fellow of the royal society, of which he became a very useful member, and was much respected by the president, sir Isaac Newton. His first paper which appeared in the Philosophical Transactions, was published in the 348th number, and contained an account of some experiments of sir Isaac Newton on light and colours, which had been repeated by Mr. Desaguliers, in order to confirm sir Isaac’s theory. He soon after communicated to the society (Transactions, No. 361) a method by which myopes might use telescopes without eye-glasses. Of some experiments which he made with Mr. Villette’s burning-glass, in conjunction with Dr. J. Harris, an account was also published in the Transactions. In 1716 he published a piece entitled “Fires improved; being a new method of building Chimnies, so as to prevent their smoaking.” This was a translation from the French, and involved him in some dispute with Edmund Curll, whom he had employed as his publisher, and admitted to have a share in the book. Curll, in order to promote the sale, had puffed it off in a very gross manner; which induced Mr. Desaguliers to publish a letter in a periodical paper, called “The Town-Talk,” begun at that time by sir Richard Steele, in which he informed the public, that, whenever his name hereafter “was, or should be printed, with that egregious flatterer Mr. CurlPs, either in an advertisement, or at the title-page of a book, except that of Fires improved, he entirely disowned it.”

The merit of our experimental philosopher had now attracted the notice of the duke of Chandos, who. had before taken Dr. Keill under his patronage, and who became also a patron to Mr. Desaguliers, making him his chaplain, and presenting him, about 1714, to the living of Stanmore parva, or Whitchurch. In 1717 he went through a course of his lectures on experimental philosophy, before king George I. at Hampton Court; with which his majesty was so well pleased, that he intended to have conferred upon him the valuable living of MuchMunden, in Hertfordshire; but that benefice was obtained for another person by the earl of Sunderlancl, who prevailed with a friend to present him with a living in Norfolk, the revenue of which, however, amounted only to 70l. per annum. On the 16th of March 1718, he accumulated the degrees of bachelor and doctor of laws at Oxford. On the 30th of June 1720, he made an experiment before the royal society, to prove that bodies of the same bulk do not contain equal quantities of matter; and, therefore, that there is an interspersed vacuum. He likewise made some experiments before the society on the 30th of March 1721, relating to the resistance of fluids, an account of which was published in the Philosophical Transactions, No. 367. In 1728 he shewed before the royal society a machine for measuring any depth in the sea, with great expedition and certainty, which was invented by the rev. Mr. Stephen Hales (afterwards Dr. Hales) and himself; and of which an account was published in the Philosophical Transactions, No. 405. He continued, from time to time, to exhibit various philosophical experiments before the royal society, and for which he received a salary.

In 1734 he published, in two volumes, 4to, “A Course of Experimental Philosophy.” On the 30th of January, the following year, he communicated to the royal society an attempt to explain the phenomenon of the horizontal moon appearing bigger than when elevated many degrees above the horizon, supported by an experiment. He likewise published this year, in 8vo, the second edition of “Dr. Gregory’s Elements of Catoptrics and Dioptrics,” translated into English by Dr. Brown to which he added an appendix, containing an account of reflecting telescopes, &c. In February 1738, he made some electrical experiments before the royal society; and, in April the same year, he performed some electrical experiments at the prince of Wales’s house at Cliefden; of which an account was published in the Philosophical Transactions, No. 454. In 1739 he communicated to the royal society some thoughts and conjectures concerning the cause of elasticity, which were published in the Philosophical Transactions, No. 454, and contributed various other papers, which were also published in the Transactions. He had the honour of reading his lectures before king George II. as well as the rest of the royal family; and he exchanged the living which he had in Norfolk for one in Essex, which he obtained on the presentation of his majesty. He was likewise made chaplain to Frederick prince of Wales.

When Channel row, in which he had lived for some years, was ordered to be taken down to make way for the new bridge at Westminster, Dr. Desaguliers removed to lodgings over the Great Piazza in Covent Garden, where he carried on his lectures till his death. He is said to have been repeatedly consulted by parliament, upon the design of building that bridge; in the execution of which, Mr. Charles Labelye, who had been many years his assistant, was appointed a supervisor. He likewise erected a ventilator, at the desire of parliament, in a room over the house of commons. In 1742 he published a “Dissertation on Electricity,” by which he gained the prize of the academy at Bourdeaux. “This prize,” Dr. Priestley observes, “was a medal of the value of 300 livres, proposed, at the request of monsieur Harpez de la Force, for the best essay on electricity; and shews how much this subject engaged the attention of philosophers at that time. The dissertation is well drawn up, and comprizes all that was known of the subject till that period.” Dr. Desaguliers, who is styled by Dr. Priestley “an indefatigable experimental philosopher,” died Feb. 29, 1744, at the Bedford coffee-honse, Covent Garden, where he had lodgings, and was buried March Cth, in the Savoy. He was the first who introduced the reading of lectures in experimental philosophy at the metropolis; and was a member of several foreign academies, and corresponding member of the royal academy of sciences at Paris. His personal figure was not very promising; for he was thick and short, not well-shaped, his features irregular, and extremely nearsighted. In the former part of his life he lived very abstemiously; but in his latter years was censured for an indulgence in eating to excess, both in the quantity and quality of his diet. He translated into English, from the Latin, Gravesande’s “Mathematical Elements of Natural Philosophy.” This work was published by his son J. T. Desaguliers, in two volumes, 4to. He left two other sons: Alexander, who was bred to the church, and had a living in Norfolk, where he died in 1751; and another, named Thomas, who became colonel of the royal regiment of artillery, and equerry to his present majesty, and rose to the rank of major-general.

In Dr. Desaguliers’s character as a divine, we find only one publication by him, a single sermon, in octavo, preached before the king in 1717, from Luke xiii. 5. “I tell you nay; but except you repent, you shall all likewise perish.” It was a thanksgiving-sermon; but on what particular occasion it was delivered we are not informed.

If credit is to be given to Mr. Cawthoru, Dr. Desaguliers was in very necessitous circumstances at the time of his decease. In the poem entitled “The Vanity of Human Enjoyments,” Mr. Cawthorn laments his fate in these lines:

, a French physician, was born at Arsac, in Chalosse, in 1675, and died at Bourdeaux, in 1737, where he acquired great reputation as a practitioner, and was author of several useful practical works, which are still sought for, on the gout, and on the venereal disease, which latter he professed to cure without salivation. In. his “Dissertation sur la Pierre des reins et de la vessie,” 1736, 3 vols. 12mo, he is averse to cutting for the stone in the bladder; which he says may be dissolved by giving the patients the water of Bareges to drink, and by injecting it into their bladders, and although it is now known the waters do not dissolve the stone, they are still used for their power in appeasing pain. In the second volume the author treats of the management of persons bitten by rabid animals, and opposes, with propriety, opinions once very prevalent, that persons in hydrophobia attempt biting their attendants, and that they make a noise resembling the barking of a dog, which certainly never occur. He left behind him a manuscript on the epilepsy. The publication entitled “Nouvelles dccouvertes en medicine,” 1727, has been attributed to him without sufficient authority. Cailluu, a physician of Bourdeaux, published in 1800 a very interesting account of the life and writings of Desault, which we have not yet seen.

, principal surgeon to the Hotel-Diet) in Paris, and a great improver of the art, was born Feb. 6, 1744, at Magny Vernois, a village in the province of Franche Cointc. He was educated among the Jesuits, and intended by his father for the church; but evincing a stronger inclination for the medical profession, he was sent to Befort, where he spent three years in the military hospital there. To his medical studies he added that of the mathematics, in which he made great progress; but fell into one of the many errors so common among the physicians of that day, namely, a false application of the rules of geometry to the laws of the animal œconomy. He not only perused with avidity the treatise of Boreili, “De IMotu Animaliuin,” but translated the whole of it, and added a commentary more abundant in calculation than that of his author. In 1764, at the age of nineteen, he came to Paris, where surgery at that time flourished under Lafaye, Morand, AndouiHet, and Louis. Animated by the fame they had acquired, and desirous to emulate them, Desault pursued his anatomical studies with the greatest ardour, and was continually employed in dissections, or in witnessing the operations performed in the hospitals. In the winter of 1766, he commenced a course of lectures on anatomy, and soon reckoned 300 pupils, most of them older than himself, who were attracted by the clearness of his demonstrations, the methodical arrangement of his descriptions, and, above all, by his indefatigable zeal as a teacher. After some opposition from the jealousy of the other lecturers, whose schools became deserted, he was admitted* in 1776 into the corporation of surgeons, and allowed to pay the usual fees when convenient; a circumstance which, however honourable to their liberality, shews that his celebrity had not yet been attended with much pecuniary advantage. After becoming a simple member, and then a counsellor of the perpetual committee of the academy of surgery, he was appointed chief surgeon to the hospital of the college, and consulting surgeon to that of St. Sulpice, neither of which added any thing to his fortune, but increased his experience. In 1779 he invented the bandage now in use for fractures, by means of which, the fragments being kept in a state of perpetual contact, become consolidated, without the least appearance of deformity; an almost inevitable consequence of the former mode.

On his appointment to the place of surgeon-major to the hospital de la Charite, in 1782, he introduced a new method of treatment in oblique fractures of the thigh-bone, and substituted new bandages in fractures of the humerus and clavicle, never recurring to amputation but in extreme cases. On the death of Ferrand, chief-surgeon of the Hotel-Dieu, and of Moreau, the whole charge of the hospital devolved on him; and in 1788, he succeeded, although against some opposition, in establishing a clinical school, for which a spacious amphitheatre was erected; and more than 600 auditors, composed of all nations, constantly attended to learn a new system, consisting of a simple mode of treatment, disengaged from ancient prejudices, and a complex incoherent practice. In 1791 he published his “Journal de Chirurgerie,” which described the most interesting occurrences in his school, and detailed the improvements he was introducing. In the multiplicity of these labours, and although obliged to attend four hundred sick persons twice a day, he nevertheless employed more than four hours in visiting private patients. In 1792, when he had been appointed a member of the council of health, he was denounced in the revolutionary societies, as an egotist, an indifferent, &c. cant phrases introduced at that time, and was imprisoned in the Luxemburgh; but, the tyrants of the day finding that the business of the HotelDieu, and of the clinical school, now in its highest reputation, could not be conducted without him, he was released. The subsequent atrocities, of which he was a painful witness, affected his mind, and are said to have brought on a malignant fever and delirium, which ended in his death, June 1, 1795. Other accounts state that he was appointed to visit Louis XVII. then in the prison of the Temple, and that he was poisoned, either to conceal the brutal conduct which he had witnessed respecting that young prince, or because he refused to yield to the views entertained against his life. The French republic, however, eag'er to pay homage to his memory, presented his widow with a pension of 2000 livres per annum. His eloge was written by Bichat, one of his pupils, and his coadjutor in the “Journal de Chirurgie;” and by Petit, chief surgeon of the hospital of Lyons. Desault left but one work behind him, in which the name of his friend Chopart is joined with his own; it is entitled “Maladies Chirurgicales et des Operations qui leur conviennent,” 1780, 2 vols. 8vo. This has lately been translated into English by Mr. Turnbull.

, a French nobleman, born at Paris in 1602, was, like the English lord Rochester, a great wit, a great libertine, and a great penitent. He made a vast progress in his studies under the Jesuits, who, perceiving his genius, endeavoured to get him into their society; but his family would not listen to their proposal, and he soon himself began to treat them with ridicule. While very young, his father procured him the place of a counsellor in the parliament of Paris, where his wit was aumired but he would never report a cause; for he used to say that it was a sordid occupation, and unworthy of a man of parts, to read wrangling papers with attention, and to endeavour to understand them. It is said, indeed, that on one occasion, when his clients were urgent for a decision, he sent for both parties, burnt the papers before them, and paid down the sum that was the cause of the dispute, to the amount of four or five hundred livres. One account says, that he left this place from the following cause. Cardinal Richelieu falling in love with the celebrated beauty Marion de Lorme, whose affections were entirely placed on our Des Barreaux, proposed to him by a third hand, that if he would resign his mistress, he should have whatever he should desire. Des Barreaux answered the proposal in a jesting way, feigning to believe the cardinal incapable of so much weakness. This enraged the minister so highly, that he persecuted Des Barreaux as long as he lived, and forced him not only to quit his place, but even to leave the kingdom. But another account says that his resignation of the bar was voluntary, and with a view to become a man of pleasure, which appears to be more probable. During his career, however, he made a great number of Latin and French verses, and. some pleasing songs; but never pursued any thing seriously, except good cheer and diversions, and being very entertaining in company, he was in high request with men of wit and taste. He had his particular friends in the several provinces of France, whom he frequently visited, and it was his practice to shift his quarters, according to the seasons of the year. In winter, he went to seek the sun on the coasts of Provence; and passed the three worst months in the year at Marseilles. The house which he called his favourite, was that of the count de Clermont de Lodeve, in Languedoc; where, he used to say, good cheer and liberty were on their throne. Sometimes he went to Balzac, on the banks of the Charante but his chief residence was at Chenailles on the Loire. His general view in these ramblings was to search out the best fruits and the best wines in the climates: but sometimes, to do him justice, his object was more intellectual, as, when he went into Holland, on purpose to see Des Cartes, and to improve hr the instructions of that great genius. His friends do not deny that he was a great libertine; but pretend, that fame, according to custom, had said more of him than is true, and that, in the latter part of his life, he was convinced of the reality of religion. They say, that he did not disapprove the truths of Christianity, and wished to be fully convinced of them; but he thought nothing was so dim'cult to a man of wit as to be a true believer. He was born a catholic, but paid little attention either to the worship or doctrines of the Romish religion; and he used to say, that if the Scriptures are to be the rule of our actions and of our belief, there was no better religion than the protestant. Four or five years before his death, we are told that he entirely forsook his vicious courses, paid his debts, and, having never been married, gave up the remainder of his estate to his sisters; reserving to himself for life an annuity of 4000 livres. He then retired to Chalon on the Soane, which he said was the best and purest air in France; hired a small house, and was visited by the better sort of people, particularly by the bishop, who afterwards spoke well of him. He died in that city, May 9. 1673, having made the famous devout sonnet two or three years before his death, which begins, “Grand Dieu, tes jugemens,” &c. But Voltaire has endeavoured to deprive him of the merit of this, by ascribing it to the abbe de Levau. It is, however, the only one of Des Barreaux’s poems, which in general were in the style of Sarazin and Chapelle, that has obtained approbation, Dreux du Radier, in his “Recreations historiques,” asserts that it is an imitation of a sonnet by Desportes, who published it in 1G03; and if so, the imitation must be allowed greatly to surpass the original.

, an elegant Latin poet, was a native of France, and born at Chateauneuf, in Berri, Jan. 25, 1711, and entered the order of the Jesuits, in whose schools he taught rhetoric for some years. When invited to Paris, to the college of Louis-le-Grand, he acquired great fame by his Latin poetry, which was thought so pure, that he was usually styled ultimus Romanorum. On the abolition of the order of the Jesuits in France, Desbillons found an honourable asylum with the elector palatine, who gave him a pension of a thousand crowns, and a place in the college of Manheim, where he died March 19, 1789. He wrote Latin Iambics with great ease, and even wrote his will in that measure, in which he bequeathed his valuable library to the Lazarists. His works are: 1. “Fabulae libri XV.” Paris, 1775, and 1778, elegantly printed by Barbou; but it is rather singular that the first five books of these fables were originally printed at Glasgow in 1754, and a second edition at Paris, in 1756; at which time the author acknowledged the work, and added five more books, the whole then containing about three hundred and fifty fables. The greater part are translated or paraphrased from the writings of the most eminent fabulists, ancient and modern, particularly among the moderns, La Fontaine; but there is a considerable number of originals. He afterwards increased the number of books to fifteen, as in the edition first mentioned. They have been also reprinted in Germany, and the author himself translated them into French, with the Latin text added, which edition, usually reckoned the best, was published at Manheim, 1769, 2 vols. 8vo. His Latin style is peculiarly chaste and unaffected. 2. “Nouveaux eclaircissemens sur la vie et les ouvrages de Guillaume Postel,” 1763, 8vo. 3. “Histoire de la vie et des exploits militaires de madame de St. Balmont,” 1773, 8vo. 4. “Ars bene valendi,” 1788, 8vo; a Latin poem in Iambics, on the preservation of health, in which the author inveighs against hot liquids, especially chocolate, tea, and coffee. Besides these, Desbillons published a very correct edition of “Phaxlrus,” with three dissertations on the life, fables, and editions of Phacdrus, and notes, Manheim, 1786, 8vo, and an edition of Thomas a Kempis. He wrote also some dramatic pieces in Latin, and a history of the Latin language, which is still in manuscript. In 1792 his “Miscellanea Posthuma” were published at Manheim, 8vo, containing a fifteenth and sixteenth book of Fables; “Monita Philosophica,” against the modern French philosophers; and a Latin comedy, “Schola Patrum, sive Patrum et Liberorum indoles emendata.”

, a laborious Dictionary maker, at a time when in France all knowledge was to be communicated by dictionaries, was born at Ernée in the Maine, June 17, 1699, and was for some time a capuchin. Returning again to the world, he was employed by Desfontaines and Granet in their journals, making extracts, &c. for them, which they polished for the press. He then commenced his manufactory of dictionaries, of which the following is a list: 1. “Dictionnaire Militaire,” 1758, 3 vols. 8vo. 2. “Dictionnaire d'Agriculture,” 1751, 2 vols. 8vo. 3. “Dictionnaire universel et raisònné” des Animaux,“1759, 4 vols. 4to. 4.” Dictionnaire Domestique,“1762, and 1763, 3 vols. 8vo, of which he compiled only the two last. 5.” Dictionnaire historique des moeurs, usages, et coutumes des Francois,“1767, 3 vols. 8vo. 6.” Dictionnaire de la noblesse, contenant les genealogies, histoire et la chronologie des families nobles de la France," 1773, &c. 12 vols. 4to, with a supplement in 3 vols. In this voluminous work he bestows his attention chiefly on the families which paid him best, and to which it was most difficult to give celebrity, omitting or slightly noticing some of the most ancient and honourable. With all the advantages he derived from this and his other works, we are told that he died at last in indigence, in one of the hospitals of Paris, Feb. 29, 1784.

, a modern philosopher of high distinction, was born at La Haye in Tourain, France, April 1, 1596, of an ancient and noble family. Whilst yet a child, he discovered an eager curiosity to inquire into the nature and causes of things, which procured him the appellation of the young philosopher. At eight years of age he was committed to the care of Dinet, a learned Jesuit, under whom he made uncommon proficiency in learning. But an habit of close and deep reflection soon enabled him to discover defects in the books which he read, and in the instructions which he received, which led him to form the ambitious hope that he should, in some future time, carry science to greater perfection than it had ever yet reached. After spending five years in the diligent study of languages, and in reading the ancient poets, orators, and historians, he made himself well acquainted with the elements of mathematics, logic, and morals, as they had been hitherto taught. His earnest desire of attaining an accurate knowledge of every thing which became a subject of contemplation to his inquisitive mind, did not, however, in any of these branches of science meet with full satisfaction. Concerning logic, particularly, he complained, that after the most diligent examination he found the syllogistic forms, and almost every other precept of the art, more useful in enabling a man to communicate to others truths already known, or in qualifying him to discourse copiously upon subjects which he does not understand, than assisting him in the investigation of truths, of which he is ignorant. Hence he was led to frame for himself a brief system of rules or canons of reasoning, in which he followed the strict method of the geometricians, and he pursued the same plan with respect to morals. But after all his speculations, he was not able to attain the entire satisfaction which he so earnestly desired; and, at the close of eight years’ assiduous application in the Jesuits’ college at La Fleche, he returned to his parents, lamenting that he had derived no other benefit from his studies, than a fuller conviction that he, as yet, knew nothing with perfect clearness and certainty. Despairing of being able to discover truth in the paths of learning, he now bade adieu to books, and resolved henceforth to pursue no other knowledge than that which he could find ti'ithin himself, and in the great volume of nature.

In his seventeenth year, his father sent him to Paris, leaving him to his own discretion, which, however, was not at first to be trusted, as youthful vanity and the love of pleasure betrayed him into excesses that might have been fatal to his literary progress, had not some learned friends, to whom he was introduced, recalled his attention to mathematical studies, which he again prosecuted in a solitary retirement of two years. Still, however, dissatisfied with the result of his speculations, he entered as a volunteer in the Dutch army, in which he thought he would have opportunities of conversing with the world; but even here his natural propensity to study returned; and he engaged in mathematical disquisitions with an eminent master of that science at Breda, and wrote a philosophical dissertation, in which he attempted to prove that brutes are automata, or mere machines. From the Dutch army he went into the Bavarian service, and while in winter-quarters, being informed of the high pretensions of the Rosicrucians, he endeavoured to discover their mysteries; but finding this impossible, or rather that there was nothing to be discovered, he returned to the humble path of rational inquiry. Wherever he went he conversed with learned men, and rather appeared in the character of a philosopher than a soldier. At last he quitted the military profession, and after a tour through the northern parts of Germany, returned to his own country in 1622, with no other profit from his travels, as he himself confesses, than that they had freed him from many prejudices, and rendered his mind more fit for the reception of truth, an advantage of no small importance, if he could have availed himself of it.

Des Cartes now for a while made Paris his place of residence, and returned to the study of mathematics, not as an ultimate object (for he thought it a fruitless labour to fill the head with numbers and figures) but in hopes of discovering general principles of relations, measures, and proportions, applicable to all subjects, by means of which truth might be with certainty investigated, and the limits of knowledge materially enlarged. But not at present succeeding according to his wishes in this speculation, he turned his attention chiefly to ethical inquiries, and attempted to raise a superstructure of morals upon the foundation of natural science; for he was of opinion, that there could be no better means of discovering the true principles and rules of action, than by contemplating our own nature, and the nature of the world around us. This investigation produced his treatise “On the Passions.”

Having employed a short time in these studies, Des Cartes spent about two years in Italy, conversing with eminent mathematicians and philosophers, and attending to various objects of inquiry in natural history. He then, returned into France; but his mind remaining in an un settled and sceptical state, he found it impossible to pursue any regular plan of life, till in 1629 he determined to withdraw from his numerous connexions and engagements in Paris, and retire into some foreign country, where he might remain unknown, and have full leisure to complete his great design of framing a new system of philosophy. The country he chose for this purpose was Holland; and he went thither with so much secrecy, that the place of his retirement was for some time known only to his intimate friend, Marsenne, at Paris. He at first resided near Amsterdam, but afterwards went into the more northern provinces, and visited Deventer and Lewarden; he at lasc fixed upon Egmond, in the province of Friesland, as the place of his more stated residence. In this retirement, Des Cartes employed himself in investigating a proof from reason, independent of revelation, of those fundamental points in religion, the existence of God, and the immortality of the soul. This he brought forward in his “Meditationes philosophies de pnma philosophia.” At the same time he pursued the study of optics, cultivated medicine, anatomy, and chemistry, and wrote an astronomical treatise on the system of the world; but hearing of the fate of Galileo, he did not publish it. His philosophical tenets were first introduced into the schools at Deventer in 1633, by Henry Rener, professor of philosophy, and an intimate friend of Gassendi. Not long afterwards, when he published a specimen of his philosophy in four treatises, the number of his admirers soon increased at Leyden, Utrecht, and Amsterdam: but some divines opposed his doctrines, from the dread of innovation, and even attempted to excite the civil magistrate against Des Cartes. In England, however, he was more successful, and sir Charles Cavendish, brother to the earl of Newcastle, gave him an invitation to settle in England. Charles I. also gave him reason to expect a liberal appointment; but the rebellion frustrated this design, and Des Cartes remained in Holland. In his native country, his doctrine was at first well received, but a strong party soon rose against it among the Jesuits. Bourden, one of the fraternity, attacked his dioptrics in the public schools, and a violent contest was long kept up between the Jesuits and Cartesians. In the course of the disputes which the Cartesian philosophy occasioned, Des Cartes himself appeared earnestly desirous to become the father of a sect, and discovered more jealousy and ambition than became a philosopher.

During the course of Des Cartes’ residence in Holland, he paid three visits to his native country; one in 1643, when he published an abstract of his philosophy, under the title of “Specimina Philosophies,” the second and third, in 1647 and 1648, when he was amused with a promise of an annual pension of three thousand livres, which he never received. His chagrin upon this disappointment was, however, relieved by an invitation which, through the hands of the French ambassador, he received from Christina, queen of Sweden, to visit Stockholm. That learned princess had read his treatise “On the Passions” with great delight, and was earnestly desirous to be instructed by him in the principles of his philosophy. Des Cartes, notwithstanding the difficulties which he apprehended from the severity of the climate, was prevailed upon to accept the invitation, and arrived at Stockholm in 1649. The queen gave him a respectful reception; and the singular talents which he discovered, induced her earnestly to solicit this eminent philosopher to remain in her kingdom, and assist her in establishing an academy of sciences. But Des Cartes had not been more than four months in Sweden, when a cold which he caught in his early morning visits to the queen, whom he instructed in philosophy, brought on an inflammation of the lungs, which soon put a period to his life. The queen is said to have lamented his death with tears. His remains were interred, at the request of the French ambassador, in the cemetery for foreigners, and a long historical eulogium was inscribed upon his tomb. Des Cartes died Feb. 11, 1650. His remains were afterwards, in 1656, carried from Sweden into France, and interred with great pomp in the church of St. Genevieve du Mont.

Des Cartes’ writings prove him to have possessed an, accurate and penetrating judgment, a fertile invention, and a mind superior to prejudice; but he would have been more successful had he been less desirous of applying mathematical principles and reasonings to subjects which do not admit of them; had he set less value upon mere conjectures; and had he been less ambitious of the honour of founding a new sect in philosophy. Brucker, to whom, or to the Cyclopædia, we refer for a sketch of the Cartesian philosophy, remarks that although some parts of it appear to have been derived from the Grecian philosophy, particularly the notion of innate ideas, and of the action of the soul upon the body, from Plato; the doctrine of a plenum from Aristotle; and the elements of the doctrine of vortices from the atomic school of Democritus and Epicurus; Des Cartes must, nevertheless, be confessed to have discovered great subtlety and depth of thought, as well as fertility of imagination, and to have merited a distinguished place among the improvers of philosophy. But his labours would have been more valuable, had he not suffered himself to be led astray into the romantic regions of hypothesis by the false notion, that the nature of things may be better understood by endeavouring to account for appearances from hypothetical principles, than by inferring general principles from an attentive observation of appearances. His fondness for hypothesis led him to confound the ideas of attribute and substance, as in his definition of matter and space; and those of possibility and probability, as in his doctrine of vortices. Even his celebrated argument for the existence of God (which by the way, was maintained before his time by the scholastic Anselm) confounds the idea of an infinite being with the actual existence of that being, and substitutes a mere conception of the meaning of a term, in the place of the idea of a being really and substantially existing. Hence, though Ues Cartes is byno means to be ranked among the enemies of religion, as he was by many of his contemporaries; though it be even true, that his whole system is built upon the knowledge of God, and supposes his agency; it must nevertheless be regretted, that in establishing the doctrine of deity, he forsook the clear and satisfactory 7 ground of final causes, and had recourse to a subtle argument, which few can comprehend, and with which fewer still will be fully satislied. The system of Des Cartes, notwithstanding its defects, had so much subtlety, ingenuity, and originality, that it not only engaged the universal attention of the learned, but long continued, in the midst of all the opposition which it met with from the professed enemies of innovation, to be zealously defended by many able writers, and to be publicly taught in the schools, throughout all Europe, until at length the more sober method of philosophising, introduced by lord Bacon, began to be generally adopted.

We shall now subjoin sme additional testimonies to his character. M. Baillet, in his account of his life,c. highly commends him for his contempt of wealth and fame, his love of truth, his modesty, disinterestedness, moderation, piety, and submission to the authority of the church. Dr. Barrow, in his “Opuscula,” tells us, that he was undoubtedly a very good and ingenious man, and a real philosopher, and one who seems to have b fought those assistances to that part of philosophy which relates to matter and motion, which, perhaps, no other had done; that is, a great skill in mathematics, a mind habituated both by nature and custom to profound meditation, a judgment exempt from all prejudices and popular errors, and furnished with a considerable number of certain and select experiments, a great jtleal of leisure, entirely disengaged by his own choice from the readme: of useless books, and the avocations of life, with an incomparable acuteness of wit, and an excellent talent of thinking clearly and distinctly, and expressing his, thoughts with the utmost perspicuity. Dr. Halley (see Wotton’s Reflections upon Ancient and Modern Learning) says, “As to dioptrics, though some of the ancients mention refraction as a natural effect of transparent media, yet Des Cartes was the first who, in this age, has discovered the laws of refraction, and brought dioptrics into a science.” Wotton (ubi supra) though he degrades him in comparison with lord Bacon, whom he soon succeeded, and censures him for too precipitately drawing conclusions without a sufficient number of previous experiments, observes nevertheless, that “to a vast genius he joined an exquisite skill in geometry, so that he wrought upon intelligible principles in an intelligible manner, though he very often failed in one part of his end, namely, a right explication of the phenomena of nature; yet, by marrying geometry and physics together, he put the world in hopes of a masculine offspring in process of time, though the first productions should prove abortive.” Dr. Keil, in the introduction to his “Examination of Burnet’s Theory of the Earth,” animadverting on Wotton’s reflections, &c. tells us, that Des Cartes was so far from applying geometry and observations to natural philosophy, that his whole system is but one continued blunder on account of his negligence in that point; which he could easily prove by shewing, that his theory of the vortices, upon which the whole system is grounded, is absolutely false; and that sir Isaac Newton has shewn, that the periodical times of all bodies, which swim in a vortex, must be directly as the squares of their distances from the centre of the vortex. But it is evident, from observations, that the planets, in turning round the sun, observe quite another law; for the squares of their periodical times are always as the cubes of their distances; and, therefore, since they do not observe that Jaw, which they necessarily must, if they swim in a vortex, it is a demonstration that there are no vortices, in which the planets are carried round the sun: with more to the same purpose. Mr. Baker, considering the natural philosophy of Des Cartes, observes, that “though it would be very unjust to charge Des Cartes with the denial of a God, who is supposed by him to have created matter,and to have impressed the first motion upon it, yet he is blameable, that after the first motion is impressed, and the wheels set a-going, he leaves his vast machine to the laws of mechanism, and supposes that all things may be thereby produced without any further extraordinary assistance from the first impressor. The supposition is impious; and, as he states it, destructive of itself; for, not to deny him his laws of motion, most of which have been evidently shewn to be false, and consequently so must all be that is built upon them, his notion of matter is inconsistent with any motion at all; for, as space and matter are with him the same, upon this supposition there can be no motion in a plenum.” Dr. Keil condemns Des Cartes for encouraging the presumptuous pride of the modern philosophers; who think they understand all the works of nature, and are able to give a good account of them. Mr. Leibnitz, whilst he acknowledges that Des Cartes was a very learned man, and had read more than his followers imagine, and that he was one of those who has added most to the discoveries of their predecessors, observes, that those who rest entirely in him, are much mistaken in their conduct; and this, he says, is true, even with regard to geometry itself. He also remarks, that Des Cartes endeavoured to correct some errors with regard to natural philosophy, but that his presumption and contemptuous manner of writing, together with the obscurity of his style, and his confusion, and severe treatment of others, are very disagreeable. Rapin, in his “Reflexions de Physique,” after observing that Des Cartes’ s principles of motion, figure, and extension, are almost the very same with those of Democritus and Epicurus, tells us, that father Mersenne mentioned in an assembly of learned men, that Des Cartes, who had gained great reputation by his geometry, was preparing a system of natural philosophy, in which he admitted a vacuum; but the notion was ridiculed by Roberval and some others; upon which Mersenne wrote to him, that a vacuum was not then in fashion at Paris, which induced Des Cartes to change his scheme, in complaisance to the natural philosophers whom he studied to please, and admit the plenum of Leucippus; “so that,” says father Rapin, “the exclusion of a vacuum became one of his principles, merely from political considerations.” Rapin produces no authority for this story; and it should be recollected, that he was a very zealous Aristotelian, extremely prejudiced against any new systems of philosophy. Des Cartes, it is said, imagined it possible to prolong life very considerably beyond the common period, and thought he had discovered the method of doing it. In conversation with sir Kenelm Digby, Des Cartes assured him that, having already considered that matter, he would not venture to promise to render a man immortal; but that he was very sure it was possible to lengthen out his life to the period of the patriarchs. It seems evident to me, says he, in a letter written to M. de Zuylichem from Egmond, in 1638, when he had attained the age of forty-two years, that if we only guarded against certain errors, which we are accustomed to commit in the course of our diet, we might, without any other invention, attain to an old age, much longer and more happy than now we do. However, twelve years after this declaration was made, our philosopher died. Des Cartes was never married, but had one natural daughter, named Francina, who died at five years of age. Of his works there have been several editions; particularly a Latin edition, A rust. 1701—1715, 9 vols. 4to. That published at Paris comprehends 15 volumes in 12mo, and their contents are as follow; viz. “Lettres de M. Des Cartes, ou Ton a joint le Latin de plusieurs lettres, qui n‘avoient ete imprhnees qu’en Francois, aver une traduction Francois de celles, qui n‘avoient jusqu’a present paru qu'en Latin,” 1724, 6 vols. “Les Meditations metaphysiques touchant la premiere philosophic,” 1724, 2 vols. “Discours de la methode, pour bien conJuire sa raison, et chercher la verite dans les sciences. Plus la dioptrique, les meteores, la mechanique, et la musique,” 1724, 2 vols. “Les Principes de la Philosophic,” 1724, 1 vol. “Les Passions de l‘Ame. Le Monde, ou traite de la lumiere. Edition augmented d’un discours sur le mouvement local et sur la fie v re, sur* les principes du mema auteur,” 1728, 1 vol. “L'Homme de Rene Des Cartes, et la formation du fetus; avec les remarques de Louis de la Forge,” 1722, 1 vol.

In reference to the dispute between his friends and those of Harriot, as to the priority of their discoveries, we shall here add an anecdote told by Dr. Pell, and recorded by Dr. Wallis in his “Algebra.” Sir Charles Cavendish, then resident at Paris, had a conversation with M. Roberval concerning Des Cartes’s geometry, then lately published, to this purport: “I admire,” says Uoberval, “that method of Des Cartes, of placing all the terms of the equation on one side, making the whole equal to nothing, and how it occurred to him:” The reason why you admire it,“said sir Charles,” is, because you are a Frenchman; for if you were an Englishman, you would not admire it.“”Why so?“asked Roberval.” Because,“replied sir Charles,” we in England know whence he had it; namely, from Harriot’s Algebra.“”What book is that?“says Roberval;” I never saw it.“”Next time you come to my chamber,“said sir Charles,” I will shew it to you;“which, some time after, he did; and, upon perusal of it, Roberval exclaimed with admiration, Il Tamil Il Va vu! I He had seen it! He had seen it! finding all that in Harriot which he had before admired in Des Cartes, and not doubting that Des Cartes had it from thence. Besides, as Harriot’s” Artis Analyticæ Praxis" was published in 1631, and Des Cartes was in England about this time, and as he follows the manner of Harriot, except in the method of noting the powers, it is highly probable that he was more indebted to the English algebraist than his partial advocates are willing to allow.

, a very eminent French architect, was born at Paris in 1653, and in 1674 was commissioned by Colbert to go to Home with some other academicians, but in the voyage they had the misfortune to be taken by a pirate and carried into Algiers, where they remained for sixteen months, until redeemed by the king of France’s orders. He then went with his companions ta Rome, where he applied with singular assiduity to the survey of the ancient buildings of that metropolis. He informs us, that when he undertook to measure the antiquities of Rome, his chief intention was, to learn which of the authors jn most esteem ought to be followed, as having given the most accurate measures; but he soon found reason to be convinced that they were all extremely defective in point of precision. This fault, however, he candidly imputes not to those authors themselves, but to the workmen who had been employed in their service. To prevent his being led into the same errors, he took the measures of all the ancient structures exactly, with his own hands, and repeated the whole several times, that be might arrive at an absolute certainty; ^causing such of the buildings as were under ground to be cleared, and erecting 'adders and other machines to get at those which were elevated. When, he returned to Paris he communicated his drawings to the members of the royal academy of architecture, and Colbert recommended them to the king, who caused them to be published at his own expence, in a splendid folio volume, 1682, and allotted all the profits to the author. The plates of this work remained in the family of a connoisseur until 1779, when they were purchased of his heirs for a new edition; but before this, in 1771, Mr. Marshal published a splendid edition at London, with the descriptions in French and English. In 1776 “Le Lois des Batimens” was printed from his manuscripts. In 1680 Colbert promoted him to the office of comptroller of the royal buildings at Chamber, but in 1694 he was recalled to hold the same office at Paris. In 1699 he was made king’s architect, with a pension of 2000 livres. In 1719 he succeeded M. de la Hire as professor of architecture, and commenced a course of lectures in June of that year, which he continued with great applause and success until his death, May 20, 1728. He was a man of an amiable and estimable character in private life.

, an ingenious French painter, was born at Rouen in Normandy, in 1729. He received the first elements of design from his father, and afterwards practised at Paris, under M. Vermont; but learned from Restout those excellent principles which he afterwards cultivated with so much success, and soon obtained many of the medals which the academy gave as prizes for design. In a journey he took to Rouen (his native place), he obtained several commissions for historical pieces, several of which he executed while under M, Restout. His picture of Potiphar’s wife, which he painted as a candidate for the academy’s prize, procured him the friendship of M. Boucher, at that time principal painter to the king, and Restout consented to yield the young Dehais, as an eleve of that artist. In 1751 he carried the first prize of the academy; and in consequence became a disciple of the king’s school, under the direction of M. Carlo Vanloo; and during three years he profited much by the instructions he received from that great master, extcuting many pieces of great merit. After this, hu vesided some time at Rome; and in spite of very bad health, prosecuted his profession with unremitting diligence, and great success. On his return to Paris, he married the daughter of M. Boucher, and was received into the academy with universal approbation the pictures which he presented on that occasion were of such merit as to give very sanguine hopes that he would one day become one of the greatest of the French artists. Every successive exhibition at the Louvre proved in the clearest manner, that his reputation was fixed on the surest foundation: but he died in the midst of his career, in the beginning of 1765. The principal of his works are, the History of St. Andrew, in four large pictures, at Rouen; the Adventures of Helen, in nine pieces, for the manufactory of Beauvais; the Death of St. Benet, at Orleans; the Deliverance of St. Peter, at Versailles. The Marriage of the Virgin is a subject simple in itself, but is nobly elevated by the painter. The grand priest is standing up, and turned towards the sacred spouse; his arms are extended, and his countenance directed towards the illuminated glory. Scarce any thing can be more expressive than the air of this head. The grandeur and the majestic simplicity of the virgin’s head are also finely conceived; and her whole figure admirable. The picturesque composition of the groupe is very well managed the draperies are in a bold and elegant taste the lights and shades finely imagined, melting into all the happy effects of the clear obscure. — His Resurrection of Lazarus is full of expression: the different emotions of surprise, terror, and admiration are most ingeniously varied, and finely characterised in the three apostles. The two women who behold the miracle, display the invention of the painter; one of them is full of astonishment, mixed with terror, at the idea of the sight before her the other falls prostrate to the ground, adoring the divine worker of the miracle: the whole piece is full of character and expression. His picture of Joseph’s Chastity is one of the finest that ever issued from his happy pencil: Potiphar’s wife is represented darting herself from the bed, and catching Joseph by his garment. The crime, hope, and fear of her passion, are expressed in the most lively manner in her eyes and countenance. The figure of Joseph is well designed; but it was on the woman that the painter, with great justness, bent all the efforts of his imagination, and his art. Among his other works are the Combat of Achilles against the Xanthus and Simo'is; Jupiter and Antiope, in which the figure of the woman is wonderfully delicate and pleasing. A small piece representing Study, very fine. Artemisia at the tomb of her husband, &c.

, a fanatical priest, who, destitute of genius, thought to supply that defect by buffooneries and plots against the Calvinists. He was arrested on the Loire 1561, charged with a petition of the monks to Philip II. that he would succour religion, which was in great danger. The parliament sentenced him to the amende honorable, and five years’ confinement among the Carthusians. He was living in 1578. His works are numerous, and as dull as their titles promise: “Dispute de Guillot le Porcher, centre Jean Calvin,” 1568, 16mo; “Les grands jours du Parlemeut de Dieu, publie par St. Matthieu;” “Les Ravages et le Deluge des Chevaux de louage, avec le retour de Guillot le Porcher;” “Sur les Miseres et les Calamites du Regne present;” “Les Combats du fidele Papiste, contre l'Apostat Antipapiste,” Lyons, 1555, 16mo.

, a French writer, who might have been an able coadjutor, in the cause of infidelity, to the D'Alemberts, Diderots, and Voltaires of France, was born at Pondicherry in 1690. His father, who resided here, was a director of the French East India company, and died at St. Domingo in the office of commissary-general of the marine. He was the author of a work entitled “Remarques historiques, critiques, et satiriques d'un cosmopolite,” printed by his son at Nantes, although Cologne is on the title, 1731, 12mo. His son, the object of this article, became commissary-general of the marine at Rochefort and Brest, and a member of the royal academy of Berlin. These employments and honours he resigned in his latter days, and died at Paris in 1757. In 1713 he came to London, for what reason we have not been able to discover, where he was seized with the small pox. In that year he published in London his “Litteraturn Otium,” in which he has very successfully imitated Catullus. He had previously printed at Paris his “Reflexions sur les grands homines qui sont morts en plaisautant,” which was immediately translated by Boyer, and published at London under the title of “A Philological Essay, or Reflections on the death of Freethinkers, with the characters of the most eminent persons of both sexes, ancient and modern, that died pleasantly and unconcerned,” 1714, IL'mo. It would appear from an article in the Guardian, No. 39, that he had expressed some compunction during his sickness for having written this book; but on his recovery he took equal pains to prove that he was as unconcerned as ever. The work itself is sufficiently contemptible, and in the opinion even of his countrymen, some of his great men are very little men: and, what is of more importance, he confounds the impiety of Boletus and Vanini with the intrepidity and firmness of Thuanus and Montmorency, and others, whose heroism was founded on religion. At the conclusion he has some random thoughts on suicide, and the gallantry of it, and informs us of a curious fact, that at one time a poisonous draught was kept at Marseilles, at the public expence, ready for those who desired to rid themselves of life. All the absurdities and impiety in this work are said to have been refuted by the author himself, who on his death-bed, by a solemn act in writing, manifested his sincere repentance. Such is the report in an edition printed at Rochefort in 1758, but this is flatly contradicted by the editors of the-Dict. Hist, who assure us that he persevered in his infidelity to the last, which they prove by some despicable verses written by him when near his death. His other works were, 1. “Histoire critique de la Philosophic,” 4 vols. 12mo, the first three published at Amsterdam in 1737. In this, which is poor in respect of style, and not to be depended on in point of fact, he grossly misrepresents the opinions of the philosophers in order to accommodate them to his own. 2. “Kssai snr la Marine et le Commerce,” which was translated and published at London, under the title, “Essay on Maritime Power and Commerce,” 1743, and was rather more valued here than in France. 3. “Recueil de differents traites de physique et d'histoire naturelle,” 3 vols. 12mo, an useful collection. 4. “Histoire de Constance, minister de Siam,” 1755, 12mo. This missionary he represents as a mere adventurer, the victim of his ambition, contrary to the representation given by father Orleans, who, in the life of Constance, published in 1690, maintains that he was a pious zealot. Deslandes’ other works, less known, are “Pygmalion,” 12mo; “Fortune,” 12mo; “La Comtesse de Montserrat,” 12mo; all of the licentious kind.

, was born at Sully-sur-Loire in 1722, and died Feb. 25, 1761, in the 38th year of his age. He was a man of great talents, and his heart was as excellent as his understanding: no man took a greater participation in the suffering of his fellow creatures. More devoted to his friends than to himself, he always anticipated their desires, “When my friend laughs,” said he, “it is his business to inform me of the reason of his joy when he weeps, it is rnin,e to discover the cause of his grief.” He never solicited either favours or rewards. Contented with the common necessaries of life and health, he was unconcerned about the rest. It was a maxim with him, that, if harmony reigned among literary men, notwithstanding the smallness of their number, they would be the masters of the world. Somebody once read to him a satirical piece of poetry, for his advice, “Give up this wretched turn for ever,” said he, “if you would retain any connexion with me. One more satire, and we break at once.” Modest in the midst of prosperity, he sometimes said to his friends: “Content to live on terms of friendship with the distinguished characters of my times, I have not the ambition to wish for a place among them in the temple of memory.” Very early in life he gave proofs of the facility of his genius, and had the art of blending study and philosophy with pleasure. He wrote the comedy of the “Impertinent,” which was much applauded. It is not indeed in the style of Moliere; but it contains good pictures of real life, ingenious turns of wit, judicious sentiments, and the principal character is well drawn. 2. Miscellaneous works. A soft and light vein of poetry, an easy and harmonious versification, a lively colouring, delicate and well-turned thoughts, are the characteristics of this collection, in which the “Voyage de Saint-Germain” rises superior to the rest. It is easy to perceive that the author had taken Voltaire for his model, and is not unsuccessful in his imitation. A complete edition of his works, from his own manuscripts, appeared in 1777, with a life of the author, Paris, 2 vols. 12mo.

, a fellow of the royal society of London, was born in Auvergne, in France, in 1666, and was the son of a protestant clergyman. He came over in his youth to England, and appears to have led the life of a man of letters, continually employed in composing or editing literary works. In 1720 he was elected F. R. S. and from his numerous letters in the British Museum, appears to have carried on a very extensive correspondence with the learned men of his time, especially St. Evremont and Bayle. He died at London in June 1745. Bayle he assisted with many articles and remarks for his Dictionary, and published his “Letters” at Amsterdam, 1729, 3 vols. 12mo, with a variety of observations, which shew an extensive knowledge of modern literature. He also wrote the life of Bayle, which was prefixed to the edition of his Dictionary published in. 1730, and was reprinted at the Hague in 2 vols. 1732, 12mo. By a letter in the beginning from Desmaiseaux to M. la Motte, it appears that the latter had induced him to undertake this life of his friend. In 1732 he edited Bayle’s Miscellaneous Works in 4 vols. folio, and probably was likewise the author of the “Nouvelles Lettres de Pierre Bayle,” Hague, 1739, 2 vols. 12mo. His intimacy and friendship for St. Evremond led him to publish the life and works of that writer, in 1709, 3 vols. 4to and 8vo, often reprinted and translated into English. He also published the lives of Boileau in French, and of Chillingworth and Hales of Eton in English, which he wrote fluently. For some time it is 'said he was engaged in an English Dictionary, historical and critical, in the manner of Bayle, but no part of it appears to have been published, except the above-mentioned Life of Hales, in 1719, which was professedly a specimen of the intended Dictionary. In 1720 he published some pieces of Locke’s which had not been inserted in his works; and the same year “Recueii de diverses pieces sur la philosophic, la religion naturelle, l'histoire, les mathematiques, &c.” by Leibnitz, Clarke, Newton, and others; Amst. 2 vols. 12mo. He appears likewise to have been the editor of the “Scaligerana, Thuana, Perroniana, Pithoeana, et Colomesiana,” Amst. 1711, 2 vols. Besides these, and his translation of Bayle’s Dictionary, he was a frequent contributor to the literary Journals of his time, particularly the “Bibliotlieque Raisonnæ” and “The Republic of Letters.”

, priest of the oratory, famous for his sermons, was born in 1599 at Vire in Normandy. He first studied at Caen, put himself under the direction of cardinal de Bemlle, and entered into his congregation. He afterwards devoted himself to the study of the Holy Scriptures and the fathers, and became a very celebrated, preacher. He was sent to Rome to defend the doctrine of Jansenius; where he pronounced a discourse on that subject before Innocent X. which may be seen in the “Journal de Saint-Amour.” His attachment to the opinions of Jangenius was the cause or the pretext of search being made after him in order to convey him to the Bastille, but he escaped the pursuit, and retired for the rest of his days to the seat of the duke de Liancourt, in the diocese of Beauvais. One day, when Louis XIV. happened to be there, the duke presented Desmares to him. The old man said to the monarch, with an air of respect and freedom: “Sir, I ask a boon of you.” “Ask,” returned Louis, “and I will grant it you.” “Sir,” replied the old man, “permit me to put on my spectacles, that I may contemplate the countenance of my king.” Louis XIV. declared that of all the variety of compliments that had been paid him, none ever pleased him more than this. Desmares died in 1687, at the age of 87, after having composed the “Necrologe de Port-royal,” printed in 1723, 4to, to which a supplement was added by Le Fevre de St. Marc, in 1725; “Description de Tabbaye de la Trappe,” Lyons, 1683, and various theological and controversial works, enumerated by Moreri.

, librarian of the house of the oratory in the rue St. Honore, Paris, was born in 1677, and appears to have devoted much of his time to literary history, and became the friend and correspondent of most of the eminent scholars of France, by whom he was admired not more for his extensive knowledge than his amiable manners. He died at Paris April 26, 1760. His principal work is a continuation of Sallengre’s “Memoires de litterature,” 1726 1731, 11 vols. 12mo. The abbe Gouget had some hand in this collection, which contains many curious articles. Desmolets also published “Recueil de pieces d'histoire et de litterature,” Paris, 1731, 4 vols. 12mo, and was editor of father Lami’s treatise “De Tabernaculo foederis,” Paris, folio, and of other works.

, a French dramatic and miscellaneous writer, a member of the national institute, the philotechnic society, that of letters, sciences, and arts, and of the Athenaeum at Paris, was born at Villers-Coterets, March 11, 1760. After studying with assiduous application and success at the college of Lisieux, he for some years followed the profession of an advocate, which he then quitted to give up his whole time to general literature and a country life. In this retreat he wrote the greater part of his published works, and was meditating others, when death snatched him away at the age of thirty-eight, March 2, 1801. He died in the arms of his mother, to whom he was exceedingly attached, and often mentioned, with tender regard, how much her company had contributed to his happiness. Nor was he less happy in the society of some friends of his youth, whose affection he preserved to the last by his amiable disposition. He published, 1. “Lettres a Emilie sur la Mythologie,” 1790, 6 vols. 18mo, an agreeable and familiar system of mythology, which has gone through several editions, and which has no fault but what is common with young writers of great promise, rather too much glitter and finery. 2. Several comedies and operas, printed at different times, and all performed with great success, particularly “Le Conciliateur.” 3. “Le Siege de Cythere,” a poem, 1790. 4. “La Liberte du Cloitre,” a poem. He left several manuscripts, among which the “Cours de morale, addresse aux Femmes,” a work partly in prose, and partly in verse, read at the Lycasum, is highly praised. He had also begun a long work which was to have been entitled “Galerie du dixhuitieme Siecle,” in which the great characters that illustrated the close of the reign of Louis XIV. were to have been pourtrayed; but he had composed only some parts of this work, which were read in some of the literary societies, of which he was a member.

, or Despautre, or Van Pauteren (John), a celebrated grammarian, and styled the Priscian of the Netherlands, was born at Ninove, a town of Flanders situated on the Dender, towards the latter part of the fifteenth century. He was educated at Louvain under John Gustos Brechtan; and in 1501 obtained his degree of master of arts. He afterwards kept school at the college of Lys, at Bois-le-duc, at Berg St. Winox, and at Comines, at which last place he died in 1520. Three epitaphs are on record, which were made on him; one of them.,

The word inoculiis, in the first of these, alludes to his having the sight of only one eye, which when Christopher Massaeus objected to him, calling him Polyphemus, Despauter replied with rather more warmth than was justified by the provocation; and with some degree of vanity, added, “You call me Polyphemus. I am Polyphemus and Euphemus too. Italy, France, and Germany applaud my diligence, while you can expect hereafter to be ranked among the Cacophemi, the Zoilus’s, the Bavins’ s, &c.” Vossius supports this character so far as to declare that Despauter saw clearer into the grammatical art with one eye, than all his contemporaries with tsvo. It is certain that his grammar was long the only one used in the schools on the continent, and has been republished in an hundred abridged forms, for the use of scholars of every country; but has received so many successive improvements and alterations, that little of the original remains. His fame, as a grammarian, to those who study the histciy of that art, will be found to rest on his very scarce work, entitled “Joan. Despauterii Ninivitae Commentarii Grammatici,” Paris, printed by Robert Stephens, 1537, folio. This is the finest and most complete edition, and forms a collection of all the treatises which he had published separately; viz. 1. “Rudimenta.” 2. “Syntaxis.” iJ. “Ars versificatoria.” 4. “De accentibus.” 5. “De carminum generibus.” 6. “De Figuris.” 7. “Ars Epistolica;” and 8. “Orthographia,” which is not quite finished. Although his grammar is now in less estimation, he deserves to be remembered among the most useful scholars of his time, and among the benefactors to learning on its revival.

, an eminent French lawyer, and a protestant, was born at Montpelier, in 1594. Being admitted to the bar, he pleaded in the parliament of Paris. Having communicated his ideas on the subject to his friend and countryman Charles de Bouques, they resolved to labour conjointly in the explanation and illustration of the civil law, and the first fruits of their labours was a “Traittdes successions testamentaires et ab intestat,” Paris, 1G23, fol. dedicated to the son of the chancellor de Sillery, who patronized both authors, and encouraged them in the prosecution of their work. De Bouques was removed by death, and the undertaking would have been discontinued, had not Despeisses taken the whole upon himself, and made it the employment of nearly forty years of his life. He was about to have sent it to press, when he died almost suddenly, in 1658. The work, however, appeared under the title, “Les OEuvres d‘Antoine Despeisses, ou toutes les matieres les plus importantes du clroit Remain sont expliquees et accommode’es au droit Francois,” 4 vols. fol. The last edition was printed in 1750, 3 vols. fol. It is a work of vast labour, but according to Bretonnier, not exact in the quotations. It is recorded of Despeisses, that at one time of his life he returned to Montpellier, with a view to practice at the bar, but was diverted from it by an incident very trifling in itself. As he was addressing the court, with many digressions from the main subject, which was then the fashion, he happened to say something of Ethiopia, on which an attorney, loud enough to be heard, said, “He is now got to Ethiopia, and he will never come back.” Despeisses was so much hurt at this, and probably at the laugh which it occasioned, as to confine himself afterwards to chamber-practice, and the compilation of his great work.

, a learned Benedictine, was a native of Flanders, born in 1597. In 1640 he took his degree of D. D. at Douay, where he was prefect and superior of the college belonging to his monastery, and lastly, grand prior and official of the spiritual court of Anchin. He was most celebrated for mathematical knowledge, and on this account was requested by his majesty to teach that science at Douay, where he died March 28, 1664. He was not only a good author, but an ingenious instrument maker, and constructed an iron sphere, with curious clock-work, to shew the motions of the heavenly bodies. His principal works are, 1. “Gloria sanctissimi monachorum patriarchs Benedicti.” 2. “Calendarium novum ad legendas horas canonicas, secundum ritum breviarii Romani.” 3. “Vindicite Trithemianse, sive specimen steganographiae Joannis Trithemii, quo auctoris ingenuitas demonstratur, et opus superstitione absolvitur,” Doway, 1641, 4to. 4. “Auctorjtas Scripturae sacra Hebraic;*-, Grcecae, et Latino?, hoc est textus Hebraici, versionis septuaginta interpretum, et versionis vulgatae,” ibid. 1651, 4to. 5. “Commentarius in psalteriurn David icum, quo sensus litteralis tarn textus Hebraici quain vulgatoe breviter exponitur.” 6. “Calendarium Romanum novum, et Astronomia Aquicinctina (Anchin),” ibid. 1657, fol.

, an eminent painter, was born at the village of Champigneul, in Champagne, in 1661; and being a disciple of Nicasius, a Flemish painter, imitated his manner of painting. The subjects he selected were flowers, insects, animals, and representations of the chace, which he designed and coloured with much truth; his local colours being very good, and the aerial perspective well managed. He was chiefly employed in the service of Lewis XIV.; and accompanied the French ambassader, the duke d'Aumont, to London, where he was much encouraged, particularly by the duke of Richmond and lord Bolingbroke. The hotels of Paris, and the palaces of Versailles, Marli, &c. contain many specimens by this artist, who died at a very advanced age, in 1743. The present Imperial Museum has his portrait, which was engraved by Poullain, and three pictures by him, of great merit.

, physician to the king of France, and corresponding member of the royal academy of sciences at Paris, was a native of Vitre, a town in Bretagne, where he was born Sept. 28, 1704, and was the fifth of his family who had distinguished themselves in the medical art. After practising with great reputation for some years at Paris, he was appointed physician to the island of Domingo, where he died, after a residence of about ten years, in 1748. He left an interesting and curious work, “Histoire des Maladies de Saint Domingue,” which was printed in 1770, 3 vols. 12mo. Besides an account of the diseases common in Domingo, it contains descriptions of all the plants which the author found in the island. In this he has corrected several errors in the accounts left by Plumier and Barrere, and has added, where he could obtain them, the names by which they were known by the native Caribbees; also a pharmacopoeia, giving the qualities or virtues of the plants.

, a poet to whom much of the improvement of the French language is attributed, was born at Chartres in 1546, whence he went to Paris. Attaching himself there to a bishop who was going to Rome, he gained an opportunity of visiting that city, and acquiring a perfect knowledge of the Italian language. When he returned to France, he applied himself entirely to French poetry, and was one of the few poets who have enjoyed great affluence, which he owed in part to the great liberality of the princes by whom he was protected. Henry III. of France gave him 10,000 crowns, to enable him to publish his first works. Charles IX. presented him with 800 crowns of gold for his poem of Rodomont. The admiral de Joyeuse gave him an abbey for a sonnet. Besides which, he enjoyed benefices to the amount altogether of 10,000 crowns a year. Henry III. even honoured him with a place in his council, and consulted him on the most important affairs. It is said that he refused several bishoprics; but he loved solitude and retirement, which he sought as often as he could. He was very liberal to other men of letters, and formed a large library, to which he gave them the utmost freedom of access. Some, who were envious of his reputation, reproached him with having borrowed freely from the Italian poets, which he was far from denying; and when a book appeared upon the subject, entitled “Rencontre des Muses de France et d'ltalie,” he said, “If I had known the author’s design, I could have furnished him with many more instances than he has collected.” After the death of Henry III. he joined himself for a time to the party of the League, but afterwards repented, and laboured zealously to serve the interests of Henry IV. in Normandy, and succeeded in obtaining the friendship and esteem of that liberal monarch. He died in 1606. Desportes is acknowledged to have been one of the chief improvers of the French language. His works consist of sonnets, stanzas, elegies, songs, epigrams, imitations, and other poems; some of which were first published in 4to, by Robert Stephens, in 1573. A translation of the Psalms was one of his latest works, and one of the most feeble. A delightful simplicity is the characteristic of his poetry, which is therefore more perfect when applied to amorous and gallant, than to noble subjects. He often imitated and almost translated Tibullus, Ovid, and other classics. A few sacred poems are published in some editions of his Psalms, which have little more merit than the Psalms to which they are subjoined.

, engraver to the French king, was born at Lyons, and settled at Paris, where he died in 1741, at a very advanced age. He engraved subjects from the ancient mythology, especially after the paintings of Correggio. But the greatest of all his performances is a long series of portraits in busts, of persons signalized by their birth, in war, in the ministry, in the magistracy, in the sciences, and in the arts. This series amounts to upwards of seven hundred portraits, with verses at bottom, the greater part of them by Gacou. The emperor Charles VI. recompensed des Rochers with a fine golden medal for some impressions of the portrait of his imperial majesty, which this engraver had sent him.

, a brave French general in the revolutionary war, was born August 17, 1768, at Ayat, in the department of Puy-de-Dome. He was educated at the military school of Effiat, and when the revolution broke out, refused all advice to emigrate, although his principles were inclined to royalty. He remained at his studies, a stranger to the excesses of the factions, and a stranger even to the names by which they were designated. Absorbed in his profession, his thoughts were occupied solely by military manceuvres, traits of heroism, and fields of battle. He first entered the foot regiment of Britany, as sub-lieutenant, in 1784; but in 1792, he appeared so intelligent and active, that he became successively aide-de-camp to generals Broglio and Custine. The services which were derived from his presence of mind and his counsels, on occasion of the reverses experienced at the lines of Weissembourg, induced the national commissaries to raise him to the rank of general of brigade. In spite of his merit, however, the committee of public safety twice made an order for him to be deprived of his command, with which the general in chief constantly refused to comply. He was wholly ignorant of this fact till a third order arrived to the same effect, at the moment when he had gained the admiration of his comrades at the blockade of Landau; and the whole army opposed the unjust decree, which induced the commissary to disregard it. Dessaix commanded the left wing of the army in the memorable retreat of general Moreau, and had his full share in the dangers and laurels of that campaign. He returned to defend Kehl for four months against the whole force of the archduke; and under him the army effected the passage of the Rhine, in circumstances which rendered it as daring an achievement as was ever attempted.

After the treaty of Campo Formio, he followed Buonaparte into Egypt, and was by him presented with a short sword, superbly wrought, on which were inscribed the words “The taking of Malta; the battle of Chebreis, the battle of the Pyramids.” He was charged to reduce Upper Egypt, whither the Mamelukes had retired; here he gained several victories; and he acquired a distinction more honourable than the triumph of arms, for the inhabitants gave him the title of “The Just Sultan.” Returning from Egypt in consequence of the treaty of El Arisch, he was detained by lord Keith, but was at length set at liberty. He then repaired to his native country, from which he again, with the utmost expedition, joined Buonaparte, and arrived just in time to be present at the battle of Marengo, the fate of which he turned, and in which he fell, June 14, 1800, esteemed by the French soldiers, honoured by the Austrians, and loved by all who knew him.

His body was carried to Milan, embalmed there, and placed in the hospital of Mount St. Bernard, where a monument has been erected to his memory. Dessaix united to bravery the most unimpeachable probity, and in all respects seems to have deserved of his country the additional tribute of a superb monument since erected at Paris. On this is commemorated the share he had in the battles of Landau, Kehl, Weissembourg, Malta, Chebreis, the Pyramids, Sediman, Sammanhout, Kene, Thebes, and Marengo.

, an eminent physician, born at Amsterdam in 1510, was sent first to Lou vain, where he soon distinguished himself by his acquirements in classical literature. Declaring at length for the practice of medicine, he went to Bologna, in Italy, and in 1538 he took his degree of doctor in that faculty. A vacancy happening soon after at Groningen, he accepted the office of professor of the practice of medicine, which he taught with reputation for nine years. From thence, invited by Echtius, professor in medicine there, he went to Cologne, where he was admitted member of the college of physicians, and received a considerable pension from the government. This he retained to the time of his death, in 1574. He was author of several useful works. His “De Compositione Medicamentorum,” 1555, fol. contains many valuable observations and improvements on the formulae used in his time. “De Peste, commentarius, preservatio, et curatio,” Col. 1564, 4to. He speaks of a leathern, jacket, which had passed into the hands of twenty-five persons, who had received the infection from it, and been destroyed, before the cause was discovered. He wrote also in defence of the ancient medicine, and against the practice introduced by Paracelsus.

, an eminent French dramatic writer, was born at Tours, in 1680, of a reputable family, which he left early in life, apparently from being thwarted in his youthful pursuits. This, however, has been contradicted; and it is said that after having passed through the rudiments of a literary education at Tours, he went, with the full concurrence of his father, to Paris, in order to complete his studies; that being lodged with a bookseller in the capital, he fell in love at sixteen with a young person, the relation of his landlord, the consequences of which amour were such, that young Destouches, afraid to face them, enlisted as a common soldier in a regiment under orders for Spain; that he was present at the siege of Barcelona, where he narrowly escaped the fate of almost the whole company to which he belonged, who were buried under a mine sprung by the besieged. What became of him afterwards, to the time of his being noticed by the marquis de Puysieulx, is not certainly known, but the common opinion was, that he had appeared as a player on the stage; and having for a long time dragged his wretchedness from town to town, was at length manager of a company of comedians at Soleure, when the marquis de Puysieulx, ambassador from France to Switzerland, obtained some knowledge of him by means of an harangue which the young actor made him at the head of his comrades. The marquis, habituated by his diplomatic function to discern and appreciate characters, judged that one who could speak so well, was destined by nature to something better than the representation of French comedies in the centre of Switzerland. He requested a conference with Destouches, sounded him on various topics, and attached him to his person. It was in Switzerland that his talent for theatrical productions first displayed itself; and his “Curieux Impertinent” was exhibited there with applause. His dramatic productions made him known to the regent, who sent him to London in 1717, to assist, in his political capacity, at the negotiations then on foot, and while resident here, he had a singular negociation to manage for cardinal Dubois, to whom, indeed, he was indebted for his post. That minister directed him to engage king George I. to ask for him the archbishopric of Cambray, from the regent duke of Orleans. The king, who was treating with the regent on affairs of great consequence, and whom it was the interest of the latter to oblige, could not help viewing this request in a ridiculous light. “How!” said he to Destouches, “would you have a protestant prince interfere in making a French archbishop? The regent will only laugh at it, and certainly will pay no regard to such an application.” “Pardon me, sire,” replied Destouches, “he will laugh, indeed, but he will do what you desire.” He then presented to the king a very pressing letter, ready for signature. “With all my heart, then,” said the king, and signed the letter; and Dubois became archbishop of Cambray. He spent seven years in London, married there, and returned to his country; where the dramatist and negociator were well received. The regent had a just sense of his services, and promised him great things; but dying soon after, left Destouches the meagre comfort of reflecting how well he should have been provided for if the regent had lived. Having lost his patron, he retired to Fortoiseau, near Melun, as the properest situation to make him forget the caprices of fortune. He purchased the place; and cultivating agriculture, philosophy, and the muses, abode there as long as he lived. Cardinal Fleury would fain have sent him ambassador to Petersburg; but Destouches chose rather to attend his lands and his woods, to correct with his pen the manners of his own countrymen; and to write, which he did with considerable effect, against the infidels of France. He died in 1754, leaving a daughter and a son; the latter, by order of Lewis XV. published at the Louvre an edition of his father’s works, in 4 vols. 4to. Destouch.es had not the gaiety of Regnard, nor the strong warm colouring of Moliere; but he is always polite, tender, and natural, and has been thought worthy of ranking next to these authors. He deserves more praise by surpassing them in the morality and decorum of his pieces, and he had also the art of attaining the pathetic without losing the vis comica, which is the essential character of this species of composition. In the various connections of domestic life, he maintained a truly respectable character, and in early life he gave evidence of his filial duty, by sending 40,000 livres out of his savings to his father, who was burthened with a large family.

, a learned Greek scholar of the sixteenth century, was born in the island of Corfou, of a catholic family. At the age of eight he was taken to Rome by John Lascaris, and placed with other eastern youths in the Greek college, which had been just established. Having made great progress in this language, cardinal Rodolphi gave him the care of his library, which office he held for fifteen years, and in that time he compiled an index to Eustathius’s commentary on Homer, for which pope Paul III. gave him a pension; and Paul IV. who continued this pension, made him corrector of the Greek Mss. in the Vatican. On the death of cardinal Rodolphi, Marc -Antony Colonna, who was afterwards cardinal, became scholar to Devarius for three years in the Greek language. He was afterwards patronized by the cardinal Farnese; and died in his service, about the end of the sixteenth century, in the seventieth year of his age. By order of pope Pius V. he translated the catechism of the council of Trent into Greek; but the work for which he is best known is entitled “De Particulis Graecae linguae liber particularis,” of which there have been many editions, the first published by his nephew, Peter Devarius, at Rome, in 1558, 4to, and reprinted at London, 1657, 12mo Amsterdam, 1700 and 1718, &c. &c.

, an eminent surgeon of Paris, in which city he was born January 27, 1649, was the son of John Devaux, a man of eminence in the same profession. He became provost and warden of the surgeons’ company, and was universally esteemed for his skill and his writings. He died May 2, 1729, at Paris. His works are, “Le Medecin de soi meme,” 12mo.; “L'art de faire des rapports en Chirurgie,” 12mo; “Index funereus Chirurgorum Parisiensium, ab anno 1315 ad annum 1714,” 12mo, with several others; and translations of many excellent works on physic and surgery, particularly Allen’s “Synopsis Medicinae practices,” Harris’s “De morbis infantum,” Cockburne “De Gonorrhasa;” Freind’s “Emmenologia,” &c. &c.

, a celebrated man-midwife, was born at Deventer, in the province of Over-Yssel, in Holland, towards the end of the seventeenth century. Though skilled in every branch of medicine, and honoured with the dignity of doctor in that faculty, he was principally employed in surgery, and in the latter part of his life he almost entirely confined himself to the practice of midwifery, in which art he made considerable improvements. He acquired also no small share of fame by his various mechanical inventions for assisting in preventing and curing deformities of the body in young subjects. In that capacity he was repeatedly sent for to Denmark, whence he drew a considerable revenue. His knowledge of mechanics did not, however, prevent his observing that much mischief was done by the too frequent use of instruments in midwifery; and he introduced such improvements in the art, as gave him a decided preference over Mauriceau, his almost immediate precursor. Satisfied with the principles on which his practice was founded, he published in 1701, “Operationes Chirurgicse novum lumen exhibentes obstetricantibus,” Leyden, 4to, which had been published in 1696, in his native language. This was followed by a second part, in 1724, 4to, “Ulterius examen partuum difficilium, Lapis Lydius obstetricum, et de necessaria cadaverum incisione.” The two parts were published together, much improved, in 1733, but the work had already been translated and published in most of the countries in Europe. How long the author continued to live after the publication of this improved edition is not known.

He had often, he says, been required to let the world know, by advertisement, what kind of defects in the form of the body he was able to cure or relieve, but had not thought it expedient to do so; these he has enumerated and described at the end of the work. They are twentytwo in number; among them are the following when the head, from a contraction of the tendons, fell on one of the shoulders, he enabled the party to hold his head erect. On the other hand, when a child came into the world clubfooted, so that it could only touch the ground with its ancles, he completely, he says, cured the defect, and he was so sure of his principles, that he required no part of his stipulated pay until the cure was effected. Some time after his death, viz. in 1739, a posthumous work was published on the rickets, in his native language. Haller speaks favourably of it, and has given a brief analysis of its contents, by which it appears to contain some useful practical observations.