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

“He was born not far from Taunton, in this county (Somersetshire), whose father was a master of musick and his harmonious mind made an impression on his son’s genius, who proved an exquisite poet. He carried in his Christian and surname, two holy prophets, his monitors so to qualify his raptures, that he abhorred all prophaneness. He was also a judicious historian, witness his Lives of our English kings since the conquest, until king Edward III. wherein he hath the happiness to reconcile brevity with clearness, qualities of great distance in other authors. He was a servant in ordinary to queen Anne, who allowed him, a fair salary. As the tortoise burieth himself all the winter under the ground, so Mr. Daniel would lye hid at his garden-house in Old -street, nigh London, for some months together (the more retiredly to enjoy the company of the muses) and then would appear in publick, to converse with his friends, whereof Dr. Cowel and Mr. Camden were principal. Some tax him to smack of the old cask, as resenting of the Romish religion, but they have a quicker palate than I, who can make any such discovery. In his old age he turned husbandman, and rented a farm in Wiltshire, nigh the Devizes. I can give no account how he thrived thereupon. For though he was well versed in Virgil, his fellow-husbandman-poet, yet there is more required to make a rich farmer, than only to say his Georgics by heart; and I question whether his Italian will fit our English husbandry. Besides, I suspect that Mr. Daniel his fancy was too fine and sublimated to be wrought down to his private profit.”

His works consist of: 1. “The Complaint of Rosamond,” Lond. 1594, 1598, 1611, and 1623, 4to. 2. Various “Sonnets” to Delia. 3. “Tragedy of Cleopatra,” Lond. 1594, 1598, 4to. 4. “Of the” Civil Wars between the houses of Lancaster and York,“Lond. 1604, 1609, 8vo, and 1623, 4to. 5.” The Vision of the Twelve Goddesses, presented in a Mask,“&c. London, 1604, 8vo, and 1623, 4to. 6.” Panegyric congratulatory,“delivered to king James at Burleigh Harrington, in Rutlandshire, Lond. 1604 and 1623, 4to. 7.” Epistles“to various great personages, in verse, Lond. 1601 and 1623, 4to. 8.” Musophilus, containing a general Defence of Learning,“printed with the former. 9.” Tragedy of “Philotas,” Lond. 1611, &c. 8vo. 10. “Hymen’s Triumph; a pastoral tragi-comedy,” at the nuptials of lord Roxborough, Lond. 1623, 4to, 2d edit. 11.“Musa,” or a Defence of Rhyme, Lond. 1611, 8vo. 12. The “Epistle of Octavia to M. Antoiiius,” Lond. 1611, 8vo. 13. The first part of the “History of England,” in three books, Lond. 1613, 4to, reaching to the end of king Stephen, in prose; to which he afterwards added a second part, reaching to the end of king Edward III. Lond. 1618, 1621, 1623, and 1634, folio, continued to the end of king Richard III. by John Trussel, some time a Winchester scholar, afterwards a trader and alderman of that city. 14. “The Queen’s Arcadia,” a pastoral tragicomedy, 1605, 1623, Lond. 4to. 15. “Funeral poem on the Death of the earl of Devon,” Lond. 1623, 4to. In the same year his poetical works were published in 4to, by his brother John Daniel.

The editor of Phillips’s Theatrum (1800) to whom we are indebted for the above list, adds, that “the character of Daniel’s genius seems to be propriety, rather than elevation. His language is generally pure and harmonious; and his reflections are just. But his thoughts are too abstract, and appeal rather to the understanding than to the imagination or the heart; and he wanted the fire necessary for the loftier flights of poetry.”

Mr. Headly, who appears to have studied his works with much attention, thus appreciates his merit: “Though very rarely sublime, he has skill in the pathetic; and his pages are disgraced with neither pedantry nor conceit. We find, both in his poetry and prose, such a legitimate and rational flow of language as approaches nearer the style of the 18th than the 16th century, and of which we may safely assert, that it never will become obsolete. He certainly was the Atticus of his day. It seems to have been his error to have entertained too great a diffidence of his own abilities. Constantly contented with the sedate propriety of good sense, which he no sooner attains than he seems to rest satisfied, though his resources, had he but made the effort, would have carried him much farther. In thus escaping censure, he is not always entitled to praise. From not endeavouring to be great, he sometimes misses of being respectable. The constitution of his mind seems often to have failed him in the sultry and exhausting regions of the muses; for though generally neat, easy, and perspicuous, he too frequently grows slack, languid, and enervated. In perusing his long historical poem, we grow sleepy at the dead ebb of his narrative, notwithstanding being occasionally relieved with some touches of the pathetic. Unfortunate in the choice of his subject, he seems fearful of supplying its defects by digressional embellishment; instead of fixing upon one of a more fanciful cast, which the natural coolness of his judgment would necessarily have corrected, he has cooped himself up within the limited and narrow pale of dry events; instead of casting his eye on the general history of human nature, and giving his genius a range over her immeasurable fields, he has confined himself to an abstract diary of fortune; instead of presenting us with pictures of truth from the effects of the passions, he has versified the truth of action only; he has sufficiently, therefore, shown the historian, but by no means the poet. For, to use a sentiment of sir William Davenant’s, ‘ Truth narrative and past is the idol of historians, (who worship a dead thing); and truth operative, and by its effects continually alive, is the mistress of poets, who hath not her existence in mutter, but in reason.’ Daniel Las often the softness of Rowe without his effeminacy. In his Complaint of Cleopatra, he has caught Ovid’s manner very happily, as he has no obscurities either of style or language, neither pedantry nor affectation, all of which have concurred in banishing from use the works of his contemporaries. The oblivion he has met with is peculiarly undeserved; he has shared their fate, though innocent of their faults.”

The justice of these remarks cannot be disproved, although some of them are rather too figurative for sober criticism. Daniel’s fatal error was in causing history instead of fiction; yet in his lesser pieces, and particularly in his sonnets, are many striking poetical beauties; and his language is every where so much more harmonious than that of his contemporaries, that he deserves a place in every collection of English poetry, as one who had the taste or genius to anticipate the improvements of a more refined age. As a dramatic writer, he has been praised for his adherence to the models of antiquity, but whoever attempts this, attempts what has ever been found repugnant to the constitution of the English Theatre.

, an illustrious Italian poet, descended from one of the first families of Florence, of the name of Caccia Guida. Alighieri was the surname of the maternal line, natives of Ferrara, so called from a golden wing which the family bore on their arms. He was born in 1265, a little after the return of the Guelfs or pope’s faction, who had been exiled from their native country in consequence of the defeat at Monte Aperte. The superiority of his genius appeared early, and if we may credit his biographer Boccaccio, his amorous disposition appeared almost as soon. His passion for the lady whom he has celebrated in his poem by the name of Beatrice, is said to have commenced at nine years of age. She was the daughter of Eoleo Portinari, a noble citizen of Florence. His passion seems to have been of the platonic kind, according to the account he gives of it in his “Vita Nuova,” one of his earliest productions. The lady died at the age of twenty-six and Dante, affected by the afflicting event, fell into a profound melancholy, to cure which his friends recommended matrimony. Dante took their advice, but was unfortunate in choosing a lady of a termagant temper, from whom he found it necessary to separate, but not until they had lived miserably for a considerable time, during which she bore him several children. Either at this period, or after the death of his first mistress, he seems by his own account to have fallen into a profligate course of life, from which he was rescued by the prayers of his mistress, now a saint, who prevailed on the spirit of Virgil to attend him through the infernal regions. It is not easy to reduce this account to matter of fact, nor is it very clear indeed whether his reigning vice was profligacy, or ambition of worldly honours. It is certain, however, that he possessed this ambition, and had reason to repent of it.

He had already conceived notions of military glory, and had distinguished himself by his bravery in an action where the Florentines obtained a signal victory at Arezzo. This, joined with his acknowledged learning, prepared the way for his advancement to the first honours of the state. Italy, at that time, was distracted between the factions of the Guelfs, or partizans of the pope, and the Ghibellines, who adhered to the emperor. After many revolutions, the Gnelfs had got the superiority in Florence; and in 130O Dante, with several colleagues, was elected prior, the first executive office in the republic of Florence, and from this he is said to have dated all his misfortunes. Although the faction of the Ghibellines seemed totally extinct, an uninterrupted flow of ten years prosperity was attended with consequences more fatal to the Guelfs than all their past misfortunes. The two noble families of the Cherchi and Donati had been engaged in a quarrel of old standing, and now had recourse to arms, in consequence of a dispute between two branches of the family of Cancelieri, of Pistoia. The rival factions had distinguished themselves by the names of the blacks and the whites, i. e. the Neri and the Bianchi. Donati, from an old attachment to the part of the Cancelieri, called the blacks, joined their faction, which immediately determined the Cherchi to join the whites; and in order to put an end to the quarrel, Dante and his colleagues, ordered the heads of the opposite factions t remove from Pistoia to Florence, the consequence of which was, that all the noble families of Florence ranged themselves with the one or the other, and even the lower order of the citizens became partizans. At last, at a secret meeting of the blacks, Carso Donati proposed to apply to pope Boniface VIII. to terminate these intestine broils, by sending Charles of Valois of the blood royal of France. The whites, having learned this, assembled in arms, and clamoured loudly against the project, and Dante was so dissatisfied with it, that from that moment it is probable he took a decided part against the black faction.

To preserve, however, the appearance of impartiality, he and his colleagues, gaining the multitude on their side, ordered the leaders of both parties, Donati and Cherchi, into confinement; but Dante’s real sentiments soon appeared: the whites were set at liberty, and the blacks remained in bonds or in exile, and although Dante’s priorate had expired before the whites were released, the measure was attributed to his influence. This appearance of partiality gave the wished for pretext to Boniface to send Charles of Valois to Florence, who, after producing a letter pretended to be written by some of the leaders of the whites, offering to corrupt his integrity in their favour, recalled the exiles of the black faction, and banished their opponents. Dante was at this time at Rome soliciting the pope to conciliate the two parties, and finding his solicitations in vain, returned, and found the sentence of exile passed upon him, his possessions confiscated, and his house razed to the foundation. This news met him at Siena, where he was soon joined by a numerous body of exiles, who formed themselves into an army, and after makingsome unsuccessful efforts to enter their native city byforce, which they repeated for four years, were obliged tu disperse.

Dante first found a patron in the great Cane de la Scala, prince of Verona, whom he has celebrated in the first canto of the Inferno; but his high spirit was ill-suited to courtly dependance; and it is very probable he lost the favour of the prince by the frankness of his behaviour. Of this an instance is given in several authors. The disposition of the poet, in the latter part of his life, had acquired a strong tincture of melancholy, which made him less acceptable in the gay court of Verona, where probably a poet was only thought a character fit to find frivolous amusements for his patron. A common jester, or buffoon (a noted personage in those days), eclipsed the character of the hard, and neither the variety of his learning, nor the sublimity of his genius, stood him in any stead. Cane, the prince, perceived that he was hurt by it; and, instead of altering his mode of treatment, very ungenerously exasperated his resentment, by observing one day in public company, that it was very extraordinary, that the jester, whom every one knew to be a worthless fellow, should be so much admired by him, and all his court; while Dante, a man unparalleled in learning, genius, and integrity, was universally neglected. “You will cease to wonder (says Dante), when you consider that similarity of manners is the strongest bond of attachment.” It does not appear whether the prince resented this answer, which he surely must have felt; but it is certain that the prince endeavoured to make the poet an occasional object of merriment in some very low instances, and Dante condescended to meet him even in that humble species of wit. Dante, however, soon found it necessary to seek his fortune elsewhere, and from Verona he retired to France, according to Manetti; and Boccaccio affirms that he disputed in the theological schools of Paris with great reputation, which Boccaccio had a much better opportunity of knowing than Bavle, who takes upon him to question the fact.

Dante’s first prospect of better fortune opened in 1308, when Henry, count of Luxemburgh was raised to the empire. In hopes of being restored to his native country, he attached himself to the interests of the new emperor, in whose service he is supposed to have written his Latin work “De Monarchia,” in which he asserts the rights of the empire against the encroachments of the papacy. In 131 J, he instigated the emperor to lay siege to Florence, in which enterprize, says one of his biographers, he did not chuse to appear in person, from motives of respect to his native country. But the emperor was repulsed by the Florentines; and his death, which happened next year, deprived Dante of all hopes of re-establishment in his native country. After this disappointment he is supposed to have spent several years in roving about Italy, in a state of poverty and dependance; till he found an honourable establishment at Ravenna, by the friendship of Guido NoVelio de Polenta, lord of that place, who received tbl? illustrious exile with the most endearing liberality, continued to protect him during the few remaining years of his life, and extended his munificence even to the ashes of the poet.

Eloquence was one of the many talents which Dante possessed in an eminent degree; on this account he is said to have been employed in fourteen different embassies during the course of his life, and to have succeeded in most of them. His patron Guido had occasion to try his abilities in a service of this nature, and dispatched him as his ambassador, to negociate a peace with the Venetians, who were preparing for hostilities against Ravenna. Manetti asserts that he was unable to procure a public audience at Venice, and returned to Ravenna by land, from his apprehension of the Venetian fleet. But the fatigue of his journey, and the mortification of having failed in his attempt to preserve his generous patron from the impending danger, threw him into a fever, which terminated in death. He died Sept. 14, 1321, in the palace of Guido, who paid the most tender regard to his memory. This magnificent patron, says Boccaccio, commanded the body to be adorned with poetical ornaments; and alter being carried on a bier through the principal streets of Ravenna, by the most illustrious citizens, to be deposited in a marble coffin. He pronounced himself the funeral oration, and expressed his design of erecting a most splendid monument, in honour of the deceased; a design, which his subsequent misfortunes rendered him unable to accomplish. At his request, however, many epitaphs were written on the poet. The best of them, says Boccaccio, was by Giovanni di Virgilio, of Bologna, a famous author of the time, and the intimate friend of Dante. Bernardo Bembc, the father of the celebrated cardinal, raised a handsome monument over the neglected ashes of the poet, with a Latin inscription; but before this, the Florentines had vainly endeavoured to gain the bones of their great poet from the city of Ravenna. In the age of Leo X. they made a second attempt, by a solemn application to the pope for that purpose; and Michael AngeJo, an enthusiastic admirer of Dante, very liberally offered to execute a magnificent monument to the poet, but the hopes of the Florentines were again unsuccessful.

Dante is described by Boccaccio, as a man of middle stature; his demeanour was solemn, and his walk slow; his dress suitable to his age and rank; his visage long, his nose aquiline, his eyes full, his cheek bones large, and upper lip a little projecting over the under one; his complexion was olive, his hair and beard thick and curled. This gave him that singularity of aspect, which made his enemies observe, that he looked like one who had visited the infernal regions. His deportment, both in public and private life, was regular and exemplary, and his moderation in eating and drinking remarkable.

His fame rests on his “Divina Commedia,” unquestionably a great and singular, but very unequal work. At what time, or in what place, he wrote it, his numerous commentators seem unable to determine. The life of Dante, in which we have principally followed Mr. Boyd, in the preliminary matter to his excellent translation, is after all not the life of a poet, nqr does it furnish the information we naturally look for in order to enable us to trace the progress of genius. Boccaccio asserts, that he began the “Commedia” in his thirty-eighth year, and had finished seven cantos of his “Inferno” before his exile, and that in the plunder of his house, on that event, the beginning of his poem was fortunately preserved, but remained for some time neglected, till, its merit being accidentally discovered by an intelligent poet, Dino, it was sent to the marquis Marcello Marespina, an Italian nobleman, by whom Dante was then protected. The marquis restored these lost papers to the poet, and intreated him to proceed in the work, which opened in so promising a manner. To this accident we are probably indebted for the poem of Dante, which he must have continued under all the disadvantages of an unfortunate and agitated life. It does not appear at what time he completed it: perhaps before he quitted Verona, as he dedicated the “Paradeso” to his Veronese patron. The critics are not agreed why he called this poem “Commedia.”

The very high estimation in which this work was held in, Florence appears from a very singular institution. The republic of Florence, in 1373, assigned a public stipend to a person appointed to read lectures on the poem of Dante. Boccaccio was the first person engaged in this office; but his death happening two years after his appointment, his comment extended only to the first seventeen cantos of the “Inferno.” Another very terrible instance of their veneration for their native bard is told by the author of the “Memoires de Petrarque.” Ceno de Ascoli, a celebrated physician and astrologer, had the boldness to write parodies on the poem of Dante. This drew on him the animadversion of the inquisition. Charles, duke of Calabria, thought to protect him, but in vain. The bishop of Aversa, his chancellor, declared it was highly impious to entertain a sorcerer as a physician, and Ascoli was accordingly burnt at Florence, about three years after the death of the poet whom he had maligned.

The “Commedia” of Dante is a species of satiric epic, in which the reader is conducted through the three stages, “the Inferno,” the “Purgatorio,” and “Paradiso,” the whole consisting of a monstrous assemblage of characters, pagan heroes and philosophers, Christian fathers, kings, popes, monks, ladies, apostles, saints, and hierarchies; yet frequently embellished with passages of great sublimity and pathos (of the latter, what is comparable to the tale of Ugolino?) and imagery and sentiments truly Homeric. The highest praise, however, must be given to his “Inferno,” a subject which seems to have suited the gloomy vvildness of his imagination, which appears tamed and softened even in the most interesting pictures in the “Purgatorio” and “Paradiso.” Whether, says an excellent living critic, Dante was stimulated to his singular work by the success of his immediate predecessors, the Provenal poets, or by the example of the ancient Roman authors, has been doubted. The latter opinion, Mr. Roscoe thinks the more probable. In his “Inferno” he had apparently the descent of ^neas in view, but in the rest of his poem there is little resemblance to any antecedent production. Compared with the ^neid, adds Mr. Roscoe, “it is a piece of grand Gothic architecture at the side of a beautiful Roman temple,” on which an anonymous writer remarks that this Gothic grandeur miserably degenerates in the adjoining edifices, the “Purgatorio” and “Paradiso.”

The editions of Dante’s “Commedia” have been very numerous. The best is said to be that of Venice, 1757, 3 vols. 4to. It was first printed in 1472, probably at Foligno, in a folio volume, without place. This is of great rarity and value. The second is in folio of the same date, and the third also of the same date in 4to. The three are accurately described by Mr. Dibdin in his valuable tract, “Book Rarities.” Dante is the author of some sonnets which are not unworthy of him. A considerable number of them are in his “Vita Nuova.” In the few Latin works he wrote, his progress in that language is evident, but all were soon so eclipsed by his “Commedia,” that, except as matters of curiosity, they have seldom been perused.

, according to some, a descendant of the famous poet, was born at Perugia in 1537, and took the habit of a Dominican. He became skilful in philosophy and divinity, but more so in the mathematics. He was invited to Florence by the great duke Cosmo I. and explained to him the sphere and the books of Ptolemy, and left here a marble quadrant, and an equinoctial and meridian line on the front of the church of St. Maria Novella. He read public lectures on the same subject, and had many auditors in the university of Bologna, where he was appointed mathematical professor. Before he returned to Perugia, he made a fine map of that city, and of its whole territory, and in 1576 traced the grand meridian in the church of St. Petrona, which Cassini completed. The reputation of his learning caused him to be invited to Rome by Gregory XIII. who employed him in making geographical maps and plans. He acquitted himself so well in this, that the pope thought himself obliged to prefer him; and accordingly gave him the bishopric of Alatri, near Rome. He went and resided in his diocese; but Sixtus V. who succeeded Gregory XIII. would have him near his person, and ordered him to return to Rome. Dante was preparing for the journey, but was prevented by death, in 1586. His principal works are, “A Treatise of the Construction and Use of the Astrolabe,” “Mathematical Tables,” and a “Commentary on the Laws of Perspective.”

, of the same family, probably, with the preceding, and native also of Perugia, was an excellent mathematician, and is memorable for having fitted a pair of wings so exactly to his body, as to be able to fly with them. He made the experiment several times over the lake Trasimenus; and succeeded so well, that he had the courage to perform before the whole city of Perugia, during the solemnity of the marriage of Bartholomew d'Alviano with the sister of John Paul Baglioni. He shot himself from the highest part of the city, and directed his flight over the square, to the admiration of the spectators: but unfortunately the iron, with which he managed one of his wings, failed; and then, not being able to balance the weight of his body, he fell on a church, and broke his thigh. Bayle fancies, that the history of this Daedalus, for so he was called, will not generally be credited; yet he observes, that it is said to have been practised at other places, for which he refers us to the “Journal des Sgavans” of 1678. Dante was afterwards invited to be professor of the mathematics at Venice. He flourished towards the end of the fifteenth century, and died before he was forty years old.

, a native of Perugia, of the family of Rainaldi, imitated so well the verses of the poet Dante, that he was generally called by his name. He was not less distinguished by the delicacy of his poetry, than by his skill in the mathematics and in architecture. He died in 1512, in an advanced age, after having invented several machines, and composed a commentary on the sphere of Sacrobosco. His grandson Vincent Dante, an able mathematician, like him, was at the same time painter and sculptor. His statue of Julius III. has been generally looked upon as a master-piece of the art. Philip II. king of Spain, offered him a large salary to induce him to come and finish the paintings of the Escurial; but the delicacy of Dante’s constitution would not permit him to quit his natal air. He died at Perugia in 1576, at the age of forty-six. There is extant by him, “The lives of those who have excelled in drawings for statues.”

D'Antine (Francis), a Benedictine of the congregation of St. Maur, was born at Gouvieux in the diocese of Liege, in 1688, and made himself highly respected among his brethren by his piety and charitable attention to the poor and afflicted. To the learned world he is known as the editor of the first five volumes of the new edition of Du Gauge’s Glossary, in 1736, which he very much improved and enlarged. He was also one of the editors of the great collection of French historians begun by Bouquet, and of the “Art de verifier les dates,” of which a new edition was published by Clement in 1770, folio. D'Amine translated the Psalms from the Hebrew, Paris, 1739 and 1740. He died in 1746.

, a learned German divine of the Lutheran church, and whose talents contributed greatly to raise the reputation of the university of Jena, was born Feb. 1, 1654, at Sandhusen, a village near Gotha. He appears to have obtained the patronage of the duke Frederick, who defrayed the expence of his education, both at school, and at the university of Wittemberg, where he took his master’s degree in 1676. Having devoted much of his attention to the Hebrew language and antiquities, he went to Hamburgh, where he profited by the assistance of Esdras Edzardi and other learned Jews, and was enabled to read the rabbinical writings with facility. From Hamburgh he went to Leipsic, and thence to Jena, from which in 1683 he visited Holland and England, acquiring in both countries the acquaintance of men of learning. On his return, having determined to settle at Jena, he was appointed professor extraordinary of the oriental languages, and on the death of the learned Frischmuth, was advanced to be professorordinary. In these offices he acquired great reputation, and attracted a number of foreign students. Some time after, he was appointed professor of divinity, in which he was no less popular. He died of a stroke of apoplexy, Dec. 20, 1727. He wrote, among many other works, “Sinceritas sacrae Scripturae veteris testamenti triumphans, cujus prodromus Sinceritas Scriptuvae Vet. Test, prevalente Keri vacillans,” Jena, 1713, 4to; and various dissertations in Latin, in controversy with the Jews, or on topics of Jewish antiquities, particularly “Divina Elohim inter coaequales de primo homine condendo deliberatio,” 1712 “Inauguratio Christi haud obscurior Mosaica, decem dissert, asserta,” Jena, 1717, 4to and a very ingenious tract entitled “Davidis in Ammonitas devictos mitigata crudelitas,” 1713.

, a brave warrior in the end of the sixteenth and beginning of the seventeenth century, and created earl of Dariby by king Charles I. was the second son of sir John Danvers, knight, by Elizabeth his wife, daughter and coheir to John Nevil the last lord Latimer. He was born at Dantesey in Wiltshire, on the 28th of June, 1573. After an education suitable to his birth, he went and served in the Low Country wars, under Maurice count of Nassau, afterwards prince of Orange; and was engaged in many military actions of those times, both by sea and land. He was made a captain in the wars of France, occasioned in that kingdom by the League; and there knighted for his good service under Henry IV. king of France. He was next employed in Ireland, as lieutenantgeneral of the horse, and serjeant-major of the whole army, under Robert earl of Essex, and Charles Baron of Montjoy, in the reign of queen Elizabeth. Upon the accession of king James I. he was, on account of his family’s deserts and sufferings, advanced, July 21, 1603, to the dignity of a peer of this realm, by the title of Baron of Dantesey: and in J 605, by a special act of parliament, restored in blood as heir to his father, notwithstanding the attainder of his elder brother, sir Charles Danvers, knight. He was also appointed lord president of Munster in Ireland; and in 1620 made governor of the Isle of Guernsey for life. By king Charles I. he was created earl of Danby, February 5, 1625-6; and made of his privy council; and knight of the order of the garter. Being himself a man of learning, as well as a great encourager of it, and observing that opportunities were wanting in the university of Oxford for the useful study of botany, he purchased for the sum of two hundred and fifty pounds, five acres of ground, opposite Magdalen college, which had formerly served for a burying-place to the Jews (residing in great numbers at Oxford, till they were expelled England by king Edward I. in 1290), and conveyed his right and title to that piece of land to the university, on the 27th of March, 1622. The ground being first considerably raised, to prevent its being overflowed by the river Cherwell, the heads of the university laid the first stones of the walls, on the 25th of July following. They were finished in 1633, being fourteen feet high: and cost the noble benefactor about five thousand pounds. The entrance into the garden is on the north side under a stately gate, the charge of building which amounted to between rive and fix hundred pounds. Upon the front of that gateway, is this Latin inscription: Gloriie Dji Opt. Max. Honori Caroli Regis, in usum Acad. et Keipub. Henricus Comes Danby, D.D. MDCXXXII. For the maintenance of it, and of a gardener, the noble founder left, by will, the impropriate rectory of Kirkdale in Yorkshire: which was afterwards settled for the same purpose, by his brother and heir sir John Danvers, knt. The earl of Danby’s will bore date the 14th of December, 1640.

He founded also an alms-house, and a free-school, at Malmesbury in Wiltshire. In his latter days he chose a retired life and (upon what account is not well known) fell under the displeasure of the court. At length, he died at his house in Cornbury Park in Oxfordshire, Jan. 20, 1643-4, in the seventy-first year of his age: and was buried in the chancel of the parish-church of Dantesey, under a noble monument of white marble, with an epitaph which contains a high character of him. He was never married.

His younger brother and heir was sir John Danvers, knt. one of the gentlemen of the privy-chamber to Charles I. who was so ungrateful and inhuman, as to sit in judgment upon his gracious master, that unfortunate prince, and to be one of those who signed the warrant for his execution. He died before the restoration of king Charles II. but, however, all his estates both real and personal were confiscated in 1661.

, a physician at Amsterdam, who died in 1690, gained some reputation in the seventeenth century, by the descriptions he published from 1668 to 1680, in Dutch, of Malabar, Coromandel, Africa, Asia, Syria, Palestine, and America, in as many folio volumes. These were the fruits of very accurate and laborious compilation, for he had never seen one of those countries. The description of Africa, and that of the Archipelago, were translated into French.

, a French military surgeon, who acquired much celebrity for his skill in treating disorders in the urethra, particularly for his improved method of making bougies, was born at St. Frajon in Gascony March 6, 1701, and after studying the art, became surgeon-major of the imperial troops, and afterwards practised at Milan, and at Turin, where the king Victor Amadeus promised him great encouragement if tie would remain; but at that time he wished to travel for improvement, and after visiting Rome and Vienna, continued some time at Messina, where he exerted his skill and humanity with great success. Having devoted much of his attention to the disorders of the bladder, he published in 1745, “Recueil d‘Observations Chirurgicales sur les Maladies de l’Urethra,” which has been several times reprinted, and in 1750, was translated into English by Mr. Tomkyns, an eminent surgeon of London, who was able, he says, from his own experience, to attest the superior utility of Daran’s bougies over those that had been commonly used. In the fifth volume of the “Journeaux de Medicine,” there is a communication by Daran, in which he makes mention of a tube he had invented for drawing off the urine. This he describes more particularly in his “Treatise on the Gonorrhoea Virulenta,” first published in 1756. It is a flexible catheter, formed of a spiral wire, covered with the same composition as that used in making the bougies, and was capable of being introduced into the bladder, in many cases, where it would have been dangerous, often impossible, to use the common catheter. Considerable improvements have been since made of this instrument, but the merit of the invention still remains with Daran. The fame he acquired, during his residence at Paris, brought a nun her of strangers to visit him, and the profits of his practice were very great; but his charity to the indigent, and an easiness of temper, which led him into speculations, reduced him at last to very low circumstances, and he was comparatively poor when he died, in 1784. It is much to his honour that when thus reduced, and when the infirmities of age were approaching, he divulged, in 1779, the secret of the composition of his bougies in a work entitled “Composition du remede de Daran, &c.” 12mo, when he could derive no benefit except from the sale of his book. His other publications were, 1. “Reponse a la Brochure de Bayet sur la defense et la conservation des parties les plus essentielles de l'homme,” 1750, 12mo; and 2. “Lettre sur ua article des Tumeurs.”

. See Darcy. D‘Arcon (John Claudius Eleonore Limiceaud), an eminent French engineer, and memorable in history as the contriver of a mode of besieging Gibraltar which proved so fatal to his countrymen, was born at Pontarlier in 1733. His father, an advocate, intended to bring him up for the church, and had provided him with a benefice, but Dar5011 from his infancy had a turn for the military life; and when at school, instead of learning Latin, was copying drawings and sketches of fortifications. On one occasion he took a singular mode of acquainting his parents with the error they had committed, in seeking a profession for him. Having by their desire sat for his portrait, he substituted, with his own hand, the uniform of an engineer, instead of the dress of an abbe, in which the artist had clothed him. His father, struck with this silent hint, no longer opposed his inclinations. In 1754 he was admitted into the school of Mezieres, and the following year was received as an ordinary engineer. He served afterwards with distinguished honour in the seven years’ war, and particularly in 1761, at the defence of Cassel. He atterwar is devoted himself to improvements in the military art, and even in the making of drawings and charts; and having great ambition, with a warmth of imagination that presented every thing as practicable, he at length in 1780 conceived the memorable plan of the siege of Gibraltar. This, say his countrymen, which has made so much noise in Europe, has not been fairly estimated, because everyone has judged from the event. Without entering, however, in this place, on its merits, all our historians have attributed to Darcon’s ideas a grandeur and even sublimity of conception vviiich did him much honour, and it is yet remembered that almost all Europe was so perfectly convinced of the success of the plan as to admit of no doubt or objection. Nothing of the kind, however, was ever attended with a discomfiture more complete, and D’Arcou wrote and printed a species of justification, which at least shows the bitterness of his disappointment. On the commencement of the revolutionary war, he engaged on the popular side; but, except some concern he had in the invasion of Holland, does not appear to have greatly distinguished himself. He was twice denounced by Hnctuating governments; and being treated in the same manner after his Dutch campaign, he retired from the service, and wrote his last work on fortifications. In 179y the first consul introduced him into the senate, but he did not enjoy this honour long, as he died July 1, 1800. He was at that time a member of the Institute. His works, still in high estimation in France, are: 1. “Reflexions d'un ingenieur, en reponse a un tacticien,” Amst. 1773, 12mo. 2. “Correspondanee sur Part de la Guerre entre un colonel de dragons et un capitaine d'infanterie,” Bouillon, 1774, 8vo. 3. “Defense d‘une systeme de Guerre Nationale, ou analyse raisonne d’un ouvrage, intitule * Refutation complete du systeme, 1 &c.” This is a defence of M. Menil Durand’s system, which had been attacked by Guibert and the preceding pamphlet has a respect to the same dispute concerning what the French call the ordre projond and the ordre mince. 4. “Conseil de Guerre prive, sur revenement de Gibraltar en 1782,” 1785, 8vo. 5. “Memoires pour serrir a l‘histoire du siege de Gibraltar, par l’auteur des batteries flottantes,” 1783, 8vo. 6. “Considerations sur l'influence du genie de Vauban dans la balance des forces de Petat,” 1786, 8vo. 7. “Examen detaillté de l'importante question de Putilite des places fortes et retranchments,” Strasburgh, 1789, 8vo. 8. “De la force militaire considered dans ses rapports conservateurs,” Strasburgh, 1789, 8vo, with a continuation, 1790. 9. “Reponse aux Memoires de M. de Montalembert, sur la fortification dite perpendiculaire,” 1790, 8vo. 10. “Considerations militaires et politiques sur les Fortifications,” Paris, 1795, 8vo. This, which is the most important of all his works, and was printed at the expence of the government, contains the essence of all his other productions, and the result of his experience on an art which he had studied during the whole of his life.

, of a noble and ancient family in Ireland, was born in Galloway Sept. 18, 1725. His parents, who were attached to the exiled house of Stuart, sent him to Paris in 1739, where, being put under the care of M. Clairault, at seventeen years of age he gave a new solution of the problem of the curve of equal pressure in a resisting medium. This was followed the year after by a determination of the curve described by a heavy body, sliding by its own weight along a moveable plane, at the same time that the pressure of the body causes an horizontal motion in the plane. This problem had indeed been solved by John Bernoulli and Clairault; but, besides that chevalier Darcy’s method was peculiar to him, we discover throughout the work traces of that originality which is the leading character of all his productions. The commencement of the war took him off in some measure from his studies, and he served during several campaigns in Germany and Flanders, as captain of the regiment of Conde. In 1746 he was appointed to accompany the troops that were to be sent to Scotland to assist the pretender; but the vessel in which he sailed was taken by the English, and Darcy, whose life was forfeited by the laws of his country, as being taken in arms against her, was saved by the humanity of the English commander. During the course of this war, amidst all its bustle and dangers, he found leisure to contribute two memoirs to the academy. The first contained a general principle of mechanics, that of the preservation of the rotatory motion. Daniel Bernoulli and Euler had found it out in 1745; but, besides that it is not likely their works should have reached Mr. Darcy in the midst of his campaigns, his method, which is different from theirs, is equally original, simple, elegant, and ingenious. This principle, which he again brought forward in 1750, by the name of “the principle of the preservation of action,” in order to oppose it to Maupertuis’s principle of the least action, Darcy made use of in solving the problem of the precession of the equinoxes: here, however, he miscarried; and in general it is to be observed, that though all principles of this kind may be used as mathematical formuloe, two of them at least must necessarily be employed in the investigation of problems, and even these with great caution; so that the luminous and simple principle given by M. d'Alembert in 1742 is the only one, on account of its being direct, which can be sufficient of itself for the sotion of problems.

Having published an “Essay on Artillery” in 1760, containing various curious experiments on the charges of powder, &c. and several improvements on Robins (who was not so great a mathematician as he), Darcy continued the experiments to the last moment of his life, but has left nothing behind him. In 1765 he published his “Memoir on the duration of the sensation of 8i^ht,” the most ingenious of his works, and that which shews him in the best light as an accurate and ingenious maker of experiments: the result of these researches was, that a body may souietimes pass by our eyes without being seen, or marking its presence, otherwise than by weakening the brightness of the object it covers; thus, in turning pieces of card painted blue and yellow, you only perceive a continued circle of green; thus the seven prismatic colours, rapidly turned, produce an obscure white, which is the obscurer as the motion is more rapid. As this duration of the sensation increases with the brightness of the object, it would have been interesting to know the laws, according to which the augmentation of the duration follows the intensity of the light, and, contrarywise, what are the gradations of the intensity of the light of an object which motion makes continually visible; but Darcy, now obliged to trust to other eyes than his own, was forced to relinquish this pursuit. Darcy, always employed in comparing mathematical theory and observation, made a particular use of this principle in his “Memoir on Hydraulic Machines,” printed in 1754. In this he shews how easy it is to make mistakes in looking by experiment for the laws of such effects as are susceptible of a maximum or minimum; and indicates at the same time, how a system of experiments may be formed, which shall lead to the discovery of these laws. All Darcy’s works bear the character which results from the union of genius and philosophy; but as he measured every thing upon the largest scale, and required infinite accuracy in experiment, neither his time, fortune, nor avocations allowed him to execute more than a very small part of what he projected. He was amiable, spirited, lively, and a lover of independence; a passion to which he sacrificed even in the midst of literary society, where perhaps a little aristocracy may not be quite so dangerous.

Darcy, though estranged from it by circumstances, loved and respected his old country: the friend and protector of every Irishman who came to Paris, he could not help feeling a secret pride, even in the successes of that enemy, against whom he was so often and so honourably to himself employed. Of his personal history, it yet remains to be added, that in the seven years’ war he served in the regiment of Fitz-James; and in 1770 was appointed mareschal de-camp, and the same year the academy of sciences admitted him to the rank of pensionary. In 1777 he married a niece who was brought up under his care at Paris, and then took the name of Count Darcy. He died two years after this marriage, Oct. 18, 1779. Condorcet wrote his cloge, published in the History of the Academy, and seems throughout anxious to do justice to his talents and character, a circumstance, which, we are told, was very highly honourable to Condorcet, as he had been most unjustly the continual object of Darcy’s aversion and hatred. Darcy’s essays, printed in the Memoirs of the Academy of Sciences, are various and very ingenious, and are contained in the volumes for the years 1742, 1747, 1749, 1750, 1751, 17-52, 1753, 1754, 1758, 1759, 1760, 1765, and in tom. I. of the “Savans Etrangers.”

, a Trojan priest, celebrated by Homer, is said to have written a history of the Trojan war, which yElian speaks of as extant in his time, but it is now lost, and that which goes under his name is supposed to have been the work of Septimus Romanus, who flourished about the year 370. There are editions of it of the dates 1472, 1541, and one at London, 1675, but it has most generally been printed with Dictys Cretensis, another author of doubtful authenticy.

D'Arquier (Augustine), a French astronomer, fellow of the royal society of Toulouse, correspondent member of the royal academy of Paris, and a member of the Institute, was born at Toulouse, Nov. 23, 1718, and having early cultivated the science of astronomy, and the sciences connected with it, devoted his long life to the same pursuits, and acquired great reputation among his countrymen. Such was his enthusiasm, that, without any assistance from government, he purchased the most valuable instruments, erected an observatory on his house, taught scholars, and defrayed the expence of calculations, &c. He died in his native city, Jan. 18, 1802. He published, 1. “Observations Astronomiques faites a Toulouse, &c.” Paris, 1778, 4to, the most complete collection of observations that had ever been furnished from a provincial city. There are six hundred of the moon, thirtythree oppositions, several observations of Mercury, of the spots in the sun, the satellites of Jupiter, and the eclipses of the stars. One of the most surprizing circumstances in this collection is the great number of the passages of Mercury that have been observed by M. D'Arquier, notwithstanding the pretended difficulties which have discouraged modern astronomers from observing that planet. 2. “Observations Astronomiques,” 1783, 2 vols. 4to, containing a series of the usual astronomical observations, from 1748 to 1781: some useful instructions on the management of the pendulum: and observations on the motion and magnitude of the Georgium sidus. 3. “Lettres sur l'astronome pratique,” 1786, 8vo. Besides these he published some translations, as Simson’s Geometry, Lambert’s Cosmological Letters, and Ulloa’s Observation on the eclipse of the sun in 1778. D'Arquier died Jan. 18, 1802, in Toulouse.

, a learned lawyer, was born 1572, at Cahors, and after studying there, at Rhodez, and Toulouse, went to Paris with the president de Verdun, and succeeded Nicholas Oudin as professor of law, 1618. He was afterwards professor of common law at the royal college, and died April 2, 1651. It appears from his works, which were published at Paris, 1656, fol. that he was well acquainted with the ancient church discipline, and a very useful compiler, if not a profound scholar. He published some separate tracts besides those included in the above volume, which are enumerated in our authorities.

, a physician and poet, was a native of Elton, near Newark, Nottinghamshire, where he was born December 12, 1731. After going through the usual school education, under the Rev. Mr. Burrows, at the grammar-school at Chesterfield, with credit, he was sent to St. John’s college, at Cambridge. There he only continued until he took his bachelor’s degree in medicine, when he went to Edinburgh to complete his studies; which being finished, and having taken the degree of doctor in medicine, a profession to which he was aUvays attached, he went to Lichfield, and there commenced his career of practice. Being sent for, soon after his arrival, to Mr. Inglis, a gentleman of considerable fortune in the neighbourhood, who was ill with fever, and in so dangerous a state that the attending physician had given up the case as hopeless, the doctor had the good fortune to restore him to health. This gave him so high a degree of reputation at Litchfield, and in the neighbouring towns and villages, that his competitor, who was before in considerable practice, finding himself neglected, and nearly deserted, left the place. Dr. Darwin soon after married miss Howard, the daughter of a respectable inhabitant of Lichfield, by which he strengthened his interest in the place. By this lady he had three sons, who lived to the age of manhood; two of them he survived; the third, Dr. Robert Waring Darwin, is no.v in considerable practice as a physician at Shrewsbury. In 1781, our author, having married a second wife, removed to Derby, where he continued to reside to the time of his death, which happened on Sunday the 18th of April, 1802, in the seventieth year of his age. Six children by his second lady, with their mother, remain to lament the loss of him.

The doctor was of an athletic make, much pitted with the small-pox. He stammered much in his speech. He had enjoyed an almost uninterrupted good state of health until towards the conclusion of his life, which he attributed, and reasonably, to his temperate mode of living, particularly to his moderation in the use of fermented liquors. This practice he recommended strenuously to all who consulted him. Miss Seward, from whose Memoirs of the Life of Dr. Darwin these notices are principally taken, gives him the credit of having introduced habits of sobriety among the trading part of Lichfield, where it had been the custom to live more freely before he went to reside there. His frequent journies into the country on professional business, contributed also in no small degree to the preservation of his health and his faculties, which latter remained unimpaired to the day of his death. His death was sudden, occasioned by a fit of what he was used to call angina-pectoris, which he had several times experienced, and always relieved by bleeding plentifully.

As Dr. Darwin was a votary to poetry, as well as medicine, he occasionally sent his effusions in that way, to one or other of the monthly publications, but without his name, conceiving, from the example of Akenside and Armstrong, that the reputation he might acquire by his poetry, would operate as a bar to his advancement in the practice of medicine. His “Botanic Garden,” in which he celebrates what he calls the “Loves of the Plants,” the first of his poems to which he put his name, was not published until 1781, when his medical fame was so well established as to make it safe for him to indulge his taste in any way he should chuse. Besides, the poem was so amply furnished with notes, containing the natural history, and accounts of the properties of plants, that it did not seem very alien from his profession. The Botanic Garden is comprised in two parts. In the first the author treats of the economy of vegetables, in the second of the loves of the plants. The novelty of the design, the brilliancy of the diction, full of figurative expressions, in which every thing was personified, rendered the poem for some years extremely popular. But the fame which it acquired has in a great degree subsided, and it is now little noticed. It is probable, that an ingenious little poem, “The Loves of the Triangles,” published in a monthly journal, which is a happy imitation of the Darwinian manner, contributed to its decline.

In 1753, the author published the first volume of“Zoonomia, or the Laws of Organic Life,” 4to. The second volume, which completed the author’s plan, was printed in 1796. As the eccentric genius of the author was known, great expectations were formed of this work, the labour, we were told, of more than twenty years. It was to reform, or entirely new model, the whole system of medicine, professing no less than to account for the manner in which man, animals, and vegetables are formed. They all, it seems, take their origin from living filaments, susceptible of irritation, which is the agent that sets them in motion. Archimedes was wont to say, “give me a place to stand on, and I will move the earth:” such was his confidence in his know edge of the power of the lever. Our author said, “give me a fibre susceptible of irritation, and I will make a tree, a dog, a horse, a man.” “I conceive,” he says, Zoonomia, vol. I. p. 492, “the primordium, or rudiment of the embryon, as secreted from the blood of the parent, to consist in a single living filament, as a muscular fibre, which I suppose to be the extremity of a nerve of loco-motion, as a fibre of the retina is the extremity of a nerve of sensation; as, for instance, one of the fibrils which compose the mouth of an absorbent vessel; I suppose this living filament, of whatever form it may be, whether sphere, cube, or cylinder, to be endued with the capacity of being exciied into action by certain kinds of stimulus. By the stimulus of the surrounding fluid in which it is received from the mah-, it may bend into a ring, and thus form the lieg'nninj of a tube. This living ring may now embrace, or absorb a nutritive particle of the fluid in which it swims, and by drawing it into its pores, or joining it by compression to its extremities, may increase its own length or crassitude, and, by degrees, the living-ring may become a living tube. With this new organization, or accretion of parts, new kinds of irritability may commence,” &c.; whence, sensibility, which may be only an extension of irritability, and sensibility further extended, beget perception, memory, reason, and, in short, all those faculties which have been, it seems, erroneously attributed to mind, for which, it appears, there is not the smallest necessity; ajid as the Deity does nothing in vain, of course such a being does not exist. It would be useless to enter into a further examination of theZoonomia, which has long ceased to be popular; those who wish to see a complete refutation of the sophisms contained in it will read with satisfaction, “Observations on the Zoonomia of Dr. Darwin, by Thomas Brown, esq.” published at Edinburgh in 8vo, in 1798. In ISOi, the author published “Phytologia, or the Philosophy of Agriculture and Gardening;” but the public, tired with the reveries of the writer, let this large book of 600 pages in 4to pass almost unnoticed. As little attention was paid to a small tract on Female Education, which had little indeed to attract notice. “It is,” Miss Seward observes, “a meagre work, of little general interest, those rules excepted, which are laid down for the preservation of health.” It is, however, harmless, a character that can by no means be accorded to the Zoonomia, as may he gathered from the strictures which the author of his life in the Cyclopædia has justly passed on that work, and to which nothing could have given even a temporary popularity but the activity of a small sect to whom the author’s political and religious, or rather irreligious principles, were endeared. His son, Charles Darwin, who died at Edinburgh the 15th of May, 1778, while prosecuting his studies in medicine, deserves to be noticed for having discovered a. test distinguishing pus from mucus, for which a gold medal was adjudged him by the university. “As the result of numerous experiments,” he says, “when any one wishes to examine the matter expectorated by his patient, let him dissolve a portion of it in vitriolic acid, and another portion of it in caustic alkaline lixivium, and then add pure water to both solutions; if there is a precipitation in each solution, it is clear the expectorated matter is pus; if there is no precipitation, the matter is simply mucus.” Mr. Darwin left an unfinished essay on the retrograde motion of the absorbent vessels of animal bodies in some diseases. This was, some time after the death of the young man, published by his father, together with the dissertation for which he had obtained the prize medal.

, medallist to the republic of Geneva, where he was born in 1678, aspiring to be employed in the English mint, struck a series of kings of England in a good style, though not all of them taken from originals. He published them by subscription in 1731, at six guineas the set in copper, and fifteen in silver. He published also a series of events in the Roman History; some of the great characters in the reign of Louis XVI.; and a series of the reformers. He died in 1763. His brother James was in London three or four years to solicit a place for John in the mint, but did not succeed. James Antony Dassier, nephew of John, came over on Croker’s death in 1740, was next year appointed second engraver to the mint, returned to Geneva in 1745, and died at Copenhagen in 1759. The uncle had begun large medals of some of our great men then living; the nephew did several more, which were sold in copper at 7s. 6d. each. There is also a numerous suite of Roman history in small medals of bronze, by the younger Dassier, that are good performances.

, a learned Italian writer, the son of a lawyer at Sienna, was born at that place in 1420, and after acquiring some knowledge of the Latin language, was put under the care of Francis Philelphus, an eminent teacher at Sienna, who at the end of two years declared he was his best scholar. Dati, however, at this time suffered not a little from the ridicule of his schoolfellows, owing to a hesitation in his speech, which he is said to have cured by the means which Demosthenes adopted, that of speaking with small pebbles in his mouth. After finishing his classical studies, he learned Hebrew of some Jews, and then entered on a course of philosophy, jurisprudence, and theology. During his application to these branches, Odo Anthony, duke of Urbino, from the very favourable account he had of him, invited him to Urbino to teach the belles lettres. Dati accordingly set out for that city in April 1442, where he was received with every mark of honour and friendship by the duke, but this prosperity was not of long duration. He had not enjoyed it above a year and a half, when the duke, whose excesses and tyranny had rendered him odious, was assassinated in a public tumult, with two of his favourites; and Dati, who was hated by the populace merely because he was respected by the duke, was obliged to take refuge for his life in a church, while the mob pillaged his house. The successor of Odo, prince Frederick, endeavoured to console Dati for this misfortune, and offered him a pension, besides recompense for all he had lost; but Dati could not be reconciled to a residence so liable to interruption, and in 1444 returned to Sienna. Here, after refusing the place of secretary of the briefs, offered to him by pope Nicholas V. he opened a school for rhetoric and the classics, and acquired so much reputation, that the cardinal of Sienna, Francis Piccolomini, formally granted him permission to lecture on the Holy Scriptures, although he was a married man; and at the same time gave him a similar licence to teach and lecture on any subject, not only in his college, but in all public places, and even in the church, where, his son informs us, he once preached during Lent. He was also much employed in pronouncing harangues on public occasions in Latin, many of which are among his works. Nor were his talents confined to literature, but were the means of advancing him to the first offices of the magistracy, and the republic of Sienna entrusted him with the negociation of various affairs of importance at Rome and elsewhere. In 1 J-57 he was appointed secretary to the republic, which he held for two years. Towards the close of his life he laid aside the study of profane authors for that of the Scriptures and ecclesiastical historians. He died of the plague at Sienna, April 6, 1478. His son Nicolas collected his works for publication, “Augustini Dathi, Senensis, opera,” of which there are two editions, that printed at Sienna, 1503, fol. and an inferior in correctness, printed at Venice, 1516. They consist of treatises on the immortality of the soul letters; three books on the history of Sienna; a history of Piombinoj on grammar, &c. &c.

, professor of polite literature at Florence, where he was born, became famous, as well for his works as for the eulogies which many writers have bestowed on him. He behaved with great courtesy to all learned travellers who went to Florence, many of whom expressed their acknowledgment of it in their writings; but of his personal history, his countrymen have left us little account. He was a member of the academy della Crusca, and in that quality took the name of Smarrito, and became one of the chief ornaments of that society. He made a panegyric upon Lewis XIV. in Italian, and published it at Florence in 1699; the French translation of it was printed at Rome the year following. That monarch gave him a pension of an hundred pistoles, with a liberal invitation to France, which however he declined. He had already published some Italian poems in praise of Louis. The book entitled “Lettera di Timauro Antiate a Filaleti, della vera storia della Cicloide, e della famosissima esperienza dell' argento vivo,” and printed at Florence in 1663, was written by him; for it appears from the 26th page of the letter, that the pretended Timauro Antiate is no other than Charles Dati. In this work he endeavours to prove that father Mursennus is not the inventor of the cycloid, as is said in the history of it, but that the glory of that invention belongs to Galileo; the other, that Torricelli was innocent of plagiarism, when he pretended to be the first who explained the suspension of quicksilver in a glass tube by the pressure of the air, for that he was the real author of this supposition. But the chief work to which our Dati applied himself, was the “Vite dei Pittori,” which he published in 1667. This, which was to have embraced the lives of all the ancient painters, contains only those of Zeuxis, Parrhasius, Apelles, and Protogenes. He published also a valuable collection of elegant and useful lessons for writing Italian, entitled “Prose Fiorentiui.” Few men had studied that language with more attention. He died in 1675, greatly lamented for his personal, as well as public character. Among his numerous correspondents we find the name of our illustrious Milton. There is a recent and much improved edition of his “Vite dei Pittori” by Della Valle, published at Sienna, 1795, 4to.

, esq. of the Middle Temple, a barrister at law, afterwards master in chancery, and at the time of his death, Jan. 8, 1763, accomptaiit-general of that court, is noticeable as having translated the “Memoirs of cardinal de Retz,” which were printed in 1723, 12mo, xvith a dedication to Congreve, who encouraged the publication. He was F. R. S. and an able mathematician. In the dispute concerning elliptical arches, at. the time when Bluckfriars bridge was built, application was made by the committee for his opinion on the subject, and his answer may be seen in the London Magazine for March, 1760. He also published in 1761, “A Vindication of the New Calendar Tables, and Rules annexed to the Act for regulating the commencement of the year,” &c. 410.

, bishop of Salisbury in the seventeenth century, was born in Watling-street, London, where his father was an eminent merchant, but originally descended from the ancient family of the Davenants of Sible-Heningham, in Essex. What school he was educated in, we cannot find. But, on the 4th of July, 1587, he was admitted pensioner of Queen’s college, in Cambridge. He regularly took his degrees in arts; that of master in 1594. A fellowship was offered him about the same time; but his father would not permit him to accept of it, on account of his plentiful fortune: however, after his father’s decease he accepted of one, into which he was admitted September 2, 1597. Being thus settled in the college, he distinguished himself, as before, by his learning and other excellent qualifications. Tn 1601-he took his degree of B. D. and that of D. D. in 1609. This same year last-mentioned he was elected lady Margaret’s professor, which place he enjoyed till 1621. He was also one of her preachers in 1609 and 1612. On the 20th of October 1614, he was admitted master of his college, and continued in that station till April 20, 1622. And so considerable did he become, that he was one of those eminent English divines sent by king James I. to the synod of Dovt, in 1618. He returned to England in May 1619, after having visited the principal cities in the Low Countries. Upon the death of his brother-in-law, Dr. Robert Townson, he was nominated bishop of Salisbury; and was elected June 11, 1621, confirmed November 17 following, and consecrated the 18th of the same month. He continued in favour during the remainder of king James the First’s reign; but in Lent 1630-1, he incurred the displeasure of the court Cor meddling (in a sermon preached before the king at Whitehall) with the predestinarian controversy “all curious search” into which his majesty had strictly enjoined “to be laid aside.” In a letter to Dr. Ward, bishop Davenant gives the following account of this unpleasant affair. As soon as his sermon was ended, it was signified to him that his majesty was much displeased that he had stirred this question, which his majesty had forbidden to be meddled withal, one way or other: the bishop’s answer was, that he had delivered nothing but the received doctrine of our church, established in the 17th article, and that he was ready to justify the truth of what he had then taught. He was told, the doctrine was not gainsaid, but his majesty had given command these questions should not be debated, and therefore he took it more offensively that any should be so bold as in his own hearing to break his royal commands. To this he replied, that he never understood his majesty had forbidden the handling of any doctrine comprised in the articles of our church, but only raising of new questions, or adding of new sense thereunto, which he had not done, nor ever should do. Two days after, when he appeared before the privy-council, Dr. Sam. Harsnet, archbishop of York, made a speech nearly half an hour long, aggravating the boldness of bishop Davenant’s offence, and shewing many inconveniencies that it was likely to draw after it. When the archbishop had finished his speech, the bishop desired, that since he was called thither as an offender, he might not be put to answer a long speech upon the sudden; but that his grace would be pleased to charge him point by point, and so to receive his answer; for he did not yet understand wherein he had broken any commandment of his majesty’s, which was taken for granted. After some pause, the archbishop told him he knew well enough the point which was urged against him, namely, the breach of the king’s declaration. Then he stood upon this defence, that the doctrine of predestination, which he taught, was not forbidden by the declaration; 1st, Because in the declaration all the articles are established, amongst which, the article of predestination is one. 2. Because all ministers are urged to subscribe unto the truth of the article, and all subjects to continue in the profession of that as well as of the rest. Upon these and such like grounds, he gathered that it could not be esteemed amongst forbidden, curious, or needless doctrines; and here he desired that out of any clause in the declaration it might be shewed him, that keeping himself within the bounds of the article, he had transgressed his majesty’s command; but the declaration was not produced, nor any particular words in it; only this was urged, that the king’s will was, that for the peace of the church these high questions should be forborne. He added, that he was sorry he understood not his majesty’s intention; which if he had done before, he should have made choice of some other matter to treat of, which might have given no offence; and that for the time to come, he should conform himself as readily as any other to his majesty’s command; whereupon he was dismissed. At his departure he entreated the lords of the council to let his majesty understand that he had not boldly, or wilfully and wittingly, against his declaration, meddled with the fore-named point; and that now, understanding fully his majesty’s mind and intention, he should humbly yield obedience thereunto. But although he was dismissed without farther censure, and was even admitted to kiss the king’s hand, yet he was never afterwards in favour at court. He died of a consumption April 20, 1641, to which a sense of the melancholy event approaching did not a little contribute. Among other benefactions, he gave to Queen’scollege, in Cambridge, the perpetual advowsons of the rectories of Cheverel Magna, and Newton Tony, in Wiltshire, and a rent-charge of 3 1l. 10s. per annum, for the founding of two Bible-clerks, and buying books for the library in the same college. His character was that of a man humble and hospitable; painful in preaching and writing; and behaving in every station with exemplary gravity and moderation. He was a man of great learning, and an eminent divine; but strictly attached to Calvinism in the article of unconditionate predestination, &c. Whilst he was at the synod of Dort, he inclined to the doctrine of universal redemption; and was for a middle way between the two extremes, maintaining the certainty of the salvation of a certain number of the elect; and that offers of pardon were sent not only to all that should believe and repent, but to all that heard the Gospel; that grace sufficient to convince and persuade the impenitent (so as to lay the blame of their condemnation upon themselves) went along with these offers; that the redemption of Christ and his merits were applicable to these; and consequently there was a possibility of their salvation. He was buried in Salisbury cathedral.

He published: 1. A Latin Exposition on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Colossians. “Kxpositio Epistolcc D. Pauli ud Colossenses,” fol. The third edition was printed at Cambridge, in 1639. It is the substance of lectures read by our author as lady Margaret professor. So was also the following. 2. “Praelectiones de duobus in Theologia controversis capitibus; de Judice Controversiarum, primo; de Justitia habituali & actuali, altero,” Cantab. 1631, fol. 3. In 1634 he published the questions which he had disputed upon in the schools, 49 in number, under this title “Determinationes Qusestionum quarundaniTheologicarum, per reverendissimum virum Joannem Davenantium,” &c. fol. 4. The last thing he published, was, “Animadversions upon a treatise lately published, and entitled, God’s Love to Mankind, manifested by disproving his absolute decree for their damnation,” Camb. 1641, 8vo. This treatise was written by S. Hoard.

, a poet and dramatic writer of considerable note, was the son of John Davenant, who kept the Crown tavern or inn at Oxford, but owing to an obscure ins nuation in Wood’s accountof his birth, ithas been supposed that he was the natural son of Shakspeare; and to render this story probable, Mrs. Davenant is represented as a woman of beauty and gaiety, and a particular favourite of Shakspeare, who was accustomed to lodge at the Crown, on his journies between Warwickshire and London. Modern inquirers, particularly Mr. Steevens, are inclined to discredit this story, which indeed seems to rest upon no very sound foundation. Young Davenant, who was born Feb. 1605, very early betrayed a poetical bias, and one of Iris first attempts, when he was only ten years old, was an ode in remembrance of master William Shakspeare: this is a remarkable production for one so young, and one who lived, not only to see Shakspeare forgotten, but to contribute, with some degree of activity, to that instance of depraved taste. Davenant was educated at the grammarschool of All Saints, in his native city, under Mr. Edward Sylvester, a teacher of high reputation. In 1621, the year in which his father served the office of mayor, he entered of Lincoln-college, but being encouraged to try his success at court, he appeared there as page to Frances duchess of Richmond, a lady of great influence and fashion. He afterwards resided in the family of the celebrated sir Ftilke Greville, lord Brooke, who was himself a poet and a patron of poets. The murder of this nobleman in! 628 depriving him of what assistance he might expect from his friendship, Davenant had recourse to the stage, on which he produced his first dramatic piece, the tragedy of Albovine, king of the Lombards.

This play had success enough to procure him the recommendation, if nothing more substantial, of many persons of distinction, and of the wits of the times; and with such encouragement he renewed his attendance at court, adding to its pleasures by his dramatic efforts, and not sparingly to the mirth of his brethren the satirists, by the unfortunate issue of some of his licentious gallantries. For several years his plays and masks were acted with the greatest applause, and his character as a poet was raised very high by all who pretended to be judges. On the death of Ben Jonson, in 1638, the queen procured for him. the vacant laurel, which is said to have given such offence to Thomas May, his rival, as to induce him to join the disaffected party, and to become the advocate and historian of the republican parliament. In 1639, Davenaut was appointed “Governor of the king and queen’s company acting at the Cockpit in Drurv-lane, during the lease which Mrs. Elizabeth Beeston, alias Hutcheson, hath or doth hold in the said house.” When the civil commotions had for some time subsisted, the peculiar nature of them required that public; amusements should be the decided objects of popular resentment, and Davenant, who had administered so copiously to the pleasures of the court, was very soon brought under suspicions of a more serious kind. In May 16M, he was accused before the parliament, of being a partner with many of the king’s friends, in the design of bringing the army to London for his majesty’s protection. His accomplices effected their escape, but Davenant was apprehended at Feversham, and sent up to London. In July following he was bailed, but on a second attempt to withdraw to France, was taken in Kent. At last, however, he contrived to make his escape without farther impediment, and remained abroad for some time. The motive of his flight appears not to have been cowardice, but an unwillingness to sacrifice his life to popular fury, while there was any prospect of his being able to devote it to the service of his royal master. Accordingly, when the queen sent over a considerable quantity of military stores for the use of the earl of Newcastle’s army, Davenant resolutely ventured to return to England, and volunteered his services under that nobleman, who had been one of his patrons. The earl ma.le him lieutenant-general of his ordnance, a post for which, if he was not previously prepared, he qualified himself with so much skill and success, that in September 1643, he was rewarded with the honour of knighthood for the service he rendered to the royal cause at the siege of Gloucester. Of his military prowess, however, we have no farther account, nor at what time he found it necessary, on the decline of the king’s affairs, to retire again into France. Here he was received into the confidence of the queen, who in 1646 employed him in one of her importunate and ill-advised negociations with the king, who was then at Newcastle. About the same time Davenant had embraced the popish religion, a step which probably recommended him to the queen, but which, when known, could only tend to increase the animosity of the republicans against the court, which was already too closely suspected of an attachment to that persuasion. The object of his negociation was to persuade the king to save his crown by sacrificing the church; a proposition which his majesty rejected with becoming dignity; and this, as lord Clarendon observes, “evinced an honest and conscientious principle in his majesty’s mind, which elevated him above all his advisers.” The queen’s advisers in the measure were, his majesty knew, men of no religious principle, and he seems to have resented their sending an ambassador of no more consequence than the manager of a play-house.

During our poet’s residence at Paris, where he took up his habitation in the Louvre, with his old friend lord Jermyn, he wrote the first two books of his “Gondibert,” which were published in England, but without exciting much interest. Soon after he commenced projector, and hearing that vast improvements might be made in the loyal colony of Virginia, by transporting good artificers, whom France could at that time spare, he embarked with a number of them, at one of the ports in Normandy. This humane and apparently wise scheme ended almost immediately in the capture of his vessel on the trench coast, by one of the parliamentary ships of war, which carried him to the Isle of Wight, where he was imprisoned at Cowescastle. After endeavouring to reconcile himself to this unfortunate and perilous situation, he resumed his pen, and proceeded with his “Gondibert,” but being in continual dread of his life, he made but slow progress. His fears, indeed, were not without foundation. In 1650, when the parliament had triumphed over all opposition, he was ordered to be tried by a high commission court, and for this purpose was removed to the Tower of London. His biographers are not agreed as to the means by which he was saved. Some impute it to the solicitations of two aldermen, of York, to whom he had been hospitable when they were his prisoners, and whom he suffered to escape. Others inform us that Milton interposed. Both accounts, it is hoped, are true, and it is certain that after the restoration, he repaid Milton’s interference in kind, by preserving him from the resentment of the court. He remained, however, in prison for two years, and was treated with some indulgence, by the favour of the lord-keeper, Whitlocke, whom he thanked in a letter written with peculiar elegance of style and compliment.

By degrees he obtained complete enlargement, and had nothing to regret but the wreck of his fortune. In this dilemma, he adopted a measure which, like a great part of his conduct throughout life, shews him to have been a man of an undaunted and unaccommodating spirit, fertile in expedients, and possessed of no common resources of mind. Indeed, of all schemes, this seemed the most unlikely to succeed, and even the most dangerous to propose. Yet, in the very teeth of national prejudices or principles, and at a time when all dramatic entertainments were suspended, discouraged by the protectoral court, and anathematized by the people, he conceived, that if he could contrive to open a theatre of some kind, it would be sure to be well filled. Viewing his difficulties with great precaution, he proceeded by slow steps, and an apparent reluctance to revive what was so generally obnoxious. Having, however, obtained the countenance of lord Whitlocke, sir John Maynard, and other persons of rank, he opened a theatre in Rutland-house, Charterhouse-yard, on the 21st of May, 1656, and performed a kind of non-descript entertainments, as they were called, which were dramatic in every thing but the names and form, and some of them were called operas. When he found these relished and tolerated, he proceeded to more regular pieces, and with such advantages in style and manner, as, in the judgment of the historians of the stage, entitle him to the honour of being not only the reviver, but the improver of the legitimate drama. These pieces he afterwards revised, and published in a more perfect state, and they now form the principal part of his printed works, although modern taste has long excluded them from the stage.

On the restoration, he received the patent of a playhouse, under the title of the Duke’s Company, who first performed in the theatre in Portugal row, Lincoln’s-inntields, and afterwards in that in Dorset-gardens. Here he acted his former plays, and such new ones as he wrote after this period, and enjoyed the public favour until his death, April 7, 1668, in his sixty-third year. He was interred with considerable ceremony, two days after, in Westminster-abbey, near the place where the remains of May, his once rival, had been pompously buried by the parliament, but were ordered to be removed. On his grave-stone is inscribed, in imitation of Ben. Jonson’s short epitaph, “O rare sir William Davenant.”

The life of sir William Davenant occupies an important space in the history of the stage, to which he was in many respects a judicious benefactor, by introducing changes of scenery and decorations; but he assisted in banishing Shakspeare to make way for dramas that are now intolerable. He appears to have been, in his capacity of nianager, as in every part of life, a man of sound and original sense, firm in his enterpriser, and intent to gratify the taste of the public, with little advantage to himself, as he died insolvent. The greater part of his works was published in his life-time, in 4to, but they were collected in 1673, into one large folio volume, dedicated by his widow to the duke of York.

As a poet, his fame rests chiefly on his “Gondibert,” but the critics have never been agreed in the share he derives from it. The reader who declines to judge for himself, may have ample satisfaction in the opinions of the late bishop Hurd, and of Dr. Aikin, as detailed in the conclusion of his life in the Biographia Britannica. It will, probably be found on an unprejudiced perusal of this original and very singular poem, that the opinions of Dr. Aikin and Mr. Headley are founded on those principles of taste and feeling which cannot be easily opposed; yet in considering the objections of Dr. Hurd, allowance is to be made for one who is so powerful and elegant an advocate for the authorized qualities of the Epic species, and for arguments which if they do not attach closely to this poem, may yet be worthy of the consideration of those whose inventive fancy leads them principally to novelty of manner, and who are apt to confound the arbitrary caprices with the genuine powers of a poet. His miscellaneous pieces are of very unequal merit. Most of them were probably written in youth, and but few can be reprinted with the hope of satisfying a polished taste. Complimentary poetry, so much the fashion in his times, is now perused with indifference, if not disgust; and although the gratitude which inspired it may have been sincere, it is not highly relished by the honest independence which belongs to the sons of the muses.

, the eldest son of sir William Davenant, was born in 1656, and was initiated in grammar-learning at Cheame in Surrey. Though he had the misfortune to lose his father when scarce twelve years of age, yet care was taken to send him to Oxford to finish his education, where he became a commoner of Baliol college in 1671. He took no degree, but went to London, where, at the age of nineteen, he distinguished himself by a dramatic performance, the only one he published, entitled, “Circe, a tragedy, acted at his royal highness the duke of York’s theatre with great applause.” This play was not printed till two years after it was acted; upon which occasion Dryden wrote a prologue, and the earl of Rochester an epilogue. In the former, there was an apology for the author’s youth and inexperience. He had a considerable share in the theatre in right of his father, which probably induced him to turn his thoughts so early to the stage; however, he was not long detained there either by that, or the success of his play, but applied himself to the civil law, in which, it is said, he had the degree of doctor conferred upon him by the university of Cambridge. He was elected to represent the borough of St. Ives in Cornwall, in the first parliament of James II. which was summoned to meet in May 1685; and, about the same time, jointly empowered, with the master of the revels, to inspect all plays, and to preserve the decorum of the stage. He was also appointed a commissioner of the excise, and continued in that employment for near six years, that is, from 1683 to 1689: however, he does not seem to have been advanced to this rank before he had gone through some lesser employments. In 1698 he was elected for the borough of Great Bedwin, as he was again in 1700. He was afterwards appointed inspector-general of the exports and imports; and this employment he held to the time of his death, which happened Nov. 6, 1714. Dr. Davenant’s thorough acquaintance with the laws and constitution of the kingdom, joined to his great skill in figures, and his happiness in applying that skill according to the principles advanced by sir William Petty in his Political Arithmetic, enabled him to enter deeply into the management of affairs, and procured him great success as a writer in politics; and it is remarkable, that though he was advanced and preferred under the reigns of Charles II. and James II. yet in all his pieces he reasons entirely upon revolution principles, and compliments in the highest manner the virtues and abilities of the prince then upon the throne.

His first political work was, “An Essay upon Ways and Means of supplying the War,” 1695. In this treatise he wrote with so much strength and perspicuity upon the nature of funds, that whatever pieces came abroad from the author of the Essay on Ways and Means, were sufficiently recommended to the public; and this was the method he usually took to distinguish the writings he afterwards published. 2. “An Essay on the East-India Trade,” 1697. This was nothing more than a pamphlet, written in form of a letter to the marquis of Normandy, afterwards duke of Buckinghamshire. 3. “Discourses on the public revenues, and of the trade of England. Part I. To which is added, a discourse upon improving the revenue of the state of Athens, written originally in Greek by Xenophon, and now made English from the original, with some historical notes by another hand,” 1698. This other hand was Walter Moyle, esq. who addressed his discourse to Dr. Pavenant. There is a passage in it which shews, that there were some thoughts of sending over our author in quality of director-general to the East-Indies; and is also a clear testimony what that great man’s notions were, in regard' to the importance of his writings. It is this: “The great trade to the East-Indies, with some few regulations, might be established upon a bottom more consistent with the manufactures of England; but in all appearance this is not to be compased, unless some public-spirited man, with a masterly genius,” meaning Dr. Davenant himsrlf, “be placed at the head of our affairs in India. And though we, who are his friends, are loth to lose him, it were to be wished for the good of the kingdom, that the gentleman, whom common fame and the voice of the world have pointed out as the ablest man for such a station, would employ his excellent judgment and talents that way, in the execution of so noble and useful a design.” 4. “Discourses on the Public Revenues, and on the Trade of England, which more immediately treat of the foreign traffic of this kingdom. Part II.” 1698. 5. “An Essay on the probable Method of making the people gainers in the Balance of Trade,” 1699. 6. “A Discourse upon Grants and Resumptions: shewing, how our ancestors have proceeded with such ministers as have procured to themselves grants of the crown revenue; and that the forfeited estates ought to be applied to the payment of public debts,” 1700. 7. “EsMiys upon the Balance of Power; the right of making War, Peace, Alliances; Universal Monarchy. To which is added, an Appendix, containing the records referred to in the second essay,” 1701. It was in this book that our author was carried away by his zeal to treat the church, or at least some churchmen, in so disrespectful a manner, as to draw upon himself a censure from one of the houses of convocation. 8. “A picture of a Modern Whig, in two parts,” 1701. There is, however, nothing but general report, founded upon the likeness of style and other circumstantial evidence, to prove that this bitter pamphlet fell from the pen of our author; and, if it did, he must be allowed to have been the greatest master of invective that ever wrote in our language; others have attributed it to Defoe. 9. “Essays upon Peace at Home and War Abroad, in two parts,” 1704. This is the first piece our author published after the time that he is supposed to have reconciled himself to the ministry; it was suspected to be written at the desire of lord Halifax, and was dedicated to the queen. It drew upon him the resentment of that party, by whom he had been formerly esteemed, but who now bestowed upon him as ill language, or rather worse, than he had received from his former opponents. 10. “Reflections upon the Constitution and Management of the Trade to Africa, through the whole course and progress thereof, from the beginning of the last century to this time,” &c. 1709, fol. in 3 parts. 11. “A Report to the honourable the Commissioners for putting in execution the Act, entitled, an Act for the taking, examining, and stating the Public Accounts of the Kingdom, from Charles Davenant, LL. D. inspector-general of the exports and imports,” 1712, part I. 12. “A Second Report to the Honourable the Commissioners,” &c. 1712. It may be necessary to observe, that several of the above-recited pieces were attacked in the warmest manner, at the time they were published; but the author seems to have satisfied himself in delivering his sentiments and opinions, without shewing any further concern to defend and support them against the cavils of party zeal and contention. Most of his political works were collected and revised by sir Charles Whitworth, 1771, in 5 vols. 8vo.

“Davenant,” says sir John Sinclair, “is certainly a most valuable political author; and considering that the modern system of politics, founded on a spirit of commerce, on public credit, on paper circulation, and on skill in finance, was then in a manner in its infancy, he undoubtedly was a writer whose progress was more advanced than could hare been expected at that time. It appears from his works, that he had access to official information, from which he derived many advantages. He seems, however, to have depended too much upon political arithmetic, or the strength of figures, which ought only to be resorted to when the fact itself cannot be ascertained, being only a succedaneum when better evidence cannot be procured. He was unfortunately, also, a party writer, and saw every thing in the manner the best calculated to promote the views and purposes of his political friends at the time. Every thing they did was right, whilst every action of their enemies was ill-intended and ruinous. He possessed a very considerable command of language, and is sometimes too prolix; but on the whole there are certainly very few that can rival him as a political author.”

, younger brother to the former, and fourth son to sir Wiiliam Davenant, was educated at Magdalen hall, in the university of Oxford, where he took the degree of bachelor of arts, July 19, 1677. He translated into English from the French a book entitled, “Animadversions upon the famous Greek and Latin Historians,” written by the celebrated Mr. la Mothe le Vayer, tutor to the French king Louis XIII., which was very well received. He took the degree of master of arts July 5, 1680, and about the same time entering into holy orders, was presented to a living in the county of Surrey, by his patron Robert Wymondsole, of Putney, esq. with whom he travelled into France; and in the summer of 1681, as he was diverting himself by swimming in a river near Paris, he was unfortunately drowned in the sight of his pupil, to the great regret of all who knew him, having added to great natural parts, by an assiduous application to study, as much sound learning and true knowledge as could be expected in a person so young.

, a learned Englishman, was born at Coventry, in Warwickshire, about 1598, and educated in grammar-learning at a school in that city. He was sent to Merton-college in Oxford at fifteen years of age; where, spending two years, he, upon an invitation from some Romish priest, afterwards went to Doway. He remained there for some time; and then going to Ypres, he entered into the order of Franciscans among the Dutch there, in 1617. After several removals from place to place, he became a missionary into England, where he went by the name of Franciscus a Sancta Clara; and at length was made one of the chaplains to Henrietta Maria, the royal consort of Charles I. Here he exerted himself to promote the cause of popery, by gaining disciples, raising money among the English catholics to carry on public matters abroad, and by writing books for the advancement of his religion and order. He was very eminent for his uncommon learning, being excellently versed in school-divinity, in fathers and councils, in philosophers, and in ecclesiastical and profane histories. He was, Wood tells us, a person of very free discourse, while his fellowlabourer in the same vineyard, Hugh Cressey, was reserved; of a lively and quick aspect, while Cressey was clouded and melancholy: all which accomplishments made him agreeable to protestants as well as papists. Archbishop Laud, it seems, had some knowledge of this person; for, in the seventh article of his impeachment, it is said, that “the said archbishop, for the advancement of popery and superstition within this realm, hath wittingly and willingly received, harboured, and relieved divers popish priests and Jesuits, namely, one called Sancta Clara, alias Davenport, a dangerous person and Franciscan friar, who hath written a popish and seditious book, entitled, ‘ Dens, Natura, Gratia,’ &c. wherein the thirtynine articles of the church of England, established by act of parliament, are much traduced and scandalized: that the said archbishop had divers conferences with him, while he was writing the said book,” &c. To which article, the archbishop made this answer: “I never saw that Franciscan friar, Sancta Clara, in my life, to the utmost of my memory, above four times or five at most. He was first brought to me by Dr. Lindsell: but 1 did fear, that he would never expound the articles so, that the church of England might have cause to thank him for it. He never came to me after, till he was almost ready to print another book, to prove that episcopacy was authorised in the church by divine right; and this was after these unhappy stirs began. His desire was, to have this book printed here; but at his several addresses to me for this, I still gave him this answer: That I did not like the way which the church of Rome went concerning episcopacy; that I would never consent, that any such book from the pen of a Romanist should be printed here; that the bishops of England are very well able to defend their own cause and calling, without any help from Rome, and would do so when they saw cause: and this is all the conference I ever had with him.” Davenport at this time absconded, and spent most of those years of trouble in obscurity, sometimes beyond the seas, sometimes at London, sometimes in the country, and sometimes at Oxford. After the restoration of Charles II. when the marriage was celebrated between him and Catherine of Portugal, Sancta Clara became one of her chaplains; and was for the third time chosen provincial of his order for England, where he died May 31, 1680, and was buried in the church-yard belonging to the Savoy. It was his desire, many years before his death, to retire to Oxford to die, purposely that his bones might be laid in St. Ebb’s churcb, to which the mansion of the Franciscans or grey-friars sometime joined, and in which several of the brethren were anciently interred, particularly those of his old friend John Day, a learned friar of his order, who was there buried in 165;s. He was the author of several works: 1. “Paraphrastiea expositio articulorum confessionis Anglicae:” this book was, w r e know not why, much censured by the Jesuits, who would fain have had it burnt; but beino-soon after licensed at Rome, all farther rumour about it stopped. 2. “Deus, Natura, Gratia sive, tractatus de praedestinatione, de mentis,” &c. this book was dedicated to Charles I. and Prynne contends, that the whole scope of it, as well as the paraphrastical exposition of the articles, reprinted at the end of it in 1635, was to reconcile the king, the church, and the articles of our religion, to the church of Rome. He published also a great number of other works, which are not now of consequence enough to be mentioned.

, elder brother of Christopher just mentioned, was born at Coventry in 1597, and sent from thence with his brother to Merton-college in 1613; but while Christopher went to Doway, and became a catholic, John went to London, and became a puritan. He was minister of St. Stephen’s in Coleman-street, and esteemed by his brethren a person of excellent gifts in preaching, and in other qualities belonging to a divine. About 1630 he was appointed one of the feoffees for the buying in impropriations, which involved him in a dispute with archbishop Laud; but that project miscarrying, he left his pastoral charge about 1633, under pretence of opposition from the bishops, and went to Amsterdam. Here, endeavouring to be a minister in the English congregation, and to join with them in all duties, he was opposed by John Paget, an elder, on account of some difference between them about baptism; upon which he wrote, in his own defence, “A Letter to the Dutch Classis, containing a just complaint against an unjust doer; wherein is declared the miserable slavery and bondage that the English church at Amsterdam is now in, by reason of the tyrannical government and corrupt doctrine of Mr. John Paget, their minister,” Amst. 1634. Two or three more pieces relating to this controversy were published by him afterwards; and such were his parts and learning, that he drew away from them many of their congregation, to whom he preached and prayed in private houses.

In the beginning of the rebellion, he returned into England, according to Wood, as other nonconformists did, and had a cure bestowed on him; but Neal says he came back in disguise, which is most probable, as this happened about 1637, when the power of the church was yet in force. In this year he went into New-England, and became a pastor of New-Haven there. He afterwards removed from thence to Boston in 1668, where he died March 15, 1670. He was the author of, a “Catechism containing the chief heads of the Christian religion,” which was printed at London in 1659; several sermons; the power of congregational churches asserted and vindicated; and of an exposition of the Canticles, which has never been published. Neal agrees that his notions of churchdiscipline were very rigid, and that he was a millenarian, being fully persuaded in his own mind of the thousand years’ personal reign of Christ upon earth; but adds, that notwithstanding this or any other singular notions he might entertain, he was one of the greatest men that New England ever enjoyed.

, the patron of Wales, was the son of Xantus or Santus, prince of Ceretica, now Cardiganshire, and born about the close of the fifth century. Being brought up to the church, he was ordained priest; he then retired to the Isle of Wight, and for some time lived in the accustomed solitude of those times. From this he at length emerged, and went into Wales, where he preached to the Britons. He built a chapel at Glastonbury, and founded twelve monasteries, the principal of which was in the vale of Ross, near Menevia. Of this monastery frequent mention is made in the acts of the Irish saints. The rules he established for his monasteries were, as usual; rigid, but not so injudicious or absurd as some of the early monastic statutes. One of his penances was manual labour in agriculture, and, for some time at least, there was no accumulation of worldly goods, for whoever was admitted as a member, was enjoined to leave every thing of that kind behind him. When the synod of Brevy in Cardiganshire was held in the year 519, St. David was invited to it, and was one of its chief champions against Pelagianism. At the close of this synod, St. Dubricius, archbishop of Caerleon upon Usk, resigned his see to St. David, who translated it to Menevia, now called St. David’s. Here he died about the year 544 in a very advanced age. He is praised by his biographers for his eloquence and powers in conversion, and has, according to them, been in all succeeding ages the glory of the British church. He wrote the “Decrees of the Synod of Victoria,” which he called soon after he became bishop; the “Rules of his Monasteries;” some “Homilies,” and “Letters to king Arthur,” all of which have perished.

, the greatest philosopher that ever Armenia produced, flourished about the middle of the fifth century, and acquired at Athens the knowledge of the language and the philosophy of the Greeks. He translated such of their books as he thought the most useful. Far from superstitiously following Plato and Aristotle, like our European doctors, he selected from both the one and the other what seemed just and judicious to him, at the same time detecting and refuting their errors. His writings were preserved in the French king’s library, and probably are now in the imperial. They are methodical and solid. His style is flowing, accurate, and clear.

, a most extraordinary fanatic, was the son of a waterman of Ghent, and educated a glazier, or, as some say, a glass-painter. He began about 1525 to preach that he was the true Messiah, the third David, nephew of God, not after the flesh, but after the spirit. “The heavens,” he said, “being empty, he was sent to adopt children worthy of that kingdom and to restore Israel, not by death, as Christ, but by grace.” With the Sadducees, he denied eternal life, the resurrection, and the last judgment: with the Adamites, he was against marriage, and for a community of women: and with the followers of Manes, he thought that the body only, and not the soul, could be defiled with sin. According to him, the souk of unbelievers ought to be saved, and those of the apostles damned. Lastly, he affirmed it folly to believe that there was any sin in denying Jesus Christ; and ridiculed the martyrs for preferring death to apostacy. A prosecution being commenced against him and his followers, he fled first to Friesland, and from thence to Basil, where he lurked under the name of John Bruck. He died in that city in 1556, promising to his disciples, that he should rise again in three days; which, as it happened, was not altogether false; for the magistrates of Basil, understanding at length who he was, about that time, dug tip his corpse, which, together with his writings, they caused to be burned by the common executioner. This George David had many followers in his life-time, and it is even said that there are still some remains of them in Holstein, Friesland, and other countries, whose temper and conduct seem to discredit the exaggerated account which some writers have given of their founder.

, D. D. an eminent writer and antiquary, was born in the latter part of the sixteenth century in Denbighshire, and educated by William Morgan, afterwards bishop of St. Asaph. He was admitted a student of Jesus-college, Oxford, in 1589, where he took one degree in arts, and afterwards became a member of Lincoln-college in the same university. He was rector ol Malloyd, or Maynlloyd in Merionethshire, and afterwards a canon of St. Asaph, to which dignity he was promoted by Dr. Parry, then bishop, whose chaplain he was. He commenced doctor in 1616, and was highly esteemed by the university, says Wood, as well versed in the history and antiquities of his own nation, and in the Greek and Hebrew languages; a most exact critic, and indefatigable searcher into ancient writings, and well acquainted with curious and rare authors. The time of his death is not known. His works are, 1. “Antiques Linguae Britannicse nunc communiter dictae Cambro-Britannicoe, a suis Cymrascae vel Cambricee, ab aliis Wallicoe rudimenta,” &c. 1621, 8vo. 2. “Dietionarium Latino-Britannicum,” 1631, folio. With this is printed, “Dictionarium Latino-Britannicum,” which was begun and greatly advanced by Thomas Williams, physician, before 1600. It was afterwards completed and published by Dr. Davies. 3. “Aclagia Britannica, authorum Britannicorum nomina, & quando floruerunt,” 1632, printed at the end of the dictionary before mentioned. 4. “Adagiorum Britannicorum specimen,” ms. Bibl. Bodl. He also assisted W. Morgan, bishop of Landaff, and Richard Parry, bishop of St. Asaph, in translating the Bible into Welsh, in that correct edition which came out in 1620. He also translated into the same language (which he had studied at vacant hours for 30 years) the book of “Resolution,” written by Robert Parsons, a Jesuit.

, an eminent and learned critic, was the son of a merchant in London, and born there April 22, 1679. After being educated in classical learning at the Charterhouse-school, he was, June 8, 1695, admitted of Queen’s-college in Cambridge, where he took the degree of B. A. in 1698. On July 7, 1701, he was chosen fellow of his college and the year following took the degree of M. A. and was proctor in 1709. In 1711, having distinguished himself by several learned publications hereafter mentioned, he was collated by Moore, bishop of Ely, to the rectory of Fen-Ditton near Cambridge, and to a prebend in the church of Ely; taking the same year the degree of LL. D. Upon the death of Dr. James, or, as Bentham says, Dr. Humphrey Gower, he was, on March 23, 1716-17, chosen master of Queen’s-college; and created D. D. the same year, when George I. was at Cambridge. He died March 7, 1731-2, aged 53, and was buried in the chapel of his college, where a flat marble stone was laid over his grave, with a plain inscription at his own desire. His mother, who was daughter of sir John Turton, knt. is said to have been living in 1743.

This learned man was not, as far as we can find, the author of any original works, but only employed himself in publishing some correct editions of Greek and Latin authors of antiquity. In 1703 he published in octavo, 1. “Maximi Tyrii dissertationes, Gr. & Lat. ex interpretatione Heinsii,” &c. 2. “C. Julii Caesaris, et A. Hirtii quas extant omnia,” Cant. 1706, 4to; 1727; the latter the best edition. 3. “M. Minucii Felicis Octavius,” Cant. 1707, 8vo. This was printed again in 1712, 8vo, with the notes greatly enlarged and corrected, and the addition of Commodianus, a writer of the Cyprianic age. 4. He then projected new and beautiful editions of Cicero’s philosophical pieces, by way of supplement to what Graevius had published of that author; and accordingly published in 170y, his “Tusculanarum disputationum, libri quinque,” 8vo. This edition, and that of 1738, which is the fourth, have at the end the emendations of his intimate friend Dr. Bentley. The other pieces were published by our author in the following order: “De Natura Deorum,” 1713. “De divinauone & de fato,” 1721. “Academica,” 17-5. “De legibus,” 1727. “De finibus bonorum & malorum,” 17-8. These several pieces of Tully were printed in 8vo, in a handsome manner, were very favourably received, and have passed, most of them, through several editions. He had also gone as far as the middle of the third book of Cicero’s Offices; but being prevented by death from finishing it, he recommended it in his will to the care of Dr. MeaJ, who put it into the hands of Dr. Thomas Bentley, that he might fit and prepare it for the press. But the house where Dr. Bentley lodged, which was in the Strand, London, being set on fire through his carelessness, as it is said, by reading after he was in bed, Davies’s notes and emendations perished in the flames. 5. Another undertaking published by our learned author, which we have not already mentioned, was, “Lactantii Firmiani epitome divinarum institutionum,” Cantab. 1718, 8vo.

His labours have been well received both at home and abroad. abbé d'Olivet in particular, the French translator of “Cicero de Natura Deorum,” gives him just commendations for his beautiful edition of that book; but seems afterwards to have altered his opinion, as appears from the harsh judgment he parsed upon him, in the preface to his new edition of Cicero’s works.

, a poet and statesman, was the third son of John Davies, of Tisbury, in Wiltshire, not a tanner, as Anthony Wood asserts, but a gentleman, formerly of New Inn, and afterwards a practitioner of law in his native place. His mother was Mary, the daughter of Mr. Bennett, of Pitt-house in the same county. When not fifteen years of age he was sent to Oxford, in Michaelmas term 1585, where he was admitted a commoner of Queen’s college, and prosecuted his studies with perseverance and success. About the beginning of 1588 he removed to the Middle Temple, but returned to Oxford in 1590, and took the degree of B. A. At the Temple, while he did not neglect the study of the law, he rendered himself obnoxious to the discipline of the place by various youthful irregularities, and after being fined, was at last removed from commons. Notwithstanding this, he was called to the bar in 1595, but was again so indiscreet as to forfeit his privileges by a quarrel with Mr. Richard Martin, whom he beat in the Temple hall. For this offence he was in Feb. 1597-8 expelled by the unanimous sentence of the society. Martin was, like himself, a wit and a poet, and had once been expelled for improper behaviour. Both, however, outlived their follies, and rose to considerable eminence in their profession. Martin became reader of the society, recorder of London, and member of parliament, and enjoyed the esteem of Selden, Ben Jonson, and other men of learning and genius, who lamented his premature death in 1618.

After this affair Davies returned to Oxford, where he is supposed to have written his poem on the “Immortality of the Soul.” There is some mistake among his biographers as to the time of its publication, or even of its being written. If, as they all say, he wrote it at Oxford in 1598, and published it in 1599, how is either of these facts to be reconciled with the dedication to queen Elizabeth, which is dated July 11, 1592? Mr. Park, whose accuracy and zeal for literary history induced him to put this question to the readersof the Biographia Britannica, has not attempted a solution, and it must remain in this state, unless an edition of the “Nosce Teipsum” can be found of a prior date, or any ground for supposing that the date of the dedication was a typographical error. This poem, however, procured to him, as he deserved, a very high distinction among the writers of his time, whom, in harmony of versification, he has far surpassed. Whether Elizabeth bestowed any marks of her favour does not appear. He knew, however, her love of flattery, and wrote twenty-six acrostic hymns on the words “Elizabetha regina,” which are certainly the best of their kind.

It is probable that these complimentary trifles made him known to the courtiers, for when the queen was to be entertained by Mr. Secretary Cecil, our poet, by desire, contributed his share in “A Conference between a gentleman usher and a post,” a dramatic entertainment, which does not add much to his reputation. A copy exists in the British Museum, Harl. ms. No. 286. His progress from being the terrae filius of a court to a seat in parliament is not known, but we find that he was chosen a member in the last parliament of Elizabeth, which met on the 27th of October 1601. He appears to have commenced his political career with spirit and intelligence, by opposing monopolies, which were at that time too frequently granted, and strenuously supporting the privileges of the house, for which the queen had not the greatest respect.

In consequence of the figure he now made, and after suitable apologies to the judges, he was restored in Trinity term 1601 to his former rank in the Temple. Lord chancellor Ellesmere appears to have stood his friend on this occasion, and Davies continued to advance in his profession, until the accession of James I. opened new prospects. Having gone with lord Hunsdon to Scotland to congratulate the new king, the latter, finding that he was the author of “Nosce Teipsum,” graciously embraced him, as a mark of his friendship, and certainly no inconsiderable proof of his taste.

In 1603 he was sent as solicitor-general to Ireland, and immediately rose to be attorney-general. Being afterwards appointed one of the judges of assize, he conducted himself with so much prudence and humanity on the circuits as greatly to contribute to allay the ferments which existed in that country, and received the praises of his superiors, “as a painful and well-deserving servant of his majesty.” In Trinity term 1606 he was called to the degree of serjeant-at-law, and received the honour of knighthood on the llth of February 1607. His biographer attributes these promotions to the patronage of lord Ellesmere and the earl of Salisbury, with whom he corresponded, and to whom he sent a very interesting account of a circuit he performed with the lord-deputy in July 1607. Such was Ireland then, that a guard of “six or seven score foot and fifty or three score horse” was thought a necessary protection against a peasantry recovering from their wildness.

In 1608 he was sent to England with the chief justice in order to represent to king James the effects which the establishment of public peace, and these progresses of the law, had produced since the commencement of his majesty’s reign. His reception on such an occasion could not but be favourable. As his residence in Ireland afforded him many opportunities to study the history and genius of that people, he published the result of his inquiries in 1612 under the title of “A Discovery of the true causes why Ireland was never entirely subdued till the beginning of his majesty’s reign.” This has been reprinted four times, and has always been considered as a most valuable document for political inquirers. Soon after the publication of it he was appointed the king’s serjeant, and a parliament having been called in Ireland in the same year, he was elected representative for the county of Fermanagh, the first that county had ever chosen; and after a violent struggle between the Roman catholic and protestant members, he was chosen speaker of the house of commons. In 1614 he interested himself in the restoration of the society of antiquaries, which had been institued in 1590, but afterwards discontinued, and was now again attempted to be revived by sir James Ley; at this period it could enumerate among its members the names of Cotton, Hackwell, Camden, Stow, Spelman, and Whitlock. In 1715 he published “Reports of Cases adjudged in the king’s courts in Ireland.” These, says his biographer, were the first reports of Irish judgments which had ever been made public during the four hundred years that the laws of England had existed in that kingdom. To the Reports is annexed a preface, addressed to lord chancellor Ellesmere, “which vies with Coke in solidity and learning, and equals Blackstone in classical illustration and elegant language.”

In 1616 he retired from Ireland, and found that a change had taken place in the English administration. He continued, however, as king’s serjeant, in the practice of the law, and was often associated as one of the judges of assize. Some of his charges on the circuits are still extant in the British Museum. In 1620 we find him sitting in the English parliament for Newcastle-under-Line, where he distinguished himself chiefly in debates on the affairs of Ireland, maintaining, against Coke and other very high authorities, that England cannot make laws to bind Ireland, which had an independent parliament. Amidst these employments he found leisure to republish his “Nosce Teipsum” in 1622, along with his “Acrostics” and “Orchestra,” a poem on the antiquity and excellency of dancing, dedicated to Charles prince of Wales, originally published in 1596 But this first edition has escaped the researches of modern collectors, and the poem, as we now find it, is imperfect. Whether it was not so in the first edition may be doubted. His biographer thinks it was there perfect, but why afterwards mutilated cannot be ascertained.

Sir John Davies lived four years after this publication, employed, probably, in the duties of his profession; and at the time when higher honours were within his reach, he died suddenly of an apoplexy in the night of the 7th of December 1626, in the fifty-seventh year of his age. He had previously supped with the lord keeper Coventry, who gave him assurances of being chief justice of England. He was buried in St. Martin’s Church in the Fields, where a monument was erected to his memory, which appears to have been destroyed when the old church was pulled down.

He married, while in Ireland, Eleanor, the third daughter of lord Audley, by whom he had one son, who was an idiot and died young, and a daughter, Lucy, who was married to Ferdinando lord Hastings, afterwards earl of Huntingdon. Sir John’s lady appears to have been an enthusiast; a volume of her prophecies was published in 1649, 4to. Anthony Wood informs us that she foretold the death of her husband, who turned the matter off with a jest. She was harshly treated during the republic for her officious prophecies, and is said to have been confined several years in Bethlem hospital, and in the Tower of London, where she suffered all the rigour that could be inflicted by those who would tolerate no impostures but their own. She died in 1652, and was interred near her husband in St. Martin’s church. The late earl of Huntingdon informed lord Mountmorres the historian of the Irish parliament, that sir John Davies did not appear to have acquired any landed property in Ireland from his great employments. The character of sir John Davies as a lawyer, is that of great ability and learning. As a politician he stands unimpeached of corruption or servility, and his “Tracts” are valued as the result of profound knowledge and investigation. They were republished with some originals in 1786 by Mr. George Chalmers, who prefixed a Life of the Author, to which the present sketch is greatly indebted.

As a poet, he was one of the first of his day, but has been unaccountably neglected, although his style approaches the refinement of modern times. The best arbiters of poetical merit, however, seem to be agreed that his “Nosce Teipsum” is a noble monument of learning, acuteness, command of language, and facility of versification. It has none, indeed, of the sublimer flights which seem adapted to philosophical poetry, hut he is particularly happy in his images, which strike by their novelty and elegance. As to his versification, he has anticipated the harmony which the modern ear requires, more successfully than any of his contemporaries.

His “Orchestra,” if we consider the nature of the subject, is a wonderful instance of what a man of genius may elicit from trifles. His “Acrostics” are considered as the best ever written, but that praise is surely not very great. It is amusing, however, to contemplate him gravely endeavouring to overcome the difficulties he had created, and seeking with great care to exchange an intruding word for one better suited to his favourite initials.

According to Wood, he wrote a version of some of the Psalms, which is probably lost. It is more certain that he wrote epigrams, which were added to Mario w’s translation of Ovid’s Epistles, printed at Micldleburgh in 1596. Mr. Ellis has given two of them among his “Specimens,” which do not excite much curiosity for the rest. Mar-low’s volume is exceedingly scarce, which may be accounted for by the following information: in 1599, the hall of the stationers underwent as great a purgation as was carried on in don Quixote’s library. Marston’s Pygmalion, Marlow’s Ovid, the satires of Hall and Marston, the epigrams of Davies, &c. were ordered for immediate conflagration by the prelates Whitgift and Bancroft. There are other pieces frequently ascribed to sir John Davies, which, Mr. Ritson thinks, belong to John Davies of Hereford, but a& our author superintended the edition of his poems printed about four years before his death, he included all that he thought proper to acknowledge, and probably, if we except the epigrams, nearly all that he had written. The lord Dorset recommended an edition of his works to Tate, who published the “Nosce Teipsum,” with the preface. In 1773 another edition was published by Mr. Thomas Davies from a copy corrected by Mr. William Thomson, the poet, including the “Acrostics” and “Orchestra.” The whole have been added to the late edition of the Poets.

, a translator of some note in the seventeenth century, was born at Kidwelly in Carmarthenshire, May 25, 1625, and first educated in Jesus college, Oxford, which he entered in May 1641, and where he continued until Oxford became the seat of the civil war, when his relations removed him to St. John’s college, Cambridge. Here he conformed to the professions of the republican party, but was better employed in studying the French tongue, and afterwards, during a visit to France, made himself complete master of it. On his return he settled in London, and lived entirely by translating for the booksellers, writing prefaces, and superintending editions of books. He appears to have retired afterwards to Kidwelly, his native place, where he died July 22, 1693, leaving, says Wood, “the character of a genteel, harmless, and quiet man.” Wood has given a list of upwards of thirty volumes translated by him on various subjects, the choice probably of his employers, history, travels, novels, lives, criticism, medicine, &c.

, a Welsh clergyman, was born in Tre'r-Abbot, in Whiteford parish, Flintshire. Of his personal history little is known, except that he was a good scholar, very conversant in the literary history of his country, and very unfortunate in attempting to turn his knowlege to advantage. He was a vehement foe to Popery, Arianism, and Socinianism, and of the most fervent loyalty. to George I. and the Hanoverian succession. Owing to some disgust, he quitted his native place, and probably his profession when he came to London, as he subscribes himself “counsellor-at-law;” and in one of his volumes has a long digression on law and law-writers. Here he commenced author in the humblest form, not content with dedicating to the great, but hawking his books in person from door to door, where he was often repulsed with rudeness, and seldom appears to have been treated with kindness or liberality. How long he carried on this unprosperous business, or when he died, we have not been able to discover. Mr. D'Israeli, who has taken much pains to rescue his name from oblivion, suspects that his mind became disordered from poverty and disappointment. He appears to have courted the Muses, who certainly were not very favourable to his addresses. The most curious of his works consist of some volumes under the general title of “Athenæ Britannicæ,” 8vo, 1715, &c. a kind of bibliographical, biographical, and critical work, “the greatest part (says Baker, the antiquary) borrowed from modern historians, but containing some things more uncommon, and not easily to be met with.” The first of these volumes, printed in 1715, is entitled Ειχων Μιχρο-βιβλιχε, sive Icon Libellorum, or a Critical History of Pamphlets.“In this he styles himself” a gentleman of the inns of, court.“The others are entitled” Athenæ Britannicæ, or a Critical History of the Oxford and Cambridge Writers and Writings, &c. by M. D.“London, 1716, 8vo. They are all of so great rarity, that Dr. Farmer never saw but one volume, the first, nor Baker but three, which were sent to him as a great curiosity by the earl of Oxford, and are now deposited in St. John’s college, Cambridge. In the British Museum there are seven. From the” Icon Libellorum," the only volume we have had an opportunity of perusing attentively, the author appears to have been well acquainted with English authors, their works and editions, and to have occasionally looked into the works of foreign bibliographers.

, an American clergyman of dissenting principles, and known by three volumes of sermons, in 8vo, edited by Dr. Gibbons, of London, was born November 3, 1721, in the county of Newcastle in Delaware, in America, and was early designed by his parents for the ministry, in which he became very popular. In 1759 he succeeded Mr. Jonathan Edwards as president of his college of New Jersey, which he held to his death, Feb. 4, 1761. He was succeeded in his post by the rev. Dr. S. Finley, who died on the 17th of July 1766, being the fourth president that filled that chair in the short space of less than nine years. In the sermons above mentioned Mr. Davies deserves little praise for style, and his editor not much for judgment of selection.

, the son of a physician who practised in Wales, was born at Shrewsbury, and educated at Eton, whence he removed to King’s college, Cambridge, and regularly took the degrees of A. B. 1732, A. M. 1737, and D. D. 175y. He was early noticed by his school-fellow, Cornwallis, archbishop of Canterbury, when bishop of Lichfield and Coventry, who appointed him his chaplain, and collated him to a canonry of Lithfield, and in 1751 presented him to the mastership of St. John’s hospital, Lichfield. He was also archdeacon of Derby, and rector of Kingsland, in Herefordshire, in the gift of his family. He died Feb. 6, 1769, much esteemed for his learning and amiable disposition; and his numerous poems, both printed and manuscript, bear ample testimony to his talents. He wrote several of the anonymous imitations of Horace in Buncombe’s edition, 1767, and at the end of vol. IV. is given the character of the ancient Romans from a poem by him, styled “The Progress of Science.” He has many poems in Dodsley’s and Nichols’s collections, and one, in Latin, preserved in the “Alumni Etonenses.” Mr. Pennant also, in his “Tour in Wales,” vol. II. p. 422, has preserved some animated lines by Dr. Davies on Caractacus, which he says were delivered almost extempore at one of the annual meetings held on Caer Caradoc some years ago by gentlemen from different parts, to celebrate the name of that renowned British chieftain, in prose or verse.

, a man of considerable talents, and who prided himself on being through life “a companion of his superiors,” was born about 1712. In 1728 and 1729 he was at the university of Edinburgh, completing his education, and became, as Dr. Johnson used to say of him, “learned enough for a clergyman.” That, however, was not his destination, for in 1736 we find him among the dramatis personae of Lillo’s celebrated tragedy of “Fatal Curiosity,” at the theatre in the Hay market, where he was the original representative of young Wilmot, under the management of Henry Fielding. He afterwards commenced bookseller in Duke’s court, opposite the church of St. Martin-in-the-fields, and afterwards in Round court in the Strand, but met with misfortunes which induced him to return to the theatre. For several years he belonged to various companies at York, Dublin, and other places, particularly at Edinburgh, where he appears to have been at one time the manager of the theatre. At York he married miss Yarrow, daughter of a performer there, whose beauty was not more remarkable than the blamelessness of her conduct and the amiableness of her manners. In 1753 he returned to London, and with Mrs. Davies was engaged at Drury-lane, where they remained for several years in good estimation with the town, and played many characters, if not with great excellence, at least with propriety and decency. Churchill, in his indiscriminate satire, has attempted to fix some degree of ridicule on Mr. Davies’s performance, which, just or not, had the effect of driving him from the stage, which about 1762 he exchanged for a shop in Russel-street, Covent Garden; but his efforts in trade were not crowned with the success which his abilities in his profession merited. In 1778 he became a bankrupt; when, such was the regard enterr tained for him by his friends, that they readily consented to his re-establishment; and none of them, as he says himself, were more active to serve him than those who had suffered most by his misfortunes. Yet, all their efforts might possibly have been fruitless if his powerful and firm friend Dr. Johnson had not exerted himself to the utmost in his behalf. He called upon all over whom he had any influence to assist Tom Davies; and prevailed on. Mr. Sheridan, patentee of Drury-lane theatre, to give him a benefit, which he granted on the most liberal terms. In. 1780, by a well-timed publication, the “Life of David Garrick,” which has passed through several editions, Mr. Davies acquired much fame, and some money. He afterwards published “Dramatic Miscellanies,” if) 3 yols. of which a second edition appeared a few days only before the author’s death. His other works are, 1. “Some Memoirs of Mr. Henderson.” 2. “A Review of lord Chesterfield’s Characters.” 3. A “Life of Massinger.” 4. Lives of Dr. John Eacharo, sir John Davies, and Mr. Lillo, prefixed to editions of their works, published by Mr. Davies; and fugitive pieces without number in prose and verse in the St. James’s Chronicle, and almost all the public newspapers. The compiler of this article in the last edition of this Dictionary, informs us that he “knew him well, and has passed many convivial hours in his company at a social meeting, where his lively sallies of pleasantry used to set the table in a roar of harmless merriment. The last time he visited them he wore the appearance of a spectre; and, sensible of his approaching end, took a solemn valediction of all the company.” Mr. Davies died the 5th of May, 1785, and was buried, by his own desire, in the vault of St. Paul, Covent Garden, close by the side of his next door neighbour, the late Mr. Grignion, watchmaker. Mrs. Davies died Feb. 9, 1801. Tom Davies, as he was familiarly called, was a good-natured and conscientious man in business as in private life, but his theatrical bias created a levity not consistent with prudence. Had he been rich, he would have been liberal: Dr. Campbell used to say he was not a bookseller, but a gentleman who dealt in books"

, a Spanish ecclesiastic, and historiographer to the king of Spain, was a native of the town of Avila, from which he derived his name. He accompanied the cardinal Pierra Deza to Rome, and made great progress in the study of sacred and profane history. On his return to Spain, he was presented to a benefice in the church of Salamanca; and being invited to Madrid in 1612, he was appointed king’s historiographer for Castille. He composed in Spanish, “A History of the Antiquities of Salamanca;” the “Life of Alphonso Tostat;” “Theatre* de las Grandesas de Madrid;” “Theatro ecclesiastico de las iglesias de las Indias;”a life of Henry III. king of Castille, &c. and other works. He died in 1658, upwards of eighty years old.

, a Spanish gentleman, native of Placentia, was commander in the order of Alcantara, and general of cavalry for Charles V. at the siege of Metz in 1552. The duke of Guise had the command of that place. Davila sent a trumpet to him to ask for a fugitive slave who had run off with a horse of great value, which was only a pretext for gaining an observation of the town. The duke of Guise was not a man to be so easily imposed upon: however, he sent him back the horse, which he ransomed with his own money; and, as the slave had pushed on farther, he sent him word, that “he was already a good way in France; and that a slave became free on setting his foot on that ground.” He wrote historical memoirs of the war carried on by that emperor against the protestants of Germany, printed for the first time in Spain, 1546, and afterwards translated into Latin and French. The president Thuanus censures him for his partiality in favour of Charles V. There is also by him, “Memoires de la Guerre d'Afrique.”

, a celebrated historian, was the son of Anthony Davila, who was constable of the kingdom of Cyprus when it was under the power of the Venetians; but having lost his situation by the conquest made by the Turks in 1570, retired to Venice, and being possessed of some property at Sacco in the territory of Padua, determined to settle there. His son was born in this place in 1576, and named Henry Catherine, in honour of Henry III. and Catherine de Medicis, who had shown marks of great respect and kindness for the constable, when he was in France a little before the war of Cyprus. When young Davila had attained his seventh year, his father sent him to France, where he was placed under the care of the marechal D‘Hemery, who had married his father’s sister. D’Hemery, who resided at Villars in Normandy, gave his nephew an excellent education, and at a suitable age introduced him at court as one of the pages to the queen mother. At the age of eighteen, he served in the war against the League, and distinguished himself by an ardour which frequently endangered his life. In 1599, the war being concluded by the peace of Vervins, Davila was recalled by his father and by the Venetians, and returned to Italy. The republic of Venice entrusted him with various employments, both military and civil, such as the government of Candy, and of Dalmatia, and what pleased him most, the title of constable was confirmed to him, and in the senate and on all public occasions he took precedence after the doge. The last office to which he was appointed, but which he never enjoyed, was that of commander of Crema. On his way to this place, the different towns and villages, through which he was to pass, were ordered to furnish him with a change of horses and carriages; but when he arrived at a place near Verona, and requested the usual supplies, they were denied; and on his remonstrating, a brutal fellow shot him dead with a pistol. The assassin was immediately killed by one of Davila’s sons, who happened to be with him. This misfortune happened in 1631, exactly a year after he had published, in Italian, his history of the civil wars of France, under the title “Istoria delle Guerre civili di Francia,” Venice, 4to, reprinted in 1634, 1638, and often since. The finest editions are tnose of Paris, 1644, 2 vols. folio, and of Venice, 1733, 2 vols. folio. We have two old translations into English, 1647, by Aylesbury, and 1678. by dottrel, folio; but the best is that by Farneworth, 1755, 2 vols. 4to. The French have likewise translations by Baudouin, 1642, and by Grosley and the abbe Mallet, 1757, 3 vols. 4to, and there is a Latin translation by Cornazano, Rome, 1743, 3 vols. 4to.

This history is divided into fifteen books, and contains every thing worth notice that passed, from the death of Henry II. 1559, to the peace of Vervins 1598. Lord Bolingbroke calls it a noble history, and says, that he “should not scruple to confess it in many respects equal to that of Livy.” Davila has indeed been accused of too much refinement and subtlety, in developing the secret motives of actions, in laying the causes of events too deep, and deducing them often through a series of progression too complicated, and too artfully wrought. But yet, as the noble lord goes on in his “Letters on the Study of History,” 1. v. “the suspicious person, who should reject this historian upon such general inducements as these, would have no grace to oppose his suspicions to the authority of the first duke of Epernon, who had been an actor, and a principal actor too, in many of the scenes that Davila recites. Girard, secretary to this duke, and no contemptible biographer, relates, that this history came down to the place where the old man resided in Gascony, a little before his death; that he read it to him; that the duke confirmed the truth of the narrations in it; and seemed only surprised, by what means the author could be so well informed of the most secret councils and measures of those times.”

Davila is unquestionably one of the best of the French historians, but is liable to the objections made to other historians, of relying too much on his own invention, all the speeches and harangues in his narrative being of his own composition, and adapted to his own sentiments of the persons and events concerned. Want of variety, it has also been observed, is sensibly felt in his history: the events indeed are important and various; but the reader languishes by a tiresome monotony of character, every person engaged being figured a consummate politician, governed by interest only. His partiality to Catherine of Medicis may perhaps be forgiven, as she was not only his great benefactress, but communicated many particulars to his history. It may be added that the early editions of this history are more incorrect in geography and names than those which are of more recent date.

, son of Mr. John Davis, of Windsor, was born July II, 1756, and educated at Eating, Middlesex; whence he removed to Baliol college, Oxford, May 17, 1774, where he took his degree of B. A. about January 177-. In the spring of that year he wrote an Examination of Gibbon’s “History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,” in which he evinced more knowledge than is usually found at the age of twenty-one. This was answered by the historian in a Vindication, which brougut out a reply by Mr. Davis, who, it is evident, gave Gibbon no small uneasiness by attacking him on his veracity and fairness of quotation, in which Gibbon fancied himself impregnable. In 1780, Mr. Davis having taken his master’s degree, and entered into priest’s orders, was made a fellow of his college; and, for some time before his death, had the office of tutor, which he discharged with a solicitude and constancy too great for the sensibility of his mind, and the delicacy of his constitution. A lingering illness removed him from the society of his many estimable friends, and deprived the public of his expected services. Affected by the strongest and tenderest of those motives, which endear life and subdue fortitude, he sustained the slow approaches of dissolution, not only resigned but cheerful, supported by the principles he had well defended. Feb. 10, 1784, without any apparent change, between a placid slumber and death, he expired. He was buried at Windsor, the place of his nativity. He had cultivated a taste for elegant literature, particularly in poetry. Though his voice was not strong, his elocution was distinct, animated, unaffected, and pathetic. The cheerfulness and vivacity of his conversation, the warmth and benevolence of his heart, fixed by principle, and animated by sentiment, rendered him in his private character, alike amiable and worthy of esteem.

, an eminent navigator, of the sixteenth century, was born at Sandridge, in the parish of StokeGabriel, near Dartmouth in Devonshire. His birth near that eminent sea-port, having given him a fair opportunity, to which probably was added a strong natural disposition, he put himself early to sea; where, by the help of a good master, and his subsequent industry, knowledge, and experience, he became the most expert pilot, and one of the ablest navigators of his time. The first public employment he had was in 1585, when he undertook to discover a new passage, by the north-west parts of America, to the East-Indies. For that purpose, he sailed from Dartmouth, on the seventh of June, with two barks, one of fifty and the other of thirty-five tons, which were fitted out at the charge of some noblemen and gentlemen; and met, July 19, many islands of ice floating, in 60 degrees northern latitude. They were soon encompassed with them; and going upon some, perceived, that the roaring noise they heard, at which they were greatly astonished, was caused only by the rolling of the ice together. The next day, they discovered the southern coast of Greenland, five hundred leagues distant from the Durseys, or Missenhead, in Ireland; and observed it to be extremely rocky and mountainous, and covered with snow, without any signs of wood, grass, or earth to be seen. The shore, likewise, was so full of ice, that no ship could come near it by two leagues: and so shocking was the appearance of it, and the cracking of the ice so hideous, that they imagined it to be a quite desolate country, without a living creature, or even any vegetable substance; for which reason captain Davis named it, “The Land of Desolation.” Perceiving that they were run into a very deep bay, wherein they were almost surrounded with ice, they kept coasting along the edge of it, south-south-west, till the 25th of July; when, after having gone fifty or sixty leagues, they found that the shore lay directly north. This made them alter their course to the north-west, in hopes of finding their desired passage: but on the 29th they discovered land to the north-east, in 64 degr. 15 min. latitude. Making towards it, they perceived that they were passed the ice, and were among many green, temperate, and pleasant islands, bordering upon the shore; though the hills of the continent were still covered with great quantities of snow. Among these islands were many fine bays, and good roads for shipping: they landed in some, and the people of the country came down and conversed with them by signs, making Mr. Davis understand, that there was a great sea towards the north west. He staid in this place till the first of August, and then proceeded in his discovery. The sixth of that month, they found land in 66 degr. 40 min. latitude, quite free from ice; and anchored in a safe road, under a great mountain, the cliffs whereof glistered like gold. This mountain he named, Mount Raleigh: the road where their ships lay at anchor, Totness Road: the bay which encompassed the mountain, Exeter Sound: the foreland towards the north, Dier’s Cape: and the foreland towards the south, Cape Walsingham. He departed from hence the eighth of August, coasting along the shore, which lay south-south-west, and east-north-east; and on the eleventh came to the most southerly cape of that land, which he named, “The Cape of God’s Mercy,” as being the place of their first entrance for the discovery. Going forward, they came into a very fine straight, or passage, in some places twenty leagues broad, in others thirty, quite free from ice, the weather in it very tolerable, and the water of the same colour and nature as the main ocean. This passage still retains the name of its first discoverer, being called to this day Fretum Davis, or Davis’s Straights. Having sailed, north-west, sixty leagues in this passage, they discovered several islands in the midst of it; on some of which they landed. The coast was very barren, without wood or grass; and the rocks were like fine marble, full of veins of divers colours. Some days after they continued searching for the north-west passage, but found only a great number of islands. And, on the 2oth, the wind coming contrary, they altered their course and design, and returning for England, arrived at Dartmouth the 29th of September. The next year Mr. Davis undertook a second voyage, for the farther discovery of the north-west passage, being supported and encouraged again by secretary Walsingham, and other adventurers. With' a view therefore of searching the bottom of the Straights he had been in the year before, he sailed from Dartmouth, May the 7th, 1586, with four ships, and the 15th of June discovered land in 60 degrees latitude, and 47 degrees longitude west from London. The ice along the coast reached in some places ten, in some twenty, and in others fifty leagues into the sea; so that, to avoid it, they were forced to bear into 57 degrees latitude. After many tempestuous storms, they made the land again, June the 29th, in 64 degrees of latitude, and 58 of longitude; and ran among the temperate islands they had been at the year before. But the water was so deep, they could not easily come to an anchor; yet they found means to go ashore, on some of the islands, where they were much caressed and welcomed by the natives, who knew them again. Having finished a pinnace, which was to serve them for a front in their discoveries, they landed, not only in that, but also in their boats, in several places: and, upon the strictest search, found the land not to be a continent, as they imagined, but a collection of huge, waste, and desert isles, with great sounds and inlets passing between sea and sea. They pursued their voyage the 11th of July, and on the 17th, in 63 degrees 8 minutes latitude, met with a prodigious mass of ice, which they coasted till the 30th. This was a great obstacle and discouragement to them, not having the like there the year before; and, besides, the men beginning to grow sickly, the crew of one of the ships, on which he chiefly depended, forsook him, and resolved to proceed no farther. However, not to disappoint Mr. W. Sanderson, who was the chief adventurer in this voyage, and for fear of losing the favour of secretary Walsingham, who had this discovery much at heart, Mr. Davis undertook to proceed alone in his small bark of thirty tons. Having therefore fitted, and well-victualled it, in a harbour lying in 66 degrees 33 minutes latitude, and 70 degrees longitude, which he found to be a very hot place, and full of muscatoes, he set sail the 12th of August, and coming into a straight followed the course of it for eighty leagues, till he came among many islands, where the water ebbed and flowed six fathom deep. He had hopes of finding a passage there, but upon searching farther in his boat, he perceived there was none. He then returned again into the open sea, and kept coasting southward as far as 54 degrees and a half of latitude: in which time he found another great inlet near forty leagues broad, between two lands, west, where the water ran in with great violence. This, he imagined, was the passage so long sought for; but the wind being then contrary, and two furious storms happening soon after, he neither thought it safe nor wise to proceed farther, especially in one small bark, and when the season was so far advanced. He, therefore, sailed for England the 11th of September; and arrived there in the beginning of October. By the observations which he made, he concluded, that the north parts of America are all islands. He made a third voyage to these parts again the year following, 1587. All the western merchants, and most of those of London, refused to be engaged farther in the undertaking; but it was encouraged by the lord treasurer Burleigh and secretary Walsinghain. Mr. Davis having, in his last voyage, discovered prodigious quantities of excellent cud-tish, in 56 degrees of latitude, two ships were sent along with him for fishing, and one only for the discovery of the North west passage. They sailed from Dartmouth the 19tii of May, and discovered land the 14th of June, at sixteen leagues distance, but very mountainous, and covered with snow. On the 21st of June the two barks left him, and went upon the fishing, after having promised him, not to depart till his return to them about the end of August, yet having finished their voyage in about sixteen days after, they set sail for England without any regard to their promise. Captain Davis, in the mean time, pursued his intended discovery, in the sea between America and Greenland, from 64 to 73 degrees of latitude. Having entered the Straights which bear his name, he went on northward, from the 21st to the 30th of June; naming one part Merchants Coast; another, the London Coast; another, Hope Sanderson in 73 degrees latitude, being the farthest he went that day. The wind coming northerly, he altered his course, and ran forty leagues west, without seeing any laud. On the 2d of July, he fell in with a great bank of ice, which he coasted southward till the 1 9th of July, when he came within sight of Mount Raleigh on the American coast, in about 67 degrees of latitude. Having sailed sixty leagues north-west into the gulf that lies beyond it, he anchored, July 23, at the bottom of that gulf, among many islands, which he named “The Earl of Cumberland’s Isles” He quitted that place again the same day, and sailed back south-east, in order to recover the sea; which he did the 29th in 62 degrees of latitude. The 30th he passed by a great bank, or inlet, to which he gave the name of Lumley’s Inlet; and the next day by a head land, which he called “The Earl of Warwick’s Foreland.” On the first of August he fell in with the southermost cape, named by him Chudley’s Cape: and, the 12th, passed by an island which he named Darcy’s Island. When he came in 52 degrees of latitude, not finding the two ships that had promised to stay for him, he was in great distress, having but little wood, and only half a hogshead of water left; yet, taking courage, he made the best of his way home, and arrived at Dartmouth September the 15th, very sanguine, that the north-west passage was most probable, and the execution easy; but secretary Walsinghaw dying not long after, all farther search was laid aside. Mr. Davis, notwithstanding, did not remain idle. For, August 26, 1591, he was captain of the Desire, rear admiral to Mr. Thomas Cavendish, in his second unfortunate expedition to the South -Sea; and is highly blamed by Mr. Cavendish, for having deserted him, and thereby being the cause of his overthrow. After many disasters, Mr. Davis arrived again at Bear-haven in Ireland, June 11, 1593. He performed afterwards no less than five voyages to the East-Indies, in the station of a pilot. One was in a Dutch ship, in which he set out, March 15, 1597-8, from Flushing, and returned to Middleburgh, July 23, 1600. Of the rest we have no account, except of that which he performed with sir Edward Michelbourne, in which were spent nineteen months, from December 5, 1604, to July 9, 1606. During this voyage Mr. Davis was killed, on the 27th of December, 1605, in a desperate fight with some Japonese near the coast of Malacca. He married Faith, daughter of sir John Fulford, of Fulford in Devonshire, knight, by Dorothy his wife, daughter of John lord Bouchier, earl of Bath, by whom probably he had issue: for some of his posterity are said to have been living about the middle of the last century, at or near Deptford.

“The account of his second voyage for the Discovery of the North-west Passage, in 1586,” seems to be of his composition; for he speaks always in the first person. There are likewise in print two letter.-? of his to Mr. Sanderson, one dated from Exeter, October 14, 1586; and the other from Sandridge, September 16, 1587. Hakluyt has also preserved “A Traverse Booke made by M. John Davis, in his third voyage for the discoverie of the Northwest Passage, anno 1587,” and it appears that he composed a treatise entitled “The World’s Hydrographicall Description,” for Hakluyt has extracted from it, and published, “A report of Master John Davis, of his three voyages made for the Discovery of the North-west Passage.” His voyage to the East Indies in a Dutch ship, in 1598, was written also by himself. It is said that “There is a flutter, [Routier] or Brief Directions for sailing into the East Indies, digested into a plain method by this same person, John Davis, of Limehouse, (as he is there called) written upon experiment of his five voyages thither, and home again.” But either it was not written by the same John Davis, who is the subject of this article, or else our John Davis was not killed in the East Indies, as we have said above upon the authority of Purchas, and of those that have copied from him.

, of Hereford, as he usually styled himself, a poet and schoolmaster, was born in that city, and sent when young from a grammar-school there, to the university of Oxford; but Wood has not discovered in what college he studied, nor does it appear that he took any degree. After leaving the university, he returned to his native place, where he obtained the character of a poet, and published several productions of the rhyming kind; but not finding, as it would indeed have been wonderful if he had found, much profit accrue, he set up a writing-school, first at Hereford, and afterwards in London, where he at length acquired the character of one of the first penmen in England. In 1611 we find him living in Fleet-street, and a Roman catholic. From Peck’s Desiderata it appears that Arthur Wilson was one of his pupils, and that the conversation of Davis and his family inspired him with some doubts of the religious kind. From his poems we learn that Davis left a brother, James, at Oxford, who was also a writing-master; and that he himself married a wife whose name was Croft, by whom, he says, he had a “crop of care,” meaning, probably, a large family. As a writing-master, he published some engraved books of instruction, or specimens, but Massey has seen only “The Writing School-master, or Anatomy of Fair Writing,” engraved, after his death, by Ingheenram, which he thinks does not support the high character given of his penmanship by his contemporaries. It is said he was some time tutor to prince Henry, who, according to Birch, wrote a very fine hand. He died about 1618, and, Fuller informs us, was buried in the church or church-yard of St. Giles’s in the Fields.

His poetical works are numerous, but discover very little taste or talent: 1. “St. Peter’s Complaint, with other Poems,” Loud. 1595, 4to. 2. “Mirum in modo; a glimpse of God’s glory, and the soul’s shape,” ibid. 1602, and 1616, 8vo. 3. “Microcosmus, or the Discovery of the Little World,” Oxon. 1603, 4to. 4. “The Holy Rood of Christ’s Church,” Lond. 1609, 4to, with Sonnets. 5. “Humours Heaven and Earth, with the civil wars of Death and Fortune,” ibid. 1609, 8vo. 6. “Wit’s Pilgrimage,” Lond. 4to, no date. 7. “Muse’s Sacrifice, or Divine Meditations,” ibid. 1612, 12mo. 8. “The Muse’s Tears for the loss of their hope, the heroic and never too much praised Henry, prince of Wales,” ibid. 1613, 4to, &c. &c. &c. Four of these volumes are noticed in the Censura Literaria, one in Beloe’s Anecdotes, and one in the British Bibliographer, by Mr. Haslewood, whose character of Davis’s poetry may be adopted with confidence. “Davis’s poetical attempts are generally heavy, dull, obscure, and inharmonious and his pages are remarkable for inconsistency. One while he is pouring forth celestial rhapsodies, and then * with jerkes of wit (as he terms them) to whip every vice,' blundering on expressions too gross for pen or press, while the reader, who may have been edified by his morality, is left to fill up the blank of a disgusting parenthesis. His witticisms are often feeble puns, double entendres, and occasionally have their point depending on a fabricated name. Yet though the whole of his pieces now class as rare, from their number it seems presumable they were not ill received. To us moderns, however, there seldom appears poignancy in his wit, or nerve in his poetry.”

, an Irish divine, was born near Cork, in 1649, and educated at Trinity-college, Dublin, where he took his degree of LL. D. and was accounted an eminent civilian. Having entered into holy orders, he was promoted to be dean of Cork, and was afterwards vicargeneral of the diocese, both which preferments he retained until his death in 1721. He wrote, “A Letter to a friend concerning his changing his religion,” Lond. 1694, 4to. This friend was a Mr. Turner, recorder of Limerick, who had become a Roman catholic. Dr. Davis published also, “The truly Catholick and Old Religion, shewing that the established church in Ireland is more truly a member of the catholic church, than the church of Rome, and that all the ancient Christians, especially in Great Britain and Ireland, were of her communion,” Dublin, 1716, 4to. This was answered the same year by Timothy O'Brien, D. D. of Toulouse, a native of Cork, and then parish priest of Castlelions, in a pamphlet printed at Cork, anonymously, to which Dr. Davis replied in “A Letter to the pretended Answer, &c.” O'Brien returned to the charge with “Goliath beheaded with his own sword,” 4to, to which Dr. Davis replied in “Remarks on a pamphlet entitled Goliath, &c.” He also published two occasional sermons, one on the 30th of January, entitled “Christian Loyalty,” 1716, 4to; the other a charity sermon, Dublin, 1717, 8vo.

, a very eminent statesman, and secretary of state in the reign of queen Elizabeth, was, if not a native of Scotland, at least descended from those who were, as himself professed to sir James Mel vile. At what time he came into the court of queen Elizabeth, or in what state, is uncertain. It is most probable, that his parts and learning, together with that extraordinary diligence and wonderful address for which he was always distinguished, recommended him to Mr. Killigrew, afterwards sir Henry Kiiligrew, with whom he went in quality of secretary, at the time he was sent into Scotland, to compliment queen Mary upon the birth of her son. This was in 1566, and there is a good reason to believe that he remained from that time about the court, and was employed in several affairs of great consequence. In 1575, when the states of Brabant and Flanders assumed to themselves the administration of all affairs till his catholic majesty should appoint a new governor of the Low Countries, Mr. Davison was sent over with a public character from the queen to those states, under the plausible pretence of exhorting them to continue in their obedience to his catholic majesty; but, in reality, to see how things actually stood in that part of the world, that her majesty might be the better able to know how to proceed in respect to the several applications made to her from the prince of Orange, and the people of Holland. He executed this commission very successfully, and therefore the queen sent him over as her minister, to pacify the troubles that had arisen at Ghent; and when his presence was no longer necessary there, he was commissioned on her behalf to the States of Holland, in 1579. His conduct there gave equal satisfaction to the queen his mistress, and to those with whom he negotiated. He gave them great hopes of the queen’s assistance and support, and when a sum of money was desired, as absolutely necessary towards providing for their defence, he very readily undertook to procure it upon reasonable security; in consequence of which, a very considerable sum was sent from England, for which all the valuable jewels and fine plate that had been pledged by Matthias of Austria to the States of Holland, and which were the remains of the magnificence of the house of Burgundy, were transported to England. These journies, and the success attending them, gave Mr. Davison great reputation at court, insomuch, that in all matters of a nice and difficult nature, Davison was some way or other continually employed. Thus in 1583, when matters wore a serious aspect in Scotland, he was sent thither as the queen’s ambassador, in order to counteract the French ministers, and to engage the king of Scots and the people, both to slight the offers made them from that country, and to depend wholly upon assistance from England. Affairs in the Low Countries coming at last to a crisis, and the states resolving to depend upon queen Elizabeth, in the bold design they had formed of defending their freedom by force of arms, and rendering themselves independent, Mr. Davison, at this time clerk of the privy council, was chosen to manage this delicate business, and to conclude with them that alliance which was to be the basis of their future undertakings. In this, which, without question, was one of the most perplexed transactions in that whole reign, he conducted things with such a happy dexterity, as to merit the strongest acknowledgments on the part of the States, at the same time that he rendered the highest service to the queen his mistress, and obtained ample security for those expences which that princess thought necessary in order to keep danger at a distance, and to encourage the flames of war in the dominions of her enemy, whom at that juncture she knew to be meditating how he might transfer them into her own. Upon the return of Mr. Davison into England, after the conclusion of this treaty, he was declared of the privy-council, and appointed one of her majesty’s principal secretaries of state, in conjunction with sir Francis Walsingham; so that, at this time, these offices may be affirmed to have been as well filled as in any period that can be assigned in our history, and yet by persons of very different, or rather opposite dispositions; for Walsingham was a man of great art and intrigue, one who was not displeased that he was thought such a person, and whose capacity was still deeper than 'those who understood it best apprehended it to be. Davison, on the other hand, had a just reputation for wisdom and probity; and, though he had been concerned in many intricate affairs, yet he preserved a character so unspotted, that, to the time he came into this office, he had done nothing that could draw upon him the least imputation. It is an opinion countenanced by Camden, and which has met with general acceptance, that he was raised in order to be ruined, and that, when he was made secretary of state, there was a view of obliging him to go out of his depth in that matter, which brought upon him all his misfortunes. This conjecture is very plausible, and yet there is good reason to doubt whether it is well founded. Mr. Davison had attached himself, during the progress of his fortunes, to the potent earl of Leicester; and it was chiefly to his favour and interest that he stood indebted for this high employment, in which, if he was deceived by another great statesman, it could not be said that he was raised and ruined by the same hands. But there is nothing more probable than that the bringing about such an event by an instrument which his rival had raised, and then removing him, and rendering his parts useless to those who had raised him, gave a double satisfaction to him who managed this design. It is an object of great curiosity to trace the principal steps of this transaction, which was, without doubt, one of the finest strokes of political management in that whole reign. When the resolution was taken, in the beginning of October 1586, to bring the queen of Scots? to a trial, and a commission was issued for that purpose, secretary Davison’s name was inserted in that commission; but it does not appear that he was present when that commission was opened at Fotheringay castle, on the llth of October, or that he ever assisted there at all. Indeed, the management of that transaction was very wisely left in the hands of those who with so much address had conducted the antecedent business for the conviction of Anthony Babington, and his accomplices, upon the truth and justice of which, the proceedings against the queen of Scots entirely depended. On the 25th of October the sentence was declared in the star-chamber, things proceeding still in the same channel, and nothing particularly done by secretary Davison. On the 29th of the same month the parliament met, in which Serjeant Puckering was speaker of the house of commons; and, upon an application from both houses, queen Elizabeth caused the sentence to be published, which, soon after, was notified to the queen of Scots; yet hitherto all was transacted by the other secretary, who was considered by the nation in general as the person who had led this prosecution from beginning to end. The true meaning of this long and solemn proceeding was certainly to remove, as far as possible, any reflection upon queen Elizabeth; and, that it might appear in the most conspicuous manner to the world, that she was urged, and even constrained to take the life of the queen of Scots, instead of seeking or desiring it. This assertion is not founded upon conjecture, but is a direct matter of fact; for, in her first answer to the parliament, given at Richmond the 12th of November, she complained that the late act had brought her into a great strait, by obliging her to give directions for that queen’s death; and upon the second application, on the 24th of the same month, the queen enters largely into the consequences that must naturally follow upon her taking that step, and on the consideration of them, grounds her returning no definitive resolution, even to this second application. The delay which followed after the publication of the sentence, gave an opportunity for the French king, and several other princes, to interpose, but more especially to king James, whose ambassadors, and particularly sir Robert Melvile, pressed the queen very hard. Camden says, that his ambassadors unseasonably mixing threatenings with intreaties, they were not very welcome; so that after a few days the ambassadors were dismissed, with small hopes of succeeding. But we are elsewhere told, that, when Melvile requested a respite of execution for eight days, she answered, “Not an hour.” This seemed to be a plain declaration of her majesty’s final determination, and such in all probability it was, so that her death being resolved, the only point that remained under debate was, how she should die, that is, whether by the hand of an executioner, or otherwise. In respect to this, the two secretaries seem to have been of different sentiments. Mr. Davison thought the forms of justice should go on, and the end of this melancholy transaction correspond with the rest of the proceedings. Upon this, sir Francis Walsingham pretended sickness, and did not come to court, and by this means the whole business of drawing and bringing the warrant to the queen to sign, fell upon Davison, who, pursuant to the queen’s directions, went through it in the manner that Camden has related. But it is very remarkable, that, while these judicial steps were taking, the other method, to which the queen herself seemed to incline, proceeded also, and secretary Walsingham, notwithstanding his sickness, wrote the very day the warrant was signed, which was Wednesday, February 1st, 1586-7, to sir Amiss Pawlet and sir Drew Drury, to put them in mind of the association, as a thing that might countenance, at least, if not justify, this other way of removing the queen of Scots. It is true, that Mr. Davison subscribed this letter, and wrote another to the same persons two days after; but it appears plainly from the anssver, that the keepers of the queen of Scots considered the motion as coming from Walsingharn. The warrant being delivered to the lords of the council, they sent it down by Mr. Beale, their clerk, a man of sour and stubborn temper, and who had always shewn a great bitterness against the queen of Scots. The day of his departure does not appear; but queen Mary had notice given her on the Monday, to prepare for death on the Wednesday, which she accordingly suffered. As soon as queen Elizabeth was informed of it, she expressed great resentment against her council, forbad them her presence and the court; and caused some of them to be examined, as if she intended to call them to an account for the share they had in this transaction. We are not told particularly who these counsellors were, excepting the lord treasurer Burleigh, who fell into a temporary disgrace about it, and was actually a witness against Mr. Davison. As for the earl of Leicester and secretary Walsingharn, they had prudently withdrawn themselves at the last act of the tragedy, and took care to publish so much, by their letters into Scotland; but secretary Davison, upon whom it was resolved the whole weight of this business should fall, v.-deprived of his office, and sent prisoner to the Tower, at which nobody seerus to have been so much alarmed as the lord treasurer, who, though himself at that time in disgrace, wrote to the queen in strong terms, and once intended to have written in much stronger. This application bad no effect, for the queen having sent her kinsman Mr. Cary, son to the lord Hunsdon, into Scotland, to excuse the matter to king James, charged with a letter to him under her own hand, in which she in the strongest terms possible asserted her own innocence, there was a necessity of doing something that Davison[?] carry an air of evidence, in support of the turn she had now given to the death of that princess. On the 28th of March following, Davison, after having undergone various examinations, was brought to his trial in the star chamber, for the contempt of which he had been guilty, in revealing the queen’s counsels to her privy counsellors, and performing what he understood to be the duty of his office in quality of her secretary. We have several accounts of this trial, which, in a variety of circumstances, differ from each other. In this, however, they all agree, that the judges, who fined him ten thousand marks, and imprisonment during the queen’s pleasure, gave him a very high character, and declared him to be, in their opinions, both an able ana an honest man. One thing is very remarkable, that, in the conclusion of this business, sir Christopher Wray, chief justice of the queen’s bench, told the court, that though the queen had been offended with her council, and had left them to examination, yet now she forgave them, being satisfied that they were misled b? this man’s suggestions. Sir James Melvile, who wrote at that time, and who seems to have had some prejudice against Davison, said very candidly and fairly upon this occasion, that he was deceived by the council. As soon as the proceeding was over, the queen, to put it out of doubt with the king of Scots, that his mother was put to death without her privity or intention, sent him the judgment given against Davison, subscribed by those who had given it, and exemplified under the great seal, together with another instrument, under the hands of all the judges of England, that the sentence against his mother could not in the least prejudice his title to the succession. As for Mr. Davison, now left to a strange reward for his past services, a long imprisonment, which reduced him to indigence, he comforted himself with the thoughts of his innocence; and, to secure his memory from being blasted by that judgment which had withered his fortune, he had long before written an apology for his own conduct, which he addressed to secretary Walsingham, as the man most interested in it, and who could best testify whether what he affirmed was truth or not. In this he gave a very clear and natural detail of the transaction which cost him all his sufferings. It is allowed by all who have written on this subject, and especially by Camden, that he was a very unhappy, though at the same time a very capable and honest man. As such we have seen him recommended to queen Elizabeth by the treasurer Burleigh, and as such he was strongly recommended by the earl of Essex to king James I. It seems, that noble person stuck fast by him under his misfortunes, which plainly shews the party to which he had always adhered. That lord lost no opportunity of soliciting the queen in his favour, and never let slip any occasion of testifying for him the warmest and thesincerest affection. At length, it seems he was not altogether unsuccessful; for though, upon the death of secretary Walsingham, the queen absolutely rejected his motion, that Mr. Davison should come into his place, yet, afterwards, it seems that she yielded in some degree, as plainly appears by the earl’s letter to king James. That we are under an incapacity of tracing him farther, is owing to the profound silence of the writers of those times.

Davison came not suddenly or surprisingly into his high office, but easily, naturally, and gradually, in the very same way that his predecessors, Cecil, Smith, and Walsingham had done, and with the general approbation of all the council; and, as he was no mean or obscure person when called to that high employment, so he was not given to subserviency, at the peril of his life and reputation; and notwithstanding the star chamber sentence, he very well knew how to make his innocence plain, both to that age and to posterity.

Mr. Whitaker, in his elaborate work entitled “Mary queen of Scots vindicated,” has not forgotten Elizabeth’s conduct with regard to Davison. In the first edition he took proper notice of it, and gave a general account of the unfortunate secretary’s apology. But in the second edition he has inserted the apology at large, and accompanied it with a number of notes that strongly display the unjust and cruel manner in which Davisou was treated by his royal mistress. The pointed observations of Mr. Whitaker’s concluding note afford such a correct view of his character, as, although somewhat different from the preceding in the Biographia Britannica, is probably nearer the truth.

"Let me here, at the end of the apology, remark finally concerning Davison, that, though he was not an honest man, yet he was so nearly one, as to be a very prodigy for the ministry of Elizabeth. He refused, it appears, to sign that very bond of association which was signed by all the nation, and which even the despairing Mary offered, on her liberty being granted, to sign herself. Yet he refused, though Leicester pushed on the association, and though Elizabeth urged him to sign it. Among the pleas which he advances for himself in his other apology, he particularly states * his former absolute refusal to sign the band of association, being earnestly pressed thereunto by her majesty’s self,‘ (Robertson, II. 483). This indeed is a very strong evidence of a manly virtuousness in him. But he did other things in the same spirit of virtue. He declined to act as a commissioner on the examination of Babington and his accomplices for their conspiracy in favour of Mary, and took a journey to Bath, in order to save himself from acting, (Robertson, II. 483). He was a means, too, of preventing the commissioners who were sent to try Mary at Fotheringay castle, from pronouncing sentence upon her immediately after the trial, and of obliging them to return first to London, and report their proceedings to Elizabeth, (Robertson, II. 483). We have already seen that he kept the warrant for the execution of Mary five or six weeks in his hands, without offering to present it to Elizabeth for her signing. We have equally seen that he actually neglected to obey a personal command of Elizabeth’s for bringing the warrant to her, and that he thus neglected for ’ many days,‘ even till the queen fired at his conduct, and sent him a peremptory order to bring it. Even then, and even when Paulet’s answer had been received, and all delay was now at an end for ever, he would not be concerned in sending away the warrant himself, but returned it into the hands from which he had received it, and left Cecil and the council to send it. And, as in all the time ’ before her trial, he neither is nor can be charged, to have had any hand at all in the cause of the said queen, or done any thing whatsoever concerning the same, directly or indirectly,‘ so, * after the return thence of the commissioners, it is well known to all her council, that he never was at any deliberation or meeting whatsoever, in parliament or council, concerning the cause of the said queen, till the sending down of her majesty’s warrant unto the commissioners by the lords and others of her council,’ (Robertson, II. 481).

“These deeds of honesty, no doubt, had successively marked him out for vengeance to the rest of the ministry, and to the queen. He was therefore selected by Cecil, `with her majesty’s own privity,' to be the secretary with whom the warrant should he lodged for signing, (Robertson, II. 481). He was thus exposed to a train of decisive trials. It would be seen whether he offered to present the warrant to Elizabeth for her signature. Should he not offer, a command might be given him by Elizabeth to bring it up. Should he hesitate to obey this, a sharp rebuke and a peremptory order might be sent him. If he was refractory in all these points, then the wrath of Elizabeth would burst out upon him, and sweep him away from her presence for ever. If he complied in any, his farther compliance might be tried in ordering him to the great seal with the warrant, and in directing him to use the warrant, when sealed, with secresy. Should he be found pliable in this trial, the grand scheme of assassination, the favourite wish of Elizabeth’s heart, which had repeatedly been talked over by her other ministers before Elizabeth and him, which they all united to approve, though none of them offered to undertake, and which had been so talked over and so approved of, merely to put Davison upon undertaking it, might finally be urged upon Davisou in private by Elizabeth herself. Should he bend to this urgency, and engage in the work of assassination, Elizabeth, as soon as ever the work was done, would have risen upon him with an affected passion, and made his life the forfeit of his compliance. And should he not bend, all his present, and all his former refractoriness would be remembered at once against him, and unite to draw down the rage of Elizabeth in a storm of real resentment upon him. Either way the man was sure to be ruined. He complied, though only in part. He brought up the warrant at the second order. He carried it to the great seal. He even united with Walsingham to mention Elizabeth’s proposal of assassination to Paulet; but he would go no farther. He actually protested to Elizabeth herself against the proposal before he mentioned it to Paulet. He protested to her against every scheme of assassination. And he was therefore ruined at last by Elizabeth, in a most impudent stretch of falsehood, for doing what he did not do, and in truth and reality, for not doing what he was wanted to do.”

“Thus fell Davison, a memorable evidence of the cunning, the perfidiousness, and the barbarity of Elizabeth and her Cecil! But he was fully revenged of them both in his fall. He wrote the present apology, which serves so greatly to expose the characters of both. It is very convincing in itself; is even drawn up with the air and address of a fine writer, and is peculiarly valuable to the critical investigators of Elizabeth’s conduct. It differs very usefully from that in Dr. Robertson’s Appendix, in being written within the very month of all the main transactions recorded in it, and being therefore very full, circumstantial, and accurate; while that was written many years afterward, is only general and short, and is often inaccurate. It was not, however, a? Camden says, a ‘ private’ apology sent to ‘ Walsingham,’ (Orig. i. 465. Trans. 392). It was evidently calculated, as I have shown before, for the inspection of Elizabeth herself. And, as it would naturally be sent to his brother-secretary for her inspection, so was it a bold challenge to her for the truth and exactness of all his averments, and would serve only to increase the load already descending to crush him. The other was written, not only when the little particulars had faded off from the mind, when memory had confounded some circumstances that were distinct in themselves, and a regular narrative, if it could have been given, was no longer of consequence but, what is very surprizing, when Davison had lost all copy, and even all minutes of this very apology. It was drawn up, too, when he was no longer afraid of showing his forbearance in the cause of Mary, and indeed had reason for displaying it all at large. He therefore goes back much farther in the second apology than in the first, to the return of Mary’s judges from Fotheringay, to the moment of her trial, to the examination of Babington, &c. and to the times preceding all. In this whole period he shows us his secret attachment to Mary, by such a train of incidents as seems peculiarly calculated for the eye of Mary’s son on his accession to the throne of England. Yet Elizabeth must have been alive at the writing of it, since she is spoken of as still queen; and I therefore suppose it to be written at the latter end of Elizabeth’s reign, when all the nation began to turn their eyes towards Scotland for a successor to her; and when Davison would naturally endeavour to make that attachment to Mary, for which he had suffered so severely from Elizabeth, promote his interest with James.”

Francis, the secretary’s son, published a poetical mispellany in 1602, under the title of a “Poetical Rapsodie,” containing small pieces by the compiler himself, and by some friends. A second edition of this appeared in 1608, a third in 1611, and a fourth in 1621. Mr, Ellis has extracted some of these pieces in his “Specimens,” vol. III.

, an eminent French naturalist, was born at Montbar in the department of tlio Cote D'Or, May 29, 1716. His father, John Daubenton, was a notary in that place, and his mother’s name was Mary Pichenot. In his youth he distinguished himself by the sweetness of his temper, and by a diligent application to his Studies. The Jesuits of Dijon, under whose tuition he was first placed, noticed him in a peculiar manner. Having gone through the philosophical course taught by the Dominicans of Dijon, his father, who destined him for the church, and who had made him assume the ecclesiastical dress at the age of twelve, sent him to Paris to study theology, but his predilection for natural history induced him privately to study medicine. Accordingly he attended the lectures of Baron, Martiney, and Col de Villars, and likewise those of Winslow, Hunault, and Anthony Jussieu, in the botanic garden. The death of his father, which happened in 1736, leaving him at liberty to pursue the bent of his own inclinations, he took his degrees at Rheims in 1740 and 1741, after which he returned to his native province, where, doubtless, his ambition would have been for ever confined to the practice of medicine, had not a happy accident brought him upon a more brilliant theatre.

Montbar had given birth, about the same time, to the celebrated Buffon, a man of a very different character; who, though possessed of an independent fortune, a robust constitution, and actuated by a violent passion for pleasure, had determined to devote himself to the cultivation of the sciences; and of those, at length to give the preference to natural history, which he saw in its infancy and rude state, and very justly conceived that every thing must be collected, revised, and examined. Perceiving, however, that iiis ardent and lively imagination rendered him unequal to such laborious and difficult researches, and even that the weakness of his sight excluded the hope of succeeding in them, he endeavoured to discover a man, who, besiJes a sound judgment, and a certain quickness of perception, should possess sufficient modesty and devotedness to induce him to rest satisfied with acting, in appearance, a subordinate part, and to serve him, as it were, as a hand and an eye in the prosecution of his undertaking. Such a man he at last found in Daubenton, the companion of his early years. The character, however, of these two philosophers was almost opposite in every respect. Buffon was violent, impatient, rash: Daubenton was all gentleness, patience, and caution: Buffon wished to divine the truth rather than to discover it: Daubenton believed nothing which he had not himself seen and ascertained: Buffon suffered his imagination to lead him from nature; Daubenton, on the contrary, discarded from his writings every expression which was calculated to mislead. They were thus happily fitted to correct each other’s faults. Accordingly, the History of Quadrupeds, which appeared while they laboured together, is the most exempt from error of any of the divisions which constitute Buffon’s Natural History.

About 1742 Buffon drew him to Paris. At that time, the office of keeper and demonstrator of the cabinet of natural history was in a great measure nominal, and as Noguez, who possessed that title, had been long absent, his place was occasionally supplied by any one present. By the influence of Buffon, this office was revived, and conferred on Daubenton in 1745. His salary, which at first did not exceed 500 francs, was, by degrees, afterwards augmented to 2000, or, as some say, 4000. While he was only an assistant in the academy of sciences, Buffon, who acted as its treasurer, conferred upon him several favours. On his arrival at Paris he procured him. a lodging, and neglected nothing in order to secure to him ease and independence; while Daubenton pursued with indefatigable industry those labours which were necessary to second the views of his benefactor, and established by this means the two principal monuments of his own glory.

One of these is the cabinet of natural history in the botanical garden. That before his time served merely as a repository for the products of the different pharmaceutical operations, performed during the public lectures on chemistry, in order that they might be distributed to the poor while suffering under disease. It contained nothing appertaining to natural history, strictly so called, except a collection of shells made by Tournefort, which had afterwards been employed to amuse Lewis XV. during his infancy; but such was the industry of Daubenton, that, within a few years, he collected specimens of minerals, fruits, woods, shells, from every quarter, and methodically arranged them. By applying himself to ascertain, or to improve the operations necessary to preserve the different parts of organized bodies, he succeeded in giving to the inanimate forms of quadrupeds and birds the appearance of real life; and presented to the naturalist the most minute circumstances of. their characters, while at the same time he no less gratified the virtuosi by exhibiting them in their natural forms and colours.

Availing himself of the patronage of Buffon, and of his influence with the government, Daubenton soon formed and executed a very extensive plan: he conceived that all the productions of nature should find a place in the temple he had consecrated to her; he was fully aware that those objects which are regarded as the most important, could only be thoroughly known by a comparison of them with others; and that there existed no one that had not a greater or less affinity with the rest of nature. Impressed with this view of the subject, he made the most unremitting efforts to render his collection complete; whilst at the same time he bestowed the greatest attention on the formation of those anatomical preparations which for a long time distinguished the cabinet of Paris, and which, however disagreeable they may be to the common eye, are not the less useful to those who wish to penetrate beyond the move surface of organized beings, and who endeavour to render natural history a philosophical science, by illustrating the phenomena it exhibits.

The study and arrangement of these productions engrossed his whole attention, and seemed to constitute the only passion he ever experienced. Shut up for whole days in the cabinet, he incessantly occupied himself in changing the disposition of the objects he had accumulated, till by a scrupulous investigation of their several parts, and attempting every possible method, he fell upon that arrangement which was equally consonant to true taste and accurate science^ This passion for arrangement was again revived in full force during his latter years; when, in consequence of victories obtained by the republican arms, there was brought to the museum a fresh store of natural curiosities, and when circumstances permitted him to give to the whole a more complete illustration. At eighty-four years of age, when he stooped much, and both his hands and feet had suffered greatly from the gout, not being able to walk without assistance, he was conducted by two persons every morning to the cabinet, in order to superintend the arrangement of the minerals, the only department allotted to him according to the new organization of the establishment. The second monument that Daubenton has left behind him, and which must ever perpetuate his name, is his Description of Quadrupeds. It must, however, afford a subject of regret to every lover of science, that some circumstances prevented him from extending, as was his original intention, that description to all the productions contained in the cabinet of natural history. It is not now our business to analyze the descriptive part of the Natural History, a work as immense in its details as astonishing in the boldness of the plan, nor to characterize the new and important improvements introduced by him into this department of science. It may be sufficient, in order to convey some idea of the immensity of that work, to observe, that it comprehends not only the external characters, but the internal description of one hundred and eighty-two species of quadrupeds, of which fifty-eight had never been dissected, and thirteen were absolutely non-descripts. It contains, moreover, the external description of twenty-six species, five of which were wholly unknown. The number of new species there described by him is eighteen; but the new and interesting facts which he has brought forward respecting those species of which we had only before a very superficial knowledge, are extremely numerous. The greatest inerit of the work, however, consists in the order and disposition with which all the species are described. It delighted the author to repeat, that he was the first who had established an accurate system of comparative anatomy; the truth of which must certainly be admitted, in this sense, that as all his observations were conducted upon one uniform plan, and equally extended to every animal, it is extremely easy to comprehend their reciprocal relations; that as he was never biassed by any preconceived hypothesis, he has bestowed an equal attention upon every part, and in no instance ever omitted or concealed what could not be reconciled to his own system. This work of Daubenton may be considered as a rich mine, which all who devote themselves to similar pursuits, find it necessary to explore, and of which many have profited without due acknowledgment. Nothing more is frequently necessary than to exhibit a general view of his observations, and to place them under different heads, in order to obtain results highly interesting: it is in this sense that we must understand the expression of the celebrated Camper, “that Daubenton was unconscious of all the discoveries of which he was the author.”

This work procured for Daubenton a very high reputation, and drew upon him the envy of Reaumur, who at that time considered himself as at the head of natural history. But the credit and reputation of Buffon was sufficient to prevent his friend from falling a victim to the attack of this formidable antagonist.

It gives us a very unfavourable idea of Buffon that after this he should himself commence the enemy of Daubenton. He was, however, weak enough to listen to some parasites, who persuaded him that it would redound greatly to his honour to dismiss his associate; and, accordingly, Buffon actually published a new edition of his Natural History, in 13 volumes, 12mo, in which are omitted not only the anatomy, but even the external characters, of the animals which Daubenton had furnished for the large edition; and as nothing was substituted in their stead, the work exhibits no idea of the form, colour, or distinctive attributes of the animals; so that this small edition cannot supply any data whereby to ascertain the animals to which the author alludes, especially as they are not to be found either in Pliny, or Aristotle, who likewise, as is well known, neglected the descriptive details.

Buffon moreover determined not to avail himself of his aid in the works he had projected on ornithology and mineralogy. Independently of this insult, Daubenton susr tained a loss of 12,000 francs yearly. He might indeed have complained, but it would necessarily have embroiled him with the intendant of the king’s garden, and forced him to resign the superintendance of the cabinet he had formed, and to which he was as much attached as to life; overlooking, therefore, this injurious treatment, he continued to pursue his former occupations. The regret which all naturalists testified when the first part of his Ornithology made its apptarance without being accompanied by those accurate descriptions and anatomical details which they estimated so highly, served, however, to console him. He would still have felt more chagrin if his attachment for the great man who neglected him had not yielded to his self-love when he beheld the first volumes, to which Gueiieau de Montbeliard did not contribute, filled with inaccuracies, and destitute of all those particulars which it was impossible for Butfbn to supply. All this was still more manifest in the supplements the productions of Buffon in his old age; and in which he carried his injustice so far as to employ a common draughtsman, for the part which Daubenton had so well executed in the former volumes. Hence many naturalists have endeavoured to supply this void; and, among others, the celebrated Pallas took Daubenton for a model in his Miscellanies and Zoological Gleanings, as well as in his History of Rodentia; works which must be considered as real supplements to Buffon; and, next to his large work, the best on quadrupeds. It is well known how successfully La Cepede, the illustrious continuator of Buffon, and who was also the friend and colleague of Daubenton, whose loss he equally bewails with ourselves, has united in his works on ichthyology and reptiles a rich and brilliant style with the most scrupulous accuracy of description; and how well he has supplied the province of his two predecessors. Daubenton so far forgot the injurious treatment he had received from Buffon, that he afterwards contributed to several parts of the natural history, although his name does not appear; and there exist proofs that when Buffbn composed his History of Miner-Is, he derived much assistance from the manuscript of his lecturts delivered in the French college. Their intimacy, notwithstanding the interruption from the circumstance before mentioned, was even fully re-established, and continued to be maintained to the death of Buffon. It was not in the power of Daubenton to furnish many Ihemoirs to the academy of sciences during the eighteen years in which the fifteen volumes in quarto of the “History of Quadrupeds” successively appeared; but he afterwards fully compensated for this, by supplying not only the academy, but aisothe medical and agricultural societies, and the national institute, with a. great number of papers, all of which contain, as well as the works he published separately, many interesting facts and original observations. His experiments on agriculture and rural oeconomy were, however, of more service to him afterwards than all the rest of his labours, on account of the reputation among the populace which they had procured him. In 1784 he published “Instructions for Shepherds and Proprietors of Flocks,” and was the means of introducing an improved breed of sheep into France. His experiments on this subject were begun about 1766, and the object of his constant pursuits, in which he was encouraged by successive administrations, and in which he eminently succeeded, was to demonstrate the bad effects of confining sheep in stables during the night, and the utility of allowing them to range at large; to attempt different means of improving their breed; to point out how to determine the different qualities of the wool; to d.scover the mechanism of rumination, and thence to deduce some useful conclusions respecting the temperament of wool -bearing animals, as well as with regard to the mode of rearing and feeding them; to disseminate the produce of his sheep-fold throughout every province; to distribute his rams to all the proprietors of flocks; to manufacture woollen-cloth from his own raw material, with the view of convincing the most prejudiced of its superiority; to form intelligent shepherds in order that they might propagate his method, and to render his instructions intelligible to all classes of agriculturists.

By these labours he had acquired a kind of popularity which proved very useful to him in a dangerous crisis. During the second year of the revolution, when it was left for an ignorant multitude to decide on the fate of the most intelligent and virtuous of men, the venerable octogenarian Daubenton found it necessary, in order to preserve the situation which he had filled with so much credit to himself during a period of fifty years, to solicit from the section of Sans Culottes a certificate of his civisrn. It was then scarcely possible for a professor, or an academician, to obtain one; but some sensible persons who intermingled with the populace in the hope of moderating their fury, presented him under the appellation of the Shepherd; and it was thus the shepherd Daubenton procured the necessary certificate as director of the museum of natural history. This paper is still preserved, and may serve as a curious proof of the degraded state of France at that period.

Besides his publications, Danhenton was of great service to science as a lecturer. From 1775 he gave lectures on natural history in the college of medicine. In 1783 he lectured on rural ceconomy. He was appointed professor of mineralogy hy the Convention at the garden of plants, and he gave lectures during the short existence of what' was called the Normal school. He was likewise one of the editors of the “Journal des Savans,” and contributed to both the Encyclopaedias. As a lecturer he was extremely popular, and retained his popularity to the last.

Notwithstanding the feebleness of his constitution, he arrived at a very advanced age without much disease, or loss of his faculties. This may be in some measure ascribed to the gentleness of his temper, and his remarkable resignation. He varied his studies also by frequently reading amusing books of the lighter kind. In 1799, he was named a member of the Conservative Senate, and was anxious to fulfil his new duties as he had formerly fulfilled all those with which he was charged; he was forced to make some change in his usual dress, and the weather being extremely rigorous, the first time he assisted at the sitting of that body, of which he had become a member, he was struck with an apoplexy, and fell senseless into the arms of his colleagues: the most prompt means were employed to afford him relief, but he only recovered his recollection for a short period, during which he evinced the same character as that he had uniformly displayed throughout life. With the utmost calmness, observing the progress of his disease, he pointed out to his friends the' different parts of his body which were still sensible, and unaffected by paralysis. He expired without a struggle on January 1, 1800, and was interred with the funeral honours due to the high character he supported among his countrymen.

, a French Jesuit, of some fame, was born at Auxerre October 21, 1648, and aftt-r performing his noviciate, became a member of the society of Jesuits at Nancy in 1683. After preaching with much success for some time, his health obliged him to desist, and he was chosen companion or assistant of the provincial. He was afterwards elected rector of the college of Strasburgh, and promoted to be provincial of Champagne. He would have been advanced to another ecclesiastical government, had not Louis XIV. requested that he might continue in the college of Strasburgh, more effectually to establish some regulations which he had begun when-first appointed rector. In 1700 the king appointed him confessor to Philip V. of Spain, and he remained in high favour with that prince until the courtiers, grown jealous of his power, prevailed upon the king to send him from the court in 1706. He was, however, recalled again in 1716, and being reinstated in his office, gained a still greater ascendancy over the mind of Philip V. This prince, when disgusted with his throne, and wishing to abdicate it, confided his design to Daubenton, who is said to have betrayed the secret to the duke of Orleans, which conduct terminated in his disgrace a second time, but the manner of it is variously represented by historians. He died, however, in 1723. His character is doubtful, some main.aining that he was a man of intrigue, and others that he made no improper use of his talents or influence. His works consist chiefly of funeral orations, and a life of St. Francis Regis, Paris, 1716, 4to, which was translated and published in English, Lond. 1738, 8vo, a work full of absurd miracles. He published likewise a more enlarged account of the merits of this saint, entitled “Scripta varia in causa beatificationis et canonrzationis J. F. Regis,” Rome, 1710 and 1712, 2 vols. folio.

, a learned French protestant divine, was born about 1670, and came to England on the revocation of the edict of Nantz. Of his history we hare only a short memorandum in ms. by Mr. Whiston, who supposes that he died in 1740. He wrote “Pro Testinonio Josephi de Jesn Christo, contra Tan. Fubrum et alios,” Lond. 1700, 8vo; and a “Commentary on the Revelation of St. John,” 1712, folio. This was, in 1730, published by Peter Lancaster, vicar of Bowden in Cheshire, under the title of “A Perpetual Commentary, &c. newly modelled, abridged, and rendered plain to the meanest capacities.” Mr. Daubuz is here said to have been vicar of Brotherton in Cheshire. Mr. Whiston adds that he had a son, a clergyman, also beneficed in Yorkshire, near Ferrybridge, a studious man, who lived in obscurity, and died a bachelor about 1752.

, an eminent classical and philological scholar, was born March 29, 1612, at Zwickau, became regent of the college in that place 1642, and rector of the same 1662, which office he discharged with great credit till his death, December 26, 1687. He was one of the most learned men of his age he understood Latin, Greek, Hebrew, the Turkish, French, Italian, Spanish, and Bohemian languages, and had a complete knowledge of Arabic. Besides editions of several works, which afford a testimony of his industry and superior talents, he left “Letters,” Jena, 1670, 4to; Dresden, 1697, 8vo; Chemnits, 1709, 8vo, all different: some poems and dissertations, as, “Tractatus de causis amissarum Linguae Latince radicum,” 1642, 8vo and in the “Systema Dissert, rar.” of Grævius, Utrecht, 1701, 4to.

, a celebrated Austrian general, prince of Tiano, knight of the golden fleece, and of the order of Maria Theresa, field marshal, minister of state, and president of the Aulic council of war, was born in 1705, of an ancient and illustrious family. He was colonel of a regiment of infantry in 1740, and distinguished himself in the war which Maria Theresa carried on for the preservation of the dominions which were left her by Charles VI. The succeeding war procured him a still more brilliant fame. Prince Charles of Lorraine being besieged in Prague, Daun, at the headof an army collected in haste, took the resolution to force the enemy to raise the siege, gave battle to the king of Prussia at Chotchemitch, the 18th of June, 1757, and gained a complete victory. It was on this occasion that the empress-queen instituted the military order that bears her name. The battle of Hochkirchen, in 1758, added fresh laurels to those of the deliverer of Prague. In 1758, by a series of judicious movements he delivered Olmutz, and attacked the Prussians in 1759 at Pirna, took the whole army commanded by general Finck, and made them prisoners of war. He had not the same success at Siplitz near Torgau, in 1760, where the enemy, after the marshal had been obliged to retire from the field on account of a dangerous wound, gained the superiority. This was followed by the peace of Hubertsbourg in 1763. He died at Vienna, the 5th of February 1766, with the reputation of an experienced, brave, circumspect general, humane and compassionate, uniting the virtues of the Christian with those of the soldier. Occasions where prudence was more necessary than activity, were particularly favourable to him. His perceptions were quick and sure; but, when the urgency of the moment excluded maturity of reflection, he found it difficult to take a vigorous determination. Accordingly his victories were often without effect, and the vanquished, by bold and rapid manoeuvres, sometimes were enabled almost instantly to repair their defeat.

, an. eminent French poet, was born near the head of the Vienne, in the Limousin, about 1507. Removing to the capital of the kingdom to finish his studies, he distinguished himself in such a manner by his skill in Greek, and his talent at poetry, that he became one of the professors of the university of Paris. In 1560 he succeeded John Stracellus in the post of king’s reader and professor of Greek; but before this he had been principal of the college of Coqueret, and tutor to John Antony de Baif, in the house of his father Lazarus de Baif, who was master of the requests. He continued to instruct this young pupil in the college of Coqueret; and he had also the famous Ronsard for his scholar there, during the space of seven years. His highest praise is, that his school produced a great number of able men; but imprudent generosity and want of management reduced him to poverty, and procured him a place in the list of those learned men, whose talents have been of little benefit to themselves. In the reign of Henry II. he had been preceptor to the king’s pages and Charles IX. honoured him with the title of his poet, took great delight in conversing with him, and endeavoured to support him in his old age. It will not now be thought much in his favour that Daurat had an uncommon partiality for anagrams, of which he was the first restorer. It is pretended, that he found the model of them in Lycophron, and brought them so much into vogue, that several illustrious persons gave him their names to anagrammatise. He undertook also to explain the centuries of Nostradamus, and with such imposing plausibility as to be considered in the light of his interpreter or subprophet. When he was near 80, having lost his first wife, he married a young girl; and by her had a son, for whom he shewed his fondness by a thousand ridiculous actions. In excuse for this marriage, he said that he would rather die by a bright sword than a rusty one. He had by his first wife, among other children, a son, who was the author of some French verses, printed in a collection of his own poems; and a daughter, whom he married to a learned man, named Nicolas Goulu, in whose favour he resigned his place of regius professor of Greek. He wrote a great many verses in Latin, Greek, and French, in some of which he attacked the protestants; and no book was printed, nor did any person of consequence die, without his producing some verses on the subject; as if he had been poet in ordinary to the kingdom, or his muse had been a general mourner. The odes, epigrams, hymns, and other poems in Greek and Latin, composed by Daurat, have been estimated at the gross sum of 50,000 verses; Scaliger had such an opinion of him as a critic, that he said he knew none but him and Cujacius, who had abilities sufficient to restore ancient authors; but he has presented the public with no specimen of that talent, except some remarks on the Sybilline verses in Opsopseus’s edition. Scaliger tells us, with some ridicule, however, that he spent the latter part of his life in endeavouring to find all the Bible in Homer. He died at Paris, Nov. 1, 1588, aged Si. His principal collection of verses is entitled “Joannis Aurati, Lemovicis, Poetse et interprets regii, Poematia, hoc est, Poematum libri quinque; Epigrammatum libri tres; Anagrammatum liber unus; Funerum liber unus; Odarum libri duo; Epithalamiorum liber unus; Eclogarum libri duo; Variarum rerum liber unus,” Paris, 1586, 8vo, a very singular collection, although of no great merit as to taste or versification. He deserves more praise as one of the revivers of Greek literature in France, and in that character his memory was honoured, in 1775, hy an eloge, written by the abbe Vitrac, professor of humanity at Limoges.

, a learned Jesuit, was born at St. Omer’s in 1566, and became canon, of Tournay, where he died Jan. 17, 1644. He was an excellent Greek and Latin scholar, and a good critic, but wrote in an affected and obscure style. Some of his works are still valued, although their rarity prevents their being generally known. Among these are, 1. “Antiqui novique Latii Orthographies,” Tournay, 1632, fol. Of this there is a pretended Paris edition of 1677, which is precisely the same, with a new title-page and date. 2. “Terra et aqua, seu terrae fiuctuantes,” Tournay, 1633, 4to; of this there are also copies of Paris, 1677, with only a new title. The small floating isles near St. Omer’s furnished the idea of this work, in which there are many curious observations on marine productions. He also translated into Latin, the “Orations of St. Basil of Seleucia,” with notes, 1604, 8vo; and published an edition of Quintus Calaber, 1614, 8vo, and some other works, theological and critical, which are enumerated in our authorities.

, a learned English divine, was born in 1530, at Barton-Kirk in Westmoreland, and became a student in Queen’s college, Oxford, in 1597, and when B. A. was made tabarder, and in 1605, master of arts and fellow. At college he was of a retired studious disposition, and accounted an ornament to the society. Having taken orders, he was beneficed at Barton-kirk, and afterwards presented to a prebend of Carlisle. About the same time he received the degree of D. D. from the university of St. Andrew’s, and was promoted to the rectory of Ashby in Westmoreland. He was much esteemed for learning, and talents in preaching, of which he published a specimen in “Sermons preached upon several occasions,” London, 1653. He died in the month of February in the same year, and was buried in the chancel of Bartonkirk. His character was honoured by verses in Greek, Latin, and English, by Tully, Williamson, and Ellis, three scholars of Queen’s.

, a learned critic, especially in the Greek tongue, was born in 1708. A respectable family of the name of Dawes had long been situated at Stapleton, between Market-Bosworth and Hinckley in Leicestershire, and our critic was probably of the same family, but it does not appear, from the register of the parish, that he was born at that place. There was a Dr. Dawes, who, early in the last century, resided at Stapleton, and was a great scholar, and a searcher after the philosopher’s stone. It has been supposed, that he might be father to the subject of the present article; but of this fact no decisive evidence can be produced. All the traditions concerning Richard Dawes are, that the place of his birth was either MarketBosworth, or the vicinity of that town. Whoever his parents were, or whatever was their condition in life, it is probable that they perceived such marks of capacity in their son, as determined them to devote him to a literary profession; and accordingly he was put to the free grammar-school at Bosworth, where he had the happiness of receiving part of his education under the care of Mr. Anthony Blackwall. Here he laid the foundation of that critical knowledge of the Greek language which he afterwards displayed so conspicuously. In 1725, he was admitted a sizar of Emanuel college, in the university of Cambridge, where he proceeded bachelor of arts in 1729. On the 2d of October, 1731, he became a fellow of the college on the nomination of sir Wolston Dixie, bart. In 1733, he took the degree of master of arts. The next year he was a candidate for the place of esquire beadle of the university, but his application was not crowned with success. Whilst Mr. Dawes was at Cambridge, he distinguished himself by some peculiarities of conduct, which probably arose from a mixture of insanity in his constitution; and in his conversation he occasionally took such liberties on certain topics as gave great offence to those about him. Having indulged himself too much, at college, in an indolent sedentary way of life, he, at length, found it absolutely necessary to have recourse to some kind of exercise. In this case, being of a strong athletic frame of body, and not over-delicate in the choice of his company, he took to the practice of ringing; and, as such a genius could not stop at mediocrity, he quickly became the leader of the band, and carried the art to the highest perfection.

Another circumstance, though of a very different nature, by which Mr. Dawes rendered himself remarkable, was his taking a violent part against Dr. Bentley, and even endeavouring to depreciate that great man’s literature. In his “Miscellanea Critica,” on several occasions, he detracts from Dr. Bentley’s praises and did not scruple to assert, that the doctor, “nihil in Graecis cognovisse, nisi ex indicibus petitum,” knew nothing relative to Grecian literature, but what he had drawn from indexes; an assertion which could only proceed from extreme vanity, or personal dislike, or a bigoted attachment to a party. Indeed, the contempt with which writers of distinguished abilities sometimes speak of each other, is a disgrace to the republic of letters; and it is much to be lamented that a spirit so contrary to the dictates of justice and urbanity, should still continue to prevail among men who otherwise deserve to be held in esteem.

In 1736, Mr. Dawes published Proposals for printing by subscription, “Paradisi amissi, a cl. Miltono conscripti, Liber primus, Grasca versione donatus, una cum Aunotationibus.” These proposals were accompanied with a specimen, which may be seen in the preface to the Miscellanea Critica, where our author explains his reasons for not proceeding in his undertaking, and very ingenuously points out the errors of his own performance. It was customary with him, in conversation, humourously to expose his version to ridicule; and, therefore, though he had actually completed his design, by translating the whole first book of the Paradise Lost, it is no wonder that he did not commit it to the press.

On the 10th of July, 1738, Mr. Dawes was appointed master of the free grammar-school in Newcastle-uponTyne, in the room of Mr. Edmund Lodge, who had resigned that office. The commencement of his duty was to take place at the Michaelmas following. In the same year, on the 9th of October, he was preferred, by act of common council, to the mastership of the hospital of the blessed Virgin Mary in Newcastle. The business of Mr. Dawes’s new station did not prevent him from prosecuting his inquiries into the nature, peculiarities, and elegancies of the Greek tongue; and accordingly, in 1745, he published his “Miscellanea Critica.” Mr. Hubbard, of Emanuel college, Cambridge, and Dr. Mason, of Trinity, assisted in the publication. It was Mr. Dawes’s design in this work, to afford such a specimen of his critical abilities, as should enable the learned world to judge what might be expected from him, in an edition which he had projected of all the Attic poets, as well as of Homer and Pindar. Though his scheme was never carried into execution, he has obtained, by his “Miscellanea Critica,” a very high place among those who have contributed to the promotion of Greek learning in England, and, as such, his name will be transmitted with honour to posterity. Accordingly, the book has been spoken of in terms of distinguished applause, by some of the first literary characters in Europe, particularly Valkener, Pierson, Koen, and Reiske. A second edition of it, in octavo, was given in 1781, from the Clarendon press, by the rev. Mr. Burgess, of Corpus Christi college, Oxford, now bishop of St. David’s, who has enriched the work with a learned preface, and a number of notes of great value and importance, and some assistance from Dawes’s Mss. procured by Dr. Farmer and Mr. Salter. Mr. Dawes’s situation at Newcastle was neither so happy nor so useful as might have been expected; in a great measure owing to the eccentricity of his disposition, and, indeed, to his imagination being in some respects disturbed. Hence he fancied that all his friends had slighted him, or used him ill; and of the jealousy of his temper he has left a remarkable instance, on a very trifling occasion. His printer, by an unfortunate mistake, in a passage of Terentianus Maurus, which Mr. Dawes had quoted in order to correct, had inserted a comma that destroyed the merit of the emendation. In consequence of this involuntary error, our author, in the Addenda to his Mis-cellanea, has expressed himself with great indignation, He declares, that he could not conjecture what fault he had committed against the printer, that he should envy him the honour, whatever it was, that was due to his correction; and he adds, that he knows not how it happened, that, for several years past, he had been ill used by those from whom he had deserved better treatment. With the corporation of Newcastle he became involved in altercations, and adopted a singular method of displaying his resentment, or rather his contempt; for in teaching the boys at school, he made them translate the Greek word for ass into alderman; which some of the lads did seriously, though otherwise well instructed. With such a disposition of mind, it is not surprising that his scholars were, at length, reduced to a very small number; so that it became expedient for him to consent to quit his station. Accordingly, at Midsummer, 1749, he resigned the mastership of the grammarschool, and the mastership of St. Mary’s hospital; and, in consideration of these sacrifices, the mayor and burgesses of Newcastle, on the 25th of September following, executed a bond, by which they engaged to grant him an annuity of eighty pounds a-year, during life.

Mr. Dawes, after his resignation of the above two offices, retired to Heworth-shore, about three miles below Newcastle, on the south side of the Tyne, where his favourite amusement was the exercise of rowing in a boat. In his conversation, he preserved, to the last, his splenetic humour; abusing every thing, and every person that he had formerly regarded. He departed this life, at Heworth, on the 21st of March, 17G6, and, agreeably to his own desire, was buried in the church-yard of that place; where a common head-stone, little suited to the just reputation of so eminent a scholar, continues to mark his grave with the words, “In memory of Richard Dawes, late headmaster of the grammar (sic) school at Newcastle; who died the 21st of March, 1766. Aged 57 years.”

, 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.

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.

On account of sir William Dawes’s “Anatomy of Atheism,” Mr. Gibber has assigned him an article in his “Lives of the Poets.” But the worthy prelate had very little title to be ranked in that catalogue. The piety of his work is unquestionable, and it is probably not defective in good sense; but it has no claim to poetical excellence, nor has it even the merit of harmonious versification.

, 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.

The books which Dee printed and published are, 1. “Propaedumata aphoristica; de prsestantiorib.ua quibustlam naturae virtutibus aphorismi,” Lond. 1558, 12mo. 2. “Monas hieroglyphica ad regem Romanorum Maxirnilianum,” Antwerp, 1564. 3. “Epistola ad eximium ducis Urbini mathematicum, Fredericum Commandinum, praefixa libello Machometi Bagdedini de superficierum divi­^ionibus, edita opera Devi et ejusdem Commandini Urbinatis,” Pisauri,!570. 4. “The British Monarchy, otherwise called the Petty Navy Royal,” 1576, a ms. in the Ashmolean museum. 5. “Preface Mathematical to the English Euclid, published by sir Henry Billingsley, knt.” where he says many more arts are wholly invented by name, definition, property, and use, than either the Grecian or Roman mathematicians have left to our knowledge, 1570. 6. “Divers and many Annotations and Inventions dispersed and added after the tenth book of the English Euclid,” 1570. 7. “Epistola prseiixa ephemeridibus Joannis Feldi a 1557, cui rationem declaraverat ephemericles conscribendi.” 8. “Parallaticee com mentation is praxeosque nucleus quidam,” Lond. 1573. This catalogue of Dee’s printed and published books is to be found in his Compendious Rehearsal, &c. as well as in his letter to archbishop Whitgift. Among them are, l.“The great volume of famous and rich discoveries, wherein also is the history of king Solomon every three years, his Ophirian voyage, the originals of presbyter Joannes, and of the first great charn and his successors for many years following. The description of divers wonderful isles in the northern, Scythian, Tartarian, and the other most northern seas, and near under the north pole, by record written 1200 years since, with divers other rarities,” 1576. 2. “The British complement of the perfect art of Navigation. A great volume. In which are contained our queen Elizabeth her tables gubernautic for navigation by the paradoxal compass, invented by him anno 1.557, and navigation by great circles, and for longitudes and latitudes, and the variation of the compass, finding most easily and speedily, yea, if need be, in one minute of time, and sometimes without sight of sun, moon, or stars, with many other new and needful inventions gubernautic,” 1576. 3. “De modo evangelii Jesu Christ! publicandi, propagandi, stabiliendique, inter infideles atlanticos. Volumen magnum libris distinctum qtiatuor: quorum primus ad serenissimam r.ostram potentissimamque reginam Elizabetham inscribiiur; secundus ad summos privati sutc sacra: majestatis consilii senatores; tertius ad Hispaniarum regem Philippum quartus ad pontificem Romanum,” 1591. 4. “Speculum unitatis, sive, apologia pro fratre llogerio Bacone Anglo; in quo docetur nihil ilium per daemoniorum fecisse auxilia, sed pbilosopbum fuisse maximum naturaliterque, et modis homini Christiano licitis maximas fecisse res, quas indoctum solet vulgus in dtemoniorum referre facinora, ' 1557. 5.” De nubium, soils, lunse, ac reliquorum planetarum, imo, ipsius stelliferi cceli, ab intimo ternc centro distantiis, mutuisque intervallis, et eorundem omnium magnitudine, liber anofeutTixo;, ad Edvardum Sextum, Anglisc regem,“1551. 6.” The philosophical and poetical original occasions of the configurations and names of the heavenly Asterisms written at the request of the honble. lady, lady Jane, duchess of Northumberland,“1553. 7.” De hominis corpore, spiritu, et anima: sive, microcosmicum totius naturalis philosophise compendium.“8.” De unico mago et triplice Herode, eoque antichristiano,“1570. 9.” Reipublicae Britannicoe synopsis,“in English, 1562. 10.” Cabbalæ Hebraicæ compendiosa tabella,“1562. 11.” De itinere subterraneo,“, lib. 2. 1560. 12.” Trochilica inventa," lib. 2. 1553, &c. &c.

, 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.”

In July 1704, our author published “The Storm; or, a Collection of the most remarkable Casualties which happened in the Tempest, on the 23d of November, 1703.” In this, De Foe displays more science and literature than he has been generally supposed to possess.

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.”

De Foe began the year 1706 with “A Hymn to Peace,” occasioned by the two houses of parliament joining in one address to the queen. On the 4th of May, he published “An Essay at removing National Prejudices against an Union with Scotland.” In July, he published “Jure Divino,” a satire against tyranny and passive obedience, which had been delayed, for fear, as he declares, of parliamentary censure. This satire, says the preface, had never been published, had not the world seemed to be going mad a second time with the error of passive obedience and non-resistance. “And because some men require,” says he, “more explicit answers, I declare my belief, that a monarchy, according to the present constitution, limited by parliament, and dependent upon law, is not only the best government in the world, but also the best for this nation in particular, most suitable to the genius of the people, and the circumstances of the whole body.”

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 1715 he published “The Family Instructor,” in three parts; first, relating to fathers and children; 2d, to masters and servants; 3d, to husbands and wives. To this he added a second volume, in two parts; first, relating to family breaches; 2clly, to the great mistake of mixing the passions in the managing of children. Both volumes consist of a series of pleasing and instructive dialogues. His “Religious Courtship,” published in 1722, may be considered as a third volume; the design is equally moral, and the manner equally attractive.

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.

In 1720 he published “The complete Art of Painting,” which he “did into English” from the French of Du Fresnoy. Dryden had before given a translation of this poem, which has been esteemed for its knowledge of the sister arts, and Mason’s since has supplanted both. What could tempt De Foe to this undertaking, it is not easy to discover. Dryden has been praised for relinquishing vicious habits of composition, and adopting better models for his muse. De Foe, after he had seen the correctness of Pope, remained regardless of sweeter numbers. His politics and his poetry would not have preserved his name beyond the fleeting day. It does not appear that De Foe lived at this period in pecuniary distress; for his genius and industry were very productive; and in 1722 he obtained from the corporation of Colchester, a ninety-nine years lease of Kingswood Heath, at a yearly rent of 120l. with a fine of 50O/. This transaction seems to evince some degree of wealth; though the assignment of his lease, not long after, to Walter Bernard, equally proves, that he could not easily hold what he had obtained. Kingswood Heath is now worth 300l. a year.

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.

The moral writings of De Foe must at last give him a superiority over the crowd of his contemporaries. The approbation which has been long given to his “Family Instructor,” and “Religious Courtship,” seems to contain the favourable decision of his countrymen. But there are still other performances of this nature, of not inferior merit. In 1722 he published “A Journal of the Plague in 1665.” The author’s artifice consists in fixing the reader’s attention by the deep distress of fellow-men; and, by recalling his recollection to striking examples of mortality, he endeavours to inculcate the necessity of reformation. This, however, like his “Memoirs of a Cavalier,” is a pure fiction, and for a long time imposed on the celebrated Dr. Mead, who thought it genuine. In 1724 he published “The great Law of Subordination,” an admirable commentary on the unsufferable behaviour of servants. He gave the “Political History of the Devil,” ia 1726; a performance in which he engages reasoning and wit, persuasion and ridicule, on the side of religion, with wonderful efficacy. He wrote “A System of Magic,” in 1726, which may be regarded as a supplement to the “History of the Devil.” His views and execution are exactly the same. In 1727 he published his “Treatise on the Use and Abuse of the Marriage-bed,” an excellent book, with an improper title-page.

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 probably died insolvent; for letters of administration were granted to Mary Brooke, widow, a creditrix, in September 1703, after summoning in official form the next of kin to appear. John Dunton, who personally knew our author, describes him in 1705, as a man of good parts and clear sense; of a conversation ingenious and brisk; of a spirit enterprising and bold, but of little prudence; with good nature and real honesty.

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.

He died about 1781, at the advanced age of seventy ­two, leaving behind him many monuments of poetical talents, and adding another testimony to the truth of Dr. Johnson’s observation, “that nothing will supply the want of prudence; and that negligence and irregularity long continued, will make knowledge useless, wit ridiculous, and genius contemptible.”

, 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.