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

, was born at Shottesbrooke, in Berkshire, June 17, 1709, and was educated at Trinity college, Oxford, where he took the degree of master of arts, on the 8th of June, 1732. In the course of his life, he obtained several considerable preferments. He was rector of Shottesbrooke, and vicar of Bucklesbury and of White-Waltham. Dr. Sherlock, when bishop of Salisbury, gave him a prebendal stall in that cathedral, and he afterwards became a canon of the same church. Bishop Thomas promoted him to the archdeaconry of Berks. The principal works by which he was distinguished, were, “A Free Answer to Dr. Middleton’s Free Enquiry,” published in 1749; and “A full and final Reply to Mr. Toll’s Defence of Dr. Middleton,” which appeared in 1751. Both these works were written with temper, as well as with learning. Our author was judged to have performed such good service to the cause of religion by his answer to Dr. Middleton, that the university of Oxford conferred upon him the degree of doctor in divinity by diploma, in full convocation on Feb. 23, 1749-50. He published also, “Two Sermons on the eternity of future punishment, in answer to Whiston with a Preface,” Oxford, 1743; “Visitation Sermon on the desireableness of the Christian Faith, published at the request of bishop Sherlock,” Oxford, 1741 “Two Sermons on a rational faith,” Oxford, 1745 “Sermon on the practical influence of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity,” Oxford, 1715; “Dissertation on Jepthah’s Vow, occasioned by Romaine’s Sermon on that subject,” London, 1745; “Practical Discourses (14) on moral subjects, vol.1.” London, 1748. A Dedication to his patron Arthur Vanittart, esq. of Shottesbrooke, precedes a masterly preface of considerable length, stating the great duties of morality, c. “Vol. II. London, 1749, containing 14 more;” and preceded by a Dedication to bishop Sherlock, whose “unsolicited testimony of favour” to him laid him “under personal obligations. Such a testimony from such a patron, and the obliging manner of conferring it, added much to the value of the favour itself.” “Assize Sermon on Human Laws,” Oxford, 1750; “Sermon on St. Paul’s Wish,” Oxford, 1752; “Two Sermons on Superstition,” Oxford, 1754; “Assize Sermon on the equal and impartial discharge of Justice,” Oxford, 1756 “Letter to the Author of Considerations on the Act to prevent Clandestine Marriages; with a Postscript occasioned by Stebbing’s Enquiry into the annulling Causes,” &c. London, 1755. This Letter *' by a Country Clergyman“was known, at the time, as Dr. DodwelPs;” Two Sermons on the Doctrine of the Divine Visitation by Earthquakes,“Oxford, 1756;” Assize Sermon on the False Witness, Oxford, 1758; “Sermon at the Meeting of the Charity Schools,” London, 1758; “Two Sermons on a particular Providence,” Oxford, 1760 “Sermon before the Sons of the Clergy,” London, 1760; “Charge to the Clergy of the archdeaconry of Berks,” London, 1764-; “Sermon at the Consecration of Bishop Moss, in 1766,” London, 1767; “The Sick Man’s Companion; or the Clergyman’s Assistant in visiting the Sick; with a Dissertation on Prayer,” London, 1767; “The Prayer, on laying the foundation stone of the Salisbury infirmary, subjoined to dean Greene’s Infirmary Sermon,” Salisbury, 1767; “Infirmary Sermon,” Salisbury, 1768. In 1302, the eldest son of our author permitted the “Three Charges on the Athanasian Creed,” in consequence of the request of some Oxford friends, to see the light. They were accordingly printed at the university press; and contributed, as the author expresses himself in his second page, “to obviate all real mistakes, to silence all wilful misrepresentations, to remove prejudices, to confirm the faith of others, and to vindicate our own sincerity in the profession of it” and it was considered by him as “not unseasonable or unuseful to review and justify that which is called the Athanasian Creed not, we well know, as composed by him whose name it bears, but as explaining the doctrine which he so strenuously maintained.”

, first of this family of artists, was born at Amsterdam in 1623, and after having been a disciple of N. Moyart, travelled to Rome, and formed himself on the manner of Bamboccio. He excelled in landscapes and animals. His temper was melancholy and austere, so that he incurred the displeasure of all his acquaintance, and was deserted by them. He died at Amsterdam in 1673. His tone is dark, but his composition has dignity, his figures are well designed, and touched with spirit, and his animals, especially the sheep, are painted with equal truth and delicacy. The etchings of this master from compositions of his own, ornamented with animals, are executeJ in a slight, free, masterly style.

, the son of the former, was born at Amsterdam in 165k He was successively a disciple of Karel du Jarclin, Netscher, and Gerard Laires^fc He was a very ready designer, and possessed a lively imagination and good invention; but the impetuosity of his temper was such, that he destroyed his compositions, if his pictures did not please him in the progress of their execution; nor could the interposition and remonstrances of his best friends avail for their preservation. His death, in 1693, at the age of 39 years, prevented his acquiring that fortune and high reputation, which the fame of his abilities and performances gave him reason to expect.

, brother to the preceding, was born at Amsterdam in 16.53. Having learned the art of painting from his father, and pursuing the same style and manner in the choice of the same subjects, he travelled to Friesland and to England, and afterwards settled at the Hague. Notwithstanding the difficulties in which the extravagance of a dissolute wife involved him, and the depression of circumstances and spirits which they occasioned, he persevered in the exercise of his profession. On some occasions he painted portraits, resembling in their touch and colouring those of the old Netscher; but though his works were much admired and sought after, he fell into great poverty, and died in 1717 at the age of 64 years. The works of this artist are peculiarly pleasing; and though his figures want elegance, and his colouring inclines to the yellow and light brown, yet his cattle are so correct, his touch so free and easy, his distances and the forms of his trees so agreeable, his colouring so transparent and delicate, and his pastoral subjects distinguished by so much nature and simplicity of rural life, that his works have been very highly esteemed, and have been sold for very large prices. This artist has etched some few small landscapes, with animals, from his own compositions.

, an author and an actor, was born in Castle-street, Dublin, in the latter end of the seventeenth century, and made his first theatrical attempt on the stage of that metropolis but not meeting with encouragement suitable to his merit, he came over to England, and entered himself in a travelling company, but from thence very soon was removed to London, and established in Drury-lane and Lincoln’s-inn-fields theatres, where he was universally liked in every character he performed, but in none more than those of Fondlewife in the “Old Bachelor,” and Ben in “Love for Love,” which Mr. Congreve, with whom he was a very great favourite, wrote in some measure with a view to his manner of acting.

In a few years after he removed to Drury-lane theatre, where he became joint manager with Wilks and Gibber, in which situation he continued, till, on a disgust he took, in the year 1712, at Mr. Booth’s being forced on him as a sharer in the management, he threw up his part in the property of the theatre, though it was looked on to have been worth 1000l. per annum. He had, however, by his frugality, saved a competent fortune to render him easy for the remainder of his life, with which he retired from the hurry of business in the very meridian of his reputation. As an actor he had great merit, and his contemporary, Gibber, informs us that he was the most an original, and the strictest observer of nature, of any actor of his time. His manner, though borrowed from none, frequently served for a model to many; and he possessed that peculiar art which so very few performers are masters of, viz. the arriving at the perfectly ridiculous, without stepping into the least impropriety to attain it. And so extremely careful and skilful was he in the dressing of his characters to the greatest exactness of propriety, that the least article of what he wore seemed in some measure to speak and mark the different humour he presented.

Dogget died at Eltham in Kent, Sept. 22, 1721, and was interred there. In his political principles he was, in the words of sir Richard Steele, a “whig up to the head and ears;” and so strictly was he attached to the interests of the house of Hanover, that he never let slip any occasion that presented itself of demonstrating his sentiments in that respect. The year after George I. came to the throne, this actor gave a waterman’s coat and silver badge, to be rowed for by six watermen, on the 1st day of August, being the anniversary of that king’s accession to the throne; and at his death bequeathed a certain sum of money, the interest of which was to be appropriated annually, forever, to the purchase of a like coat and badge, to be rowed for in honour of the day. This ceremony still continues to be performed every year on the 1st of August, the claimants, according to the rules of the match, setting out on a signal given at that time of the tide when the current is strongest against them, and rowing from the Old Swan near Londonbridge to the White Swan at Chelsea.

, an eminent special pleader and law writer, was born in Ireland, and educated at a country school. He came to England early in life, with an able capacity and habits of industry, but without any direct prospect of employment, or choice of profession. He became, however, clerk to the late Mr. Bower, a very profound lawyer, where, with assiduous study, he acquired a knowledge of special pleading, and the law connected with that abstruse science; and such was his diligence, that in a comparatively short time, he accumulated a collection of precedents and notes that appeared to his employer an effort of great labour and ingenuity. After having been many years with Mr. Bower, the latter advised him to commence special pleader, and in this branch of the profession he soon acquired great reputation; his drafts, which were generally the work of his own hand, being admired as models of accuracy. They were formed according to the neat and concise system of Mr. Bower, and his great friend and patron sir Joseph Yates, many of whose books, notes, and precedents, as well as those of sir Thomas Davenport, Mr. Dogherty possessed. This intense application, however, greatly impaired his health, which was visibly on the decline for many months before his decease. This event took place at his chambers in Clifford’s-inn, Sept. 29, 1805, and deprived the profession of a man of great private worth, modest and unassuming manners, independent mind, and strict honour and probity. Mr. Dogherty was the author and editor of some valuable works on criminal law. He published a new edition of the “Crown Circuit Companion;” and an original composition, in 1786, “The Crown Circuit Assistant,” which is a most useful supplement to the former. In 1800 he edited a new edition of Hale’s “Historia Placitorum Coronae,” in 2 vols. 8vo, with an abridgment of the statutes relating to felonies, continued to that date, and with notes and references. His common-place and office-books, still in manuscript, are said to be highly valuable.

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

John Dolben, afterwards archbishop, was educated at Westminster-school, where he was admitted a king’s scholar in 1636; and in 1640 was elected to Christ church, Oxford, where he was admitted, in the same year, a student on queen Elizabeth’s foundation. It has been thought worthy of remark, as a strong instance of hereditary attachment to those seminaries, that he was the second in order, of six succeeding generations, which have passed through the same steps of education, and it has been remarked that since his time, Westminster-school has rarely been without a Dolben.

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

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

piece Dr. Fell, Dr. Dolben, and Dr. f When the regicides were conAllestree, are represented in thrir <;a- deinned, Dr. Dolbeu and Dr. Barwiek uouical habits, as joining in the liturgy were appointed to visit some of them in of the church. A copy of this picture pn-s->n.See an account of this in Barlias lately been presented by sir WiU wick’s Life, p< l iy;>, &c. appointed lord high almoner; an office, says Wood, which he discharged with such justice and integrity as was for the great benefit of the poor. It would betray great ignorance of the ways of courts to suppose, that in all these steps he was not in part indebted to the interference and interest of archbishop Sheldon; yet where merit is conspicuous, the effect of patronage is greatly facilitated, which appears to have been the case in the instance now before us.

Translation to the see of York was the final gradation of his honours, and enjoyed only for a short time, as between the last advancement and his death something less than three years intervened. He was translated to York in August 1683, and then became, by an unusual transition, the ecclesiastical governor of that place which he had formerly assisted in defending by military force. His activity was not yet exhausted, though exerted in a different way; he diligently contributed to the good administration of the service in his cathedral, and in 1685 made a new regulation of archbishop Grindal’s order of preachers, and appointed a weekly celebration of the holy sacrament: and was, in all respects, as his epitaph expresses it, an example both to the flock and to the pastors under him. The death of archbishop Dolben was occasioned, not by natural decay, but by criminal neglect. At an inn on the North road he was suffered by the proprietors to sleep in a room where the infection of the small-pox remained; he there caught the disorder, which being of a virulent kind, and attended with lethargy, put an end to his life at Bishopthorp, on the 11th of April 1686, in the sixty-second year of his age, after a confinement to his bed of only four days. The body of the archbishop was deposited in the cathedral at York, where a handsome monument, with a very copious inscription, records his merits, and the principal circumstances of his life.

Anthony Wood says of archbishop Dolben, that “he was a man of a free, generous, and noble disposition, and of a natural, bold, and happy eloquence.” The latter circumstance is confirmed by the testimony of his epitaph; and by another, which we shall presently cite at large. The former, by the following instances of his liberality at the different places with which he was connected. The pulpit at Stanwick is inscribed as his gift when bishop of Rochester. He contributed one hundred pounds to the rebuilding of St. Paul’s cathedral, and two hundred and fifty to the repairs of Christ Church, Oxford. He rebuilt part of the episcopal palace at Bromley; and, when dean of Westminster, influenced the chapter to assign an equal share with their own, in the dividends of fines, to the repairs and support of that venerable church. At York he gave one hundred and ninety-five ounces of plate for the use of the cathedral.

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

"In the judgment he made of other men, he always preferred the good temper of their minds above all other qualities they were masters of: and it was this single opinion he had of my integrity, which made him the worthiest friend to me I ever knew. 1 have had the honour to converse with many of the most eminent men at home and abroad, but I never yet met with one that in all respects equalled him. He bad a large and generous soul, and a courage that nothing was too hard for: when he was basely calumniated, he supported himself by the only true heroism, if I may so phrase it; I mean by exalted Christianity, and by turning all the slander of his enemies into the best use of studying and knowing himself, and keeping a constant guard and watch upon his words and actions, practising ever after (though hardly to be discovered, unless by nice and long observers), a strict course of life, and a constant mortification.

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

As an author, not much remains to testify his abilities. It is said by Wood, that he was not very careful to print his sermons, though they much deserved publication: and, in fact, only three are known to be extant. 1. “A Sermon preached before the king at Whitehall, on Good Friday, March 24, 1664.” The text from John xix. part of ver. 19. 2. “A Sermon on Psal. liv. ver. 6 and 7,” on a day of thanksgiving for a naval victory; namely, June 20, 1665. 3. Another on a similar occasion in 1666, the text from Psal. xviii. 1, 2, 3. Both these were also preached before the king. They are all printed in quarto.

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

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

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

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

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

, an eminent optician, and the inventor of the achromatic telescope, was born in Spitalfields, June 10, 1706. His parents were French protestants, and at the time of the revocation of the edict of Nantz, in 1685, resided in Normandy, but in what particular part cannot now be ascertained. M. de Lalande does not believe the name to be of French origin; but, however this may be, the family were compelled soon after this period to seek refuge in England, in order to avoid persecution, and to preserve their religion. The fate of this family was not a solitary case; fifty thousand persons pursued the same measures, and we may date from this period the rise of several arts and manufactures, which have become highly beneficial to this country. An establishment was given to these refugees, by the wise policy of our government, in Spitalfields, and particular encouragement granted to the silk manufactory.

Soon after this, without abating from the ardour of his other literary pursuits, or relaxing from the labours of his profession, he began to study anatomy, and likewise to read divinity; and finding the knowledge of Latin and Greek indispensably necessary towards attaining those ends, he applied himself diligently, and was soon able to translate the Greek Testament into Latin; and as he admired the power and wisdom of the Creator in the mechanism of the human frame, so he adored his goodness displayed in his revealed word. It might from hence be concluded that his sabbath was devoted to retired reading and philosophical objects; but he was not content with private devotion, as he was always an advocate for social worship, and with his family regularly attended the public service of the French protestant church, and occasionally heard Benson and Lardner, whom he respected as men, and admired as preachers. In his appearance he was grave, and the strong lines of his face were marked with deep thought and reflection; but in his intercourse with his family and friends, he was cheerful and affectionate; and his language and sentiments are distinctly recollected as always making a strong impression on the minds of those with whom he conversed. His memory was extrordinarily retentive; and amidst the variety of his reading, he could recollect and quote the most important passages of every book which he had at any time perused.

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

His first attention was directed to improve the combination of the eye-glasses of refracting telescopes; and having succeeded in his system of four eye-glasses, he proceeded one step further, and produced telescopes furnished with five eye-glasses, which considerably surpassed the former; and of which he gave a particular account in a paper presented to the royal society, and which was read on March 1, 1753, and printed in the “Philosophical Transactions,” vol. XLVIII. Soon after this he made a very useful improvement in Mr. Savery’s micrometer for, instead of employing two entire eye-glasses, as Mr. Savery and M. Bouguer had done (see Bouguer), he vised only one glass cut into two equal parts, one of them sliding or moving laterally by the other. This was considered to be a great improvement, as the micrometer could now be applied to the reflecting telescope with much advantage, and which Mr. James Short immediately did. An account of the same was given to the royal society, in two papers, which were afterwards printed in the “Philosophical Transactions,” vol. XLVIII. This kind of micrometer was afterwards applied by Mr. Peter Dollond to the achromatic telescope, as appears by a letter of his to Mr. Short, which was read in the royal society Feb. 7, 1765.

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

Surrounded by these enlightened men, in a state of mind prepared for the severest investigation of philosophic truths, and in circumstances favourable to liberal inquiry, Mr. Dollond engaged in the discussion of a subject, which at that time not only interested this country, but all Europe. Sir Isaac Newton had declared, in his Treatise on Optics, p. 112, “That all refracting substances diverged the prismatic colours in a constant proportion to their mean refraction,” and drew this conclusion, “that refraction could not be produced without colour,” and consequently, “that no improvement could be expected in the refracting telescope.” No one doubted the accuracy with which sir Isaac Newton had made the experiment; yet some men, particularly M. Euler and others, were of opinion that the conclusion which Newton had drawn from it went too far, and maintained that in very small angles refraction might be obtained without colour. Mr. Dollond was not of that opinion, but defended Newton’s doctrine with much learning and ingenuity, as may be seen by a reference to the letters which passed between Euler and Dollond upon that occasion, and which were published in the “Philosophical Transactions,” vol. XLVIII.; and contended, that, “if the result of the experiment had been as described by sir Isaac Newton, there could not be refraction without colour,”

A mind constituted like Mr. Dollond' s, could not remain satisfied with arguing in this manner, from an experiment made by another, but determined to try it himself, and accordingly in 1757 began the examination; and, to use his own words, with “a resolute perseverance,” continued during that year, and a great part of the next, to bestow his whole mind on the subject, until in June 1758 he found, after a complete course of experiments, the result to be very different from that which he expected, and from that which sir Isaac Newton had related. He discovered “the difference in the dispersion of the colours of light, when the mean rays are equally refracted by different mediums.” The discovery was complete, and he immediately drew from it this practical conclusion, “that the objectglasses of refracting telescopes were capable of being made without the images formed by them being affected by the different refrangibility of the rays of light.” His account of this experiment, and of others connected with it, was given to the royal society, and printed in their Transactions, vol. L. and he was presented in the same year, by that learned body, with sir Godfrey Copley’s medal, as a reward of his merit, and a memorial of the discovery, though not at that time a member of the society. This discovery no way affected the points in dispute between Euler and Dollond, respecting the doctrine advanced by sir Isaac Newton. A new principle was in a manner found out, which had no part in their former reasonings, and it was reserved for the accuracy of Dollond to have the honour of making a discovery which had eluded the observation of the immortal Newton. The cause of this difference of the results of the 8th experiment of the second part of the first book of Newton’s Optics, as related by himself, and as it was found when tried by Dollond in 1757 and 1758, is fully and ingeniously accounted for by Mr. Peter Dollond in a paper read at the royal society, March 21, 1789, and afterwards published in a pamphlet.

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

This improvement was of the greatest advantage in astronomy, as they have been applied to fixed instruments; by which the motions of the heavenly bodies are determined to a much greater exactness than by the means of the old telescope. Navigation has also been much benefited by applying achromatic telescopes to the Hadley’s Sextant; and from the improved state of the lunar tables, and of that instrument, the longitude at sea may now be determined by good observers, to a great degree of accuracy; and their universal adoption by the navy and army, as well as by the public in general, is the best proof of the great utility of the discovery.

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

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

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

of the Bible into the Manks Gaelic. Dr. Krlly married a daughter of Mr. Peter Dolloml. This Life wos printed for private distribution by Messrs. Dollond, and obligingly presented to the Editor of this Dictionary by Mr. G. H. Dollond. Besides the Life, there is an Appendix of various iroportaril papers relating to the discovery aud uses of the achromatic telescope. day; but he escaped by wandering from place to place, until calmer times, when he was appointed inspector of the mines, and at length Bonaparte took him with him in his expedition to Egypt. He is said to have contributed to the surrender of Malta to the French, by the connections which he still preserved there; but after the memorable battle of Aboukir, when obliged to land in Calabria, he was seized by order of the king of Naples, and thrown into a dungeon at Messina. Here he was detained, notwithstanding the earnest applications of the French government, the king of Spain, sir Joseph Banks, and other eminent characters in Europe, nor was he released until the peace of 1800. He then resumed his wonted occupations, visited the mountains of Swisserland, and was about to have published the result of his observations, when he died Nov. 28, 1801, at Dree, near Macon. He had been appointed member of the conservative senate immediately after his return, and was a member of the Institute. After his death was published his essay “Sur la philosophie mineralogique,” composed during his imprisonment at Malta, where such were his privations, that, as he informs us, the black of his lamp, diluted with water, served him for ink; his pen was a fragment of bone, shaped with great labour on the floor of his prison, and the principal part of his work was written on the margins, and between the lines of some books which bad been left in his possession. These contrivances gave him the pleasure which is felt on overcoming difficulties; and he adds, that had it not been that he found himself placed in such a situation, perhaps he never would have undertaken this work at all. His last journey to the Alps was lately published by Bruun Neergaard, in 8vo.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Communion of St. Jerom, and the Adam and Eve, are too well known to need a description; and they are universally allowed to be capital works, especially in the expression. In the Palazzo della Torre, at Naples, there is a picture of Domenichino, representing a dead Christ, on the Knees of the Virgin, attended by Mary Magdalen and others. The composition of this picture is very good, and the design simple and true; the head of the Magdalen is full of expression, the character excellent, and the colouring tolerable; but in other respects, the penciling is dry, and there is more of coldness than of harmony in the tints. But in the church of St. Agnes, at Bologna, is an altar piece which is considered as one of the most accomplished performances of this master, and shews the taste, judgment, and genius of this great artist in a true light. The subject is, the Martyrdom of St. Agnes; and the design is extremely correct, without any thing of manner. The head of the saint hath an expression of grief, mixed with hope, that is wonderfully noble and he hath given her a beautiful character. There are three female figures grouped on the right, which are lovely, with an uncommon elegance in their forms, admirably designed, and with a tone of colour that is beautiful. Their dress, and particularly the attire of their heads, is ingenious and simple; one of this master’s excellences consisting in that part of contrivance: in short, it is finely composed, and unusually well penciled; though the general tone of the colouring partakes a little of the greenish cast, and the shadows are rather too dark, yet that darkness may probably have been occasioned or increased by time. Such is the opinion of Pilkington, but it is time now to attend to that of more authorized criticism. “Expression,” says Mr. Fuseli, " which hud languished after the demise of RafTaello, seemed to revive in Domenidiino; but his sensibility was not supported by equal comprehension, elevation of mind, or dignity of motive. His sentiments want propriety, he is a mannerist in feeling, and tacks the imagery of Theocritus to the subjects of Homer. A detail of petty, though amiable conceptions is rather calculated to diminish than inforce the energy of a pathetic whole. A lovely child taking refuge in the lip or bosom of a lovely mother, is an idea of nature, and pleasing in a lowly, pastoral, or domestic subject; but perpetually recurring, becomes common-place, and amid the terrors of martyrdom, is a shred sewed to a purple robe. In touching the characteristic circle that surrounds the Ananias of Raffaello, you touch the electric chain, a genuine spark insensibly darts from the last as from the first, penetrates mul subdues. At the martyrdom of St. Agnes, by Domenichino, you saunter amid the adventitious mob of a lane, where the silly chat of neighbour gossips announces a topic as silly, till you find with indignation, that instead of a broken pot, or a petty theft, you are witness to a scene for which heaven opens and angels descend.

“It has been said Domenichino’s invention was inferior to his other parts. The picture of the `Rosario,' now in the gallery of the Louvre, is adduced as a proof; an idea neither then nor now understood by the public, disapproved of by his most partial friends, and of which he repented himself; in the most celebrated of his works, the Communion of St. Jerome, he imitated Agostino, and in the almsscene of ‘ St. Cecilia,’ the ‘ St. Rocco’ of Annibale Caracci. But from the Triumph of the ‘Rosary,’ the most brilliant fancy will elicit little more than splendid confusion; in the ‘St. Jerome,’ if the arrangement and the postures are imitated, the characters are invented what he owes to Annibale in the Chanties of St. Cecilia, is less than what Annibale owes to Raffaello in his ‘ Genus unde Latinum;’ and is amply compensated by the original beauties of St. Cecilia before the Praetor. Domenichino was what few men of genius are, a good master. The best of his Roman scholars were Antonio Barbalunza of Messina, and Andrew Camassei of Bevagna. The first copied and imitated his master with sufficient success, and sometimes to a degree of deception. The second, more timid and less select, had nature and a grand style of colour.”

Domenichino was made the chief architect of the apostolical palace by pope Gregory XV. for his great skill in that art. He was likewise very well versed in the theory of music, but not successful in the practice. He loved solitude; and it was observed, that, as he went along the streets, he took notice of the actions of private persons he met, and often designed something in his pocket-book. He was of a mild temper and obliging carriage, yet had the misfortune to find enemies in all places wherever he came. At Naples, particularly, he was so ill treated by those of his own profession, that, having agreed among themselves to disparage all his works, they would hardly allow him to be a tolerable master: and they were not content with having frighted him for some time from that city, but afterwards, upon his return thither, never left persecuting him, till by their tricks and vexations they had wearied him out of his life. He died in 1641, not without the suspicion of poison.

, a Saint of the Romish calendar, founder of the order of the Dominicans, and as some say, of that horrible engine of tyranny, the Inquisition, was born in 1170, at Calarogo, in old Castille, in the diocese of Osma. He was of the family of the Guzmans, and educated at first under a priest, his uncle; but at fourteen years, was sent to the public schools of Palentia, where he became a great proficient in rhetoric, philosophy, and divinity, and was also distinguished by austere mortifications and charity to the poor. When he had finished his studies and taken his degrees, he explained the Holy Scriptures in the schools, and preached at Palentia. In 1198 he was made a canon of Osma. After five years he accompanied the bishop of Osma on an embassy to the earl of La Marche, and in his journey was grievously afflicted to behold the spread of what he called heresy among the Albigenses, and conceived the design of converting them, and at first appears to have used only argument, accompanied with the deception of pretended miracles; but finding these unsuccessful, joined the secular power in a bloody crusade against the Albigenses, which he encouraged by prayers and miracles. During these labours, he instituted the devotion of the Rosary, consisting of fifteen Pater Hosiers, and an hundred and fifty Ave Marias, in honour of the fifteen principal mysteries of the life and sufferings of Christ, and of the virgin Mary, which our saint thought the people might be made to honour by this foolish expedient. In 1206 he founded the nunnery of our lady of Prouille, near Faujaux, which he put under* the rule of St. Austin, and afterwards established an institute called his third order, some of the members of which live in monasteries, and are properly nuns; others live in their own houses, adding religious to civil duties, and serving the poor in hospitals and prisons.

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

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

Butler observes that St. Dominic hau no hand in the origin of the inquisition, though he owns, that the project of this court was first formed in a council of Toulouse in 1229, and that in 1233, two Dominican friars were the first inquisitors. Modern protestant historians seem inclined to concede that, although St. Dominic was an inquisitor, it was not in the most offensive sense of the word. Tins, however, will not excuse his tyranny towards the Albigenses, and if he did not invent the inquisition, he at least must be allowed the honour of inventing the rosary, a species of mechanical devotion which has done infinite mischief.

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

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

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

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

, born at Aberdeen in Scotland, bore some rank among the learned men of the seventeenth century. He had been in the retinue and service of David Cuningham, bishop of Aberdeen, and Peter Junius, great almoner of Scotland, when they went on an embassy from king James to the court of Denmark, and to the princes of Germany. After his return home, he went to Heidelberg, where the famous Dionysius Gothofredus taught the civil law. Donaldson, having there dictated to some young students a short course of moral philosophy, a young man of Riga in Livonia put the manuscript to the press without his consent, but he seemed not displeased, and informs us of the several editions which were made of that work in Germany, and in Great Britain, under the title “Synopsis moralis philosophise.” He was afterwards professor of natural and moral philosophy, and of the Greek tongue, in the university of Sedan, and was principal of the college sixteen years after which he was invited to open a college at Charenton but that establishment was immediately opposed by law. Mot to remain idle while the law-suit was depending, he set himself to collect from among his papers the several parts of his “Synopsis Oeconomica,” wnich he got printed at Paris in 1620, in 8vo, and dedicated it to the prince of Wales. It was reprinted at Rostoch, 1624, in 8vo. That wherein he reduced into common places, and under certain general heads, all that lies scattered in Diogenes Laertius concerning the same thing, was printed in Greek and Latin, at Francfort, in 1612, under the title of “Synopsis Locorum communium, in qua sapientiae human imago repraesentatur,” &c.

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

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

, a very learned scholar of the sixteenth century, was born at Zano, a seat belonging to the family of Nogarola, in the diocese of Verona in Italy. He became professor of Greek and Latin at Padua, whence he went to teach the same languages at Capo d'Istria, as mentioned by Bembo in his letters. He taught also at Parma, and there printed a Latin oration in 1532 on the praises of Parma, and the study of classical literature, “De laudibus Parmae et de studiis humanioribus.” After this he appears to have given lessons in the duchy of Ferrara, whence he returned and died in his own country, much regretted as an accomplished scholar. He made the Latin translation of the Evangelical Demonstration of Eusebius, which was magnificently printed, and afterwards used in a Paris edition, Greek and Latin, but without noticing that it was his. He translated also some pieces of Galen, Xenophon, and Aristotle; and was editor of the first Greek edition of Chrysostom the first edition of Œcumenius of Aretas on the Apocalypse two books of John Damascenus on Faith; and superintended an edition of Macrobius and Censorinus. In 1540 he published “De Pldtonicae, et Aristotelicae philosophise, differentia,” Venice, 8vo, but this was a posthumous work, if according to Saxius, he died in 1540.

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

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

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

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

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

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

, a Bolognese artist, born in 1575, was called II Mastelletta, from his father’s trade, that of a pail-maker; and seems to have been born a painter. He was a pupil of the Caracci, but did not attend to their suggestions on the necessity of acquiring a competent foundation for drawing, and contrived to catch the eye by a more compendious method; surrounding a splendid centre by impenetrable darkness, which absorbed every trace of outline. It is probable that his success greatly contributed to encourage that set of painters distinguished by the name of Tenebrosi, shade-hunters, so numerous afterwards in the Venetian and Lombard schools. Donducci was distinguished, though not by correctness, by a great spirit of design, a sufficient imitation of Parmigiano, whom he exclusively admired, and a certain native facility which enabled him to colour the largest dimensions of canvas in a little time. He failed in his attempts at changing this manner, as he grew older and more impatient of the praise bestowed on an open style. Light, no longer supported by obscurity, served only to expose his weakness and the two miracles of S. Domenico, in the church of that saint, which had been considered as his master-pieces, became by alteration the meanest of his works. The same diversity of manner is observable in his smaller pictures; those of the first, such as the Miracle of the Manna, in the Spada palace, are as highly valuable as his landscapes, which in many galleries would be taken for works of the Caracci, were they not discriminated by that original shade that stamps the genuine style of Mastelletta. The time of his death is not ascertained.

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

, a Florentine, first a monk and then a secular priest, died in 1574, at the age of sixtyone. He was member of the academy of the Peregrini, in which he took the academical name of Bizzaro, perfectly suitable to his satirical and humourous character. Some of his works are, 1. “Letters,” in Italian, 8vo. 2. “La Libraria,” 1557, 8vo. 3. “La Zucca,” 1565, 4 parts, 8vo, with plates. 4. “I mondi celesti, terestri ed infernali,” 4to: there is an old French translation of it. 5. “I martiii, cive Raggionamenti fatti a i marmi di Fiorenza,” Venice, 1552, 4to. In all his writings, of which there is a list of more than twenty in Niceron, he aspires at singularity, and the reputation of a comical fellow; in the first he generally succeeds, and if he fail in the second, it is not for want of great and constant efforts to become so. Dr. Burney gives an account of a very rare book of his, entitled “Dialoghi della Musica,” which was published at Venice, 1544, which the doctor never saw, except in the library of Padre Martini. The author was not only a practical musician and composer by profession, but connected, and in correspondence with the principal writers and artists of his time. Dr. Burney also remarks that his “Libraria” must have been an useful publication when it first appeared; as it not only contains a catalogue and character of all the Italian books then in print, but of all the Mss. that he had seen, with a list of the academies then subsisting, their institution, mottos, and employment; but what rendered this little work particularly useful to Dr. Burney in his inquiries after early musical publications, is the catalogue it contains of all the music which had been published at Venice since the invention of printing.

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

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

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

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

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

It was about the age of eighteen, that he began to study the controversy between the protestants and papists. His tutors had been instructed to take every opportunity of confirming him in popery, the religion of his family; and he confesses that his mother’s persuasions had much weight. She was a woman of great piety, and her son, in all the relations of life, evinced a most affectionate heart. Amidst these allurements, however, he entered on the inquiry with much impartiality, and with the honest intention to give way to such convictions only as should be founded in established truth. He has recorded in the preface to his “Pseudo-Martyr,” the struggles of his mind, which he says he overcame by frequent prayer, and an indifferent affection to both parties. The result was a firm, and, as it afterwards proved, a serious adherence to the doctrines of the reformed church.

This inquiry, which terminated probably to the grief of his surviving parent and his friends of the Romish persuasion, appears to have occupied a considerable space of time, as we hear no more of him, until he began his travels in his twenty-first year. He accompanied the earl of Essex in his expedition in 1596, when Cadiz was taken, and again in 1597, but did not return to England until he had travelled for some time in Italy, from which he meant to have penetrated into the Holy Land, and visited Jerusalem and the holy sepulchre. But the inconveniences and dangers of the road in those parts appeared so insuperable that he gave up this design, although with a reluctance to which he often used to advert. The time, however, which he had dedicated to visit the Holy Land, he passed in Spain, and both there and in Italy, studied the language, manners, and government of the country, allusions to which are scattered throughout his poems and prose works.

Not long after his return to England, he obtained the patronage of sir Thomas Egerton, lord Ellesmere, lord chancellor of England, and the friend and predecessor of the illustrious Bacon. This nobleman appears to have been struck with his accomplishments, now heightened by the polish of foreign travel, and appointed him to be his chief secretary, as an introduction to some more important employment in the state, for which he is said to have pronounced him very fit. The conversation of Donne, at this period, was probably enriched by observation, and enlivened by that wit which sparkles so frequently in his works. The chancellor, it is certain, conceived so highly of him, as to make him an inmate in his house, and a constant guest at his table, where he had an opportunity of mixing with the most eminent characters of the age, and of obtaining that notice, which, if not abused, generally leads to preferment.

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

Ttieir imprisonment appears to have been an act of arbitrary power, for we hear of no trial being instituted, or punishment inflicted on the parties. Mr. Donne was first released*, and soon procured the enlargement of his companions; and, probably at no great distance of time, sir George Moor began to relent. The excellent character of his son-in-law was so often represented to him that he could no longer resist the intended consequences of such applications. He condescended, therefore, to permit the young couple to live together, and solicited the lord chancellor to restore Mr. Donne to his former situation. This, however, the chancellor refused, and in such a manner as to show the opinion he entertained of sir George’s conduct. His lordship owned that “he was unfeignedly sorry for what he had done, yet it was inconsistent with his plac^ and credit to discharge and re-admit servants at the request of passionate petitioners.” Lady Ellesmere also probably felt the severity of this remark, as her unwearied solicitations had induced the chancellor to adopt a measure which he supposed the world would regard as capricious, and inconsistent with his character.

Whatever allowance is to be made for the privileges of a parent, the conduct of sir George Moor, on this occasion, seems entitled to no indulgence. He neither felt as a father, nor acted as a wise man. His object in requesting his son-in-law to be restored to the chancellor’s service, was obviously that he might be released from the expence of maintaining him and his wife; for, when disappointed in this, he refused them any assistance. This harshness reduced Mr. Donne to a situation the most distressing. His estate, the three thousand pounds before mentioned, had been nearly expended on his education

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

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

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

This transaction, which, according to the date of Dr. Morton’s promotion to the deanery of Gloucester, happened in 1607, when our poet was in his thirty- fourth year, is not unimportant, as it displays that character for nice honour and integrity which distinguished Donne in all his future life, and was accompanied with an heroic generosity of feeling and action, which is perhaps rarely to be met with, unless in men whose principles have the foundation which he appears to have now laid.

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

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

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

From the dates of some of Donne’s letters, it appears that he was at Paris with sir Robert Drury in 1612, and one is dated from the Spa in the same year, but at what time he returned is not certain. After his return, however, his friends became more seriously anxious to fix him in some honourable and lucrative employment at court. Before this period he had become known to king James, and was one of those learned persons with whom that sovereign delighted to converse at his table. On one of those occasions, about 1610, the conversation turned on a question respecting the obligation on Roman Catholics to take the oaths of allegiance and supremacy; and Donne appeared to so much advantage in the dispute, that his majesty requested he would commit his sentiments to writing, and bring them to him. Donne readily complied, and presented the king with the treatise, published in that year, under the title of “Pseudo-Martyr.” This obtained him much reputation, and the university of Oxford conferred on him the degree of M. A. which he had previouslyreceived from Cambridge. The “Pseudo-Martyr,” contains very strong arguments against the pope’s supremacy, and has been highly praised by his biographers. Warburton, however, speaks of it in less favourable terms. It must be confessed that the author has not availed himself of the writings of the judicious Hooker, and that in this, as well as in all his prose writings, are many of those farfetched conceits, which, however agreeable to the taste of the age, have placed him at the head of a class of Very indifferent poets.

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

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

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

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

This promotion, like all the leading events of his life, tended to the advancement of his character. While it amply supplied his wants, it enabled him at the same time to exhibit the heroism of a liberal and generous mind, in the case of his father-in-law, sir George Moor. This man had never acted the part of a kind and forgiving parent, although he continued to pay the annual sum agreed upon by bond, in lieu of his daughter’s portion. The time was now come, when Dr. Donne could repay his harshness, by convincing him how unworthily it had been exerted. The quarter after his appointment to the deanery, when sir George came to pay him the stipulated sum. Dr. Donne refused it, and after acknowledging more kindness than he had received, added, “I know your present condition is such as not to abound, and I hope mine is such as not to need it; I will therefore receive no more from you upon that contract,” which he immediately gave up.

To his deanery was now added the vicarage of St. DunStan in the West, and another ecclesiastical endowment not specified by Walton. These according to his letters (p. 318) he owed to the friendship of Richard Sackville, earl of Dorset, and of the earl of Kent. From all this he derived the pleasing prospect of making a decent provision for his children, as well as of indulging to a greater extent his liberal and humane disposition. In 1624, he was chosen prolocutor to the convocation, on which occasion he delivered a Latin oration, which is printed in the London edition of his poems, 1719.

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

About four years after he received the deanery of St. Paul’s, and when he had arrived at his fifty-fourth year, his constitution, naturally feeble, was attacked by a disorder which had every appearance of being fatal. In this extremity he gave another proof of that tenderness of conscience, so transcendently superior to all modern notions of honour, which had always marked his character. When there was little hope of his life, he was required to renew some prebendal leases, the fines for which were very considerable, and might have enriched his family. But this he peremptorily refused, considering such a measure, in his situation, as a species of sacrilege. “I dare not,” he added, “now upon my sick bed, when Almighty God hath made me useless to the service of the church, make any advantages out of it.” This illness, however, he survived about five years, when his tendency to a consumption again returned, and terminated his life on the 31st day of March, 1631. He was buried in St. Paul’s, where a monument was erected to his memory. His figure may yet be seen in the vaults of St. Faith’s under St. Paul’s. It stands erect in a window, without its niche, and deprived of the urn in which the feet were placed. His picture was drawn sometime before his death, when he dressed himself in his winding-sheet, and the figure in St. Faith’s was carved from this painting by Nicholas Stone. The fragments of his tomb are on the other side of the church. Walton mentions many other paintings of him executed at different periods of his life, which are not now known.

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

His prose works are numerous, but except the “PseudoMartyr,” and a small volume of devotions, none of them, were published during his life. The others are, 1. “Paradoxes, problems, essays, characters,” &c. 1653, 12mo. Part of this collection was published at different times before. 2. Three volumes of “Sermons,” in folio the first printed in 1640, the second in 1649, the third in 1660. Lord Falkland styles Donne “one of the most witty and most eloquent of our modern divines.” 3. “Essays in divinity,” &c. 1651, 12mo. 4. “Letters to several persons of honour,” 1654, 4to. Both these published by his son. There are several of Donne’s letters, and others to him from the queen of Bohemia, the earl of Carlisle, archbishop Abbot, and Ben Jonson; printed in a book, entitled, “A collection of Letters made by sir Tobie Matthews, knt. 1660,” 8vo. 5. “The ancient History of the Septuagint; translated from the Greek of Aristeas,” 1633, in 12mo. This translation was revised and corrected by another hand, and published in 1635, 8vo. His sermons have not a little of the character of his poems. They are not, indeed, so rugged in style, but they abound with quaint allusions, which now appear ludicrous although they probably produced no such effect in his days. With this exception, they contain much good sense, much acquaintance with human nature, many striking thoughts, and some very just biblical criticism.

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

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

This son, John Donne, was educated at Westminster school, and removed from thence to Christ-church, Oxford, in 1622. Afterwards he travelled abroad, and took the degree of LL.D. at Padua in Italy; and June 1638 was admitted to the same degree in the university of Oxford. He died in 1662, and was buried in the churchyard of St. Paul, Covent-Garden. Wood tells us, that “he was no better all his life- time than an atheistical buffoon, a banterer, and a person of over-free thoughts, yet valued by Charles II. that he was a man of sense and parts; and that, besides some writings of his father, he published several frivolous trifles under his own name among which is `The humble petition of Covent-Garden against Dr. John Baber a physician,' anno 1662.”

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

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

, a German mathematician, was born at Nuremberg in 1677, and was first intended by his family for the bar, but soon relinquished the study of the law for that of mathematics, in which he was far more qualified to excel. He became professor of mathematics at Nuremberg, after having travelled into Holland and England to profit by the instructions of the most eminent scholars in that science. In England he became acquainted with Flamstead, Wallis, and Gregory, and in 1733, long after he returned home, was elected a fellow of the royal society as he was also of the societies of Petersburgh and Berlin. His works, in German, on astronomy, geography, and mathematics, are numerous. He also published some in Latin: “Nova Methodus parandi Sciaterica Solaria/' 1720.” Physica experimentis illustrata,“4to;” Atlas Ccelestis," 1742, fol. Doppelmaier made some curious experiments in electricity, at the latter part of his life, which he also published; and translated the astronomical tables of Stretius, French and English, into Latin.

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

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

, a painter and engraver, was born at St. Quentin, in France, in 1617, and manifesting an early inclination for the arts, was placed under Simon Vonet, a painter at that time of great reputation, whose daughter he married, and whose manner as a painter he copied, but is better known as an engraver. He performed his plates chiefly with the point, in a bold, powerful style: the lights are broad and massy, especially upon the figures. But the marking of the folds of the draperies, and the shadows upon the outlines of the flesh, are frequently so extravagantly dark, as to produce a harsh, disagreeable effect, and sometimes to destroy the harmony of the engraving entirely. Although he understood the human figure, and in some instances it was correctly drawn; yet by following the manner of Vouet, instead of the simple forms of nature, his outlines were affected, and the extremities of his figures too much neglected. This artist was made professor of the royal academy of painting at Paris, where he died in 1665, aged forty- eight. His works are said by abbe Marolles to have consisted of 105 prints. Amongst these were, “the Adoration of the Magi,” the “Nativity of Christ,” “Venus at her toilet,” “Venus, Hope, and Love, plucking the feathers from the wings of Time,” “Mercury and ther Graces,” and “the Rape of Europa,” all from pictures of Vouet. He also engraved from Le Seur, Sarasin, and other masters.

, an historical painter, the son of the preceding, was born at Paris, in 1654, and was taught the rudiments of the art by his father till he was ten years of age; when, being deprived of his instructor, by the death of his parent, he became a disciple of Le Brun. la that school he made a considerable progress; but being disappointed in his expectation of obtaining the first prize at the academy, he travelled to Italy, and studied for several years at Rome, Venice, and Verona. He is highly commended by the French writers for quick conception, lively colouring, and a spirited pencil; yet they acknowledge that a sketch for a cieling which he produced at Paris, representing the Fall of Phaeton, was so much discommended by Rigaud, Largilliere, and others, that in great disgust he returned to Verona, where he ended his days. His principal work is the dome of the great church at Trent. He died at Verona in 1742.

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

His drawing was incorrect and affected; the naked parts of his figures are often falsely marked, and the extremities are defective. His draperies are coarse, the folds stiff and hard; and a manner of his own pervades all his prints, so that the style of the painter is constantly lost in that of the engraver. Nor did he ever fail more than in working from the paintings of Raphael. Basan, with an excusable partiality for his countryman, says of him, “we have many excellent prints by his hand, in which one justly admires the good taste of his drawing, and the intelligent picturesque manner, which he acquired by the judicious reflections he made upon the works of the great masters, during the residence of twenty-two years in Italy.” We have of his prints the following, viz. “St. Peter curing the Lame Man at the gate of the temple,” from Civoli; “The Transfiguration,” from Raphael; “The Descent from the Cross,” from Daniello da Volterra; “The Martyrdom of St. Sebastian,” from Domenichino, which two last are said to be his best prints “The Trinity,” from Guido; “The History of Cupid and Psyche,” from Raphael’s pictures in the Vatican; “The Cartoons,” seven very large plates from the pictures of Raphael. He also engraved from Annibale Caracci, Lanfranche, Louis Dorigny, and other masters.

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

While he was professor at Magdeburg, at which time strictures and objections against the short commentaries on the scriptures of Nicholas de Lyra, were published by Paul de Burgos, Doringk undertook their defence and farther illustration. The different pieces which he wrote on these subjects were collected together, and inserted in an edition comprehending the works of both those authors, published in Paris, in six volumes folio, in 1590. This work was well received, and went through several editions. To Doringk some have ascribed the “Miroir Historial,” commonly known by the name of “The Chronicle of Nuremberg,” and therefore considered him as the forerunner of the illustrious Luther, the Chronicle being written with spirit and energy against the vices of the cardinals, the bishops, and the popes, and also against jubilees and indulgences. But there is more reason to think that the Nuremberg Chronicle was the work of another hand, as Marchand has detailed at considerable length. It appears that a Chronicle which Doringk partly composed, may have given rise to this supposition. It is entitled “Chronica brevis et utilis ex speculo historiali Vincentii et aliorum, Eusebii, Hieronymi, &c. et alioruin historicorum, collecta, et continuata a Matthia Doringk, usque ad annum 1494.” This remains in ms. in the library of the university of Leipsic, but the date at least must be wrong, if Marchand’s conjecture as to the period of Doringk’s death be just. He is said to have compiled also a continuation of the Chronicle of Theodore Engelhusius from 1420 to 1498, which is printed in the collection of German historians by Mencken. In this Doringk confessedly takes those liberties with the characters of the popes and cardinals, which are to be found in the Nuremberg Chronicle, and such a coincidence may have strengthened the supposition that he was the author of the latter. The reader will find all that can be advanced on the subject in our first authority.

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

, a very learned divine, and the friend of Erasmus, was born at Naaldrwyck, in Holland, and became professor of philosophy in the university of Louvaine. He was also esteemed an able divine and linguist, but died in the prime of life, May 31, 1525. Besides some academical orations, he published “Dialogus Veneris et Cupidinis, Herculem animi ancipitem in suam militiam, invita virtute, propellentium;” “Complementum Aularioe Plautinae, et Prologus in Militem ejusdem” “Epistola de Hollandorum moribns” and “Oratio de laudibus Aristotelis,” against Laurentius Valla.

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

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

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

, an artist, was a native of Dosso in the Ferrarese territory, and from the school of Costa went to Rome, where he studied six years, and five at Venice; and formed a style which is sometimes compared to that of Raphael, sometimes to that of Titian, and sometimes is said to resemble Coreggio. His name, with that of Gio. Batista his brother, has been ranked with the first names of Italy by Ariosto, their countryman; and the pictures of Dosso prove that he did not owe the high rank in which he is placed by the poet, to partiality. The head of his St. John at Patmos, in the church a' Lateran at Ferrara, is a prodigy of expression. Of his most celebrated picture in the church of the Dominicans at Faenza, there remains now only a copy: time destroyed the original. It represents Christ among the Doctors, and even in the copy the simplicity of the composition, the variety of the characters, and the breadth and propriety of the drapery, deserve admiration. Seven of his pictures, and perhaps of his best time, are at Dresden, and the best of these is that much praised one of the Four Doctors of the Church. Dosso, in partnership with his brother, was much employed in works for the court of Alphonso and Ercole II. dukes of Ferrara; and to that connection with him, a character so much inferior to himself, we may probably ascribe the aspersions and illiberal criticism of Vasari. The style of Dosso retains something more obsolete than the style of the great masters with whom he is compared; but he has a novelty of invention and drapery all his own; and withal a colour which with variety and boldness unites a general harmony. This excellent artist died about 1560, but his age has not been ascertained.

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

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

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

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

In his youth, he likewise translated Ovid “De remedio Amoris,” which, says one of his biographers, “seems to have been the first of all his works, and done not without some view to himself; for, as Hume informs us, he had felt the effects of love. But this was in his younger years, and long before he was in holy orders. And he was very soon freed from the tyranny of this unreasonable passion, as appears from the very translation, which he finished so early, and seems to have proposed as an antidote against its charms both to himself and others. He hath given also many excellent precepts and advices against the danger of immoderate love and unlawful pleasures, in his admirable prologue to Virgil’s fourth hook.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the Easter term of this year he took his doctor’s degree, and was presented by lord Bath to the perpetual curacy of Kenley, in Shropshire. In 1759, he published “The Conduct of a late noble commander candidly considered,” as good a defence as the case would admit, of lord George Sackville. It was suggested solely by the attack so unfairly made on him by Ruff head, before it could possibly be known whether he deserved censure. No person was privy to Dr. Douglas’s being the author of this Defence, except his bookseller, Andrew Millar, to whom he made a present of the copy. In the same mouth he wrote and published, “A Letter to two great men on the approach of peace,” a pamphlet which excited great attention, and was generally attributed to lord Bath. In 1760 he wrote the preface to the translation of Hooke’s “Negociations in Scotland.” He was this year appointed one of his majesty’s chaplains. In 1761 he published his “Seasonable Hints from an honest man,” as an exposition of lord Bath’s sentiments. In November 1762, he was, through the interest of lord Bath, made canon of Windsor. In December of that year, on the day on which the preliminaries of peace were to be taken into consideration in parliament, he wrote a paper called “The Sentiments of a Frenchman,” which was printed on a sheet, pasted on the walls in every part of London, and distributed among the members of parliament, as they entered the house.

In 1763 he superintended the publication of “Henry Earl of Clarendon’s Diary and Letters,” and wrote the preface which is prefixed to these papers. In June of this year, he accompanied lord Bath to Spa, where he became acquainted with the hereditary prince of Brunswick (the late duke), from whom he received marked and particular attention, and with whom he was afterwards in correspondence. It is known that within a few years there existed a series of letters written by him during his stay at Spa, and also a book containing copies of all the letters which he had written to, and received from, the prince of Brunswick, on the state of parties, and the characters of their leaders in this country, and on the policy and effect of its continental connexions; but as these have not been found among his papers, there is reason to apprehend, that they may have been destroyed, in consideration of some of the persons being still alive, whose characters, conduct, and principles, were the topics of that correspondence.

In 1764, his steady patron, lord Bath, died, and bequeathed to him his library; but general Pulteney wishing that it should not be removed from Bath-house, he relinquished his claim, and accepted 1000l. in lieu of it. General Pulteney, at his death, left it to Dr. Douglas again, and he again gave it up to the late sir William Pulteney, for the same sum. It has been erroneously stated that the valuable library, of which Dr. Douglas was possessed, had been derived from this source, whereas it was entirely collected by himself; and the Bath library, after the death of sir William Pulteney, was lately sold by auction. In 1764 he exchanged his livings in Shropshire for that of St. Austin and St. Faith, in Watling-street, London. In April 1765 he married miss Elizabeth Rooke, daughter of Henry Brudenell Rooke, esq. During this and the preceding year, as well as in 1768, he wrote several political papers, which were printed in the Public Advertiser; and all the letters which appeared in that paper, in 1770 and 1771, under the signatures of Tacitus and Manlius, were written by him. In 1773, he assisted sir John Dalrymple in the arrangement of his Mss. In 1776 he was removed from the chapter of Windsor to that of St. Paul’s. During this and the subsequent year he was employed in preparing captain Cook’s Journal for publication, which he undertook at the urgent request of lord Sandwich, then first lord of the admiralty. In 1777, he assisted lord Hardwicke, in arranging and publishing his “Miscellaneous Papers,” which came out in the following year. In 1778 he was elected a member of the royal and antiquary societies. In 1781 he was again applied to by lord Sandwich, to reduce into a shape fit for publication, the Journal of capt. Cook’s third and last voyage to which he supplied the very able introduction, and thenotes. In 1781 he was chosen president of Sion-college for the year, and preached the Latin sermon before that body.

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

This learned prelate enjoyed a very high share of reputation during a very long life. He was, if not one of the most profound, one of the most general scholars in the kingdom, and the range of his information was most extensive. Nor was he more an enlightened scholar, than a warm friend to men of learning and genius; in private life, he was amiable, communicative, and interesting in his conversation and correspondence. As a divine, if he took no distinguished part in the controversies of the times, he evinced by his “Criterion,” his detection of Lauder, and his controversy with Bower, what a formidable antagonist he could have proved, and what an unanswerable assertor of truth. His character likewise stood high for fidelity and a conscientious discharge of the public duties of his station., and when not employed in the pulpit, for always countenancing public worship by his presence. His punctuality in this last respect is still remembered by the congregations of St. Faith’s and St. Paul’s. In a word, as his talents recommended him in early life to patronage, so he soon demonstrated that he wanted only to be better known to be thought deserving of the highest preferments.

, a learned French advocate and classical scholar, was born in 1609 at Toulouse, of a family distinguished by their talents. After having studied classics and philosophy with great success, he went through a course of law, and was admitted an advocate of the parliament of Toulouse in 1637. Removing afterwards with a view to settle in Paris, he was admitted to the same rank in the parliament of that city in 1639. Here his reputation for knowledge and eloquence became soon acknowledged, and in 1650, on the death of Balthazar Baro, he was chosen into the French academy in his place. The following year, according to the “Menagiana,” he went to Bourges as candidate for a law professorship, but we are not told whether he succeeded; in the same year, however, he was appointed professor of the canon law in the royal college; and four years after, in 1655, had the appointment of regent doctor of the faculty of the law, and filled both offices with the highest reputation, nor did their laborious duties prevent him from finding sufficient leisure to write many of his published works. He was also appointed preceptor to the dauphin in history, and became one of the learned editors of the Dauphin classics. He died Oct. 27, 1688, in his 79th year, being then dean of the French academy, of the royal college, and of the faculty of law. He had an extensive knowledge of languages, wrote fluently in Latin and French, and spoke Italian, Spanish, Greek, Hebrew, and even the Turkish, and understood English, German, and Sclavonic. With all these accomplishments, he was a man of singular modesty, probity, and disinterestedness. His talents having procured him what he thought a competent maintenance, he had no ambition for riches, and employed what was not necessary for his own moderate wants, upon the poor. His works are numerous, and justify the fame he acquired. 1. “Dictionnaire de la' langue Toulousaine,” lt)38, 8vo. This, which is without Doujat’s name, was printed at the end of Goudelin’s works, which are in that language. 2. “Grammaire Espagnole abregee,” Paris, 1644, 12mo, also without his name. 3. “Moyen aise d'apprendre les langues mis en pratique sur la langue Espagnole,” ibid. 1646, 12rao. 4. “Joannis Dartis opera Canonica, edente J. Doujatio,” ibid. 1656, fol. 5. “De Pace a Ludovico XIV. constituta, oratio panegyrica,” ibid. 1660, 12mo. 6. “Historica juris Pontificii Synopsis,” added afterwards to his edition of Lancelot’s Institutions, ibid. 1670, 12mo. 7. “Synopsis Conciliorum et Chrono* logia Patrum, Pontificum, Imperatorum,” &c. ibid. 1671, 12mo. 8. A Latin translation of the “Panegyrique duRoy,” by M. Pellison, ibid. 1671, 4to. 9. “La Clef du grand Pouille de France,” ibid. 1671, 2 volumes, 12mo. 10. “Specimen Juris Canonici apud Gallos usu recepti,” &c. ibid. 1671, 2 vols. 12mo, often reprinted. 11. A French translation of Velleius Paterculus, with notes, ibid. 1672 and 1708, 12mo. 12. “Histoire du droit Canonique,” ibid. 1675, 12mo. 13. “Historia Juris Civilis Romanorum,” ibid. 1678, 12mo. 14. “Francisci Florentii opera Canonica et Juridica,” with additions, ibid. 1679, 2 vols. 4to. 15. The Delphin “Livy,” ibid. 1679, 6 vols. 4to. 16. “Theophili Antecessoris Institutionum lib. quatuor,” with notes, &c. ibid. 1681, 2 vols. 12mo. 17. “Institutiones Juris Canonici a J. P. Lancelotto Perusino conscriptae,” with notes, ibid. 1685, 2 vols. 12mo. Inconsequence of a new statute of the university of Paris, every regent doctor was obliged to lecture for three years on some branch of jurisprudence, and Doujat in obedience to this statute lectured on the subject of this work. 18. “Pra?­notionum canonicarum libri quinque,” ibid. Paris, 1687, 4to. 19. “Eloges des personnes illustres de l‘Ancient Testament^ pour donner quelque teinture de l’Histoire Sacree, a I‘usage de monseigneur le due de Bourgogne,’” ibid. 1688, 8vo, in verse, but not of the best sort. 20. “Reponse a M. Furetiere,” Hague, 1688, 4to. 21. “Lettre touchant un passage conteste de Tite Live,” printed in the Journal des Savans, Dec. 1685. 22. “Martini Bracarensis episcopi Collectio Canonum Orientalium.” This Doujat revised and corrected, for insertion in the “Bibl. Juris Canon, veteris,” by Justell, Paris, 1661, 2 vols. fol. Doujat wrote also several shorter pieces in the literary journals, some prefaces, &c. and had made some progress in a history of the regency of queen Anne of Austria, in consequence of the king’s having appointed him historiographer; but before a sheet had been printed, it was thought proper to suppress it. In the British Museum catalogue we find an article attributed to him under the title “Supplementa Lacunarum Livianarum,” 4to, without date, and probably part of his edition of Livy.

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

He left four sons behind him; the eldest of whom, Janus Dousa, would, if he had lived, have been a more extraordinary man than his father. Joseph Scaliger calls him the ornament of the world; and says, that in the flower of his age he had reached the same maturity of wisdom and erudition, as others might expect to attain after a life spent in study. Grotius also assures us, that his poems exceeded those of his father; whom he assisted in composing the Annals of Holland. He was born in 1572; and, before he was well out of infancy, became, through the great care of his father, not only a good linguist and poet, but also a good philosopher and mathematician. To all this he afterwards added an exquisite knowledge of the civil law and of history. Besides a great many poems, which he composed in a very tender age, we have his notes and observations upon several Latin poets. Those upon Plautus were the product of his sixteenth year; and he was not above nineteen when he published his book “De Rebus Ccelestibus,” and his “Echo, sive Lusus imaginis jocose.” His commentaries upon Catullus, Tibullus, and Propertius, were published the same year. His extraordinary fame and merit caused him to be made preceptor to the prince of Orange, and afterwards first librarian of the university of Leyden. He died at the Hague, in his return from Germany in 1597, when he had not quite completed his 26th year.

Dousa’s three other sons, George, Francis, and Theodore, were all of them men of learning, though not so eminent as Janus. George was a good linguist; travelled to Constantinople; and published a relation of his journey, with several inscriptions which he found there and elsewhere. Also, in 1607, he printed George Cedrenus’s book, entitled, “De originibus urbis Constantinopolitanae,” with Meursius’s notes. Francis was far from wanting learning: for in 1600 he published the epistles of Julius Caesar Scaliger; his annotations upon Aristotle’s history of Animals; and some fragments of Lucilius, with notes of his own upon them. Theodore, lord of Barkenstyen, published the “Chronicon” of George Logotheta with notes, in 1614; and in 1638 wrote a treatise, called “Farrago echoica variarum linguarum, variorumque auctorum,” &c.

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

Douw’s pictures have always been high-priced in his own country, and in every part of Europe; in finishing them he was curious and patient beyond example. Of this Sandrart gives a singular instance. Having once, in company with Bamboccio, visited Gerhard Douw, they admired a picture which he was then painting, and particularly the excessive neatness of a broom, when Douw told them, he should spend three days more in working on that broom, before he should account it entirely complete. In a family picture of Mrs. Spiering, the same author says, that the lady had sat five days for the finishing of one of her hands that leaned on an arm-chair. For that reason, not many would sit to him for their portraits and he therefore indulged himself mostly in works of fancy, in which he could introduce objects of still life, and employ as much time on them as suited his own inclination. Houbraken testifies, that his great patron Mr. Spiering allowed him a thousand guilders a year, and paid beside whatever he demanded for his pictures, and purchased some of them for their weight in silver; but Sandrart, with more probability, assures us, that the thousand guilders a year were paid to Gerhard, on no other consideration than that the artist should give his benefactor the option of every picture he painted, for which he was immediately to receive the utmost of his demand.

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

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

Bibiena, although an ecclesiastic, partook of the licentious character of the papal court and times to which he belonged, but was a friend to literature, and a patron of the arts. In his temper and manners he was affable, and even facetious, as appears by the representation of him in Castiglione’s “Courtier,” in which he is introduced as one of the interlocutors. Of his turn for literature, he gave a sufficient proof in his celebrated comedy “La Calandria,” which, although not, as some have asserted, the earliest comedy which modern times have produced, deservedly obtained great reputation for its author, and merits, even at this day, no small share of approbation. It was first printed at Siena in 1521, afterwards at Rome, 1524, Venice, 1552 and 1562, and at Florence in 1558.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The “Lux in Tenebris” was printed by Comenius, at Amsterdam, in 1657; and contains not only the revelations of our Drabicius, but those of Christopher Kotterus, and of Christina Poniatovia. Comenius published an abridgement of it in 1660, with this title, “Revelationum divinarum in usum saeculi nostri factarum epitome.” He reprinted the whole work, with this title, “Lux e tenebris novis radiis aucta, &c.” These new rays were a sequel of Drabicius’s revelations, which extended to 1666.

, an eminent legislator of Athens, succeeded Triptolemus in the 39th olympiad, 324 years B.C. When the laws of Triptolemus were found insufficient for the regulation of the state, Draco instituted a new code, which was so extremely rigorous, that his Jaws were said to be written in blood. Under his system of legislation, death was the penalty for every kind of offence, in vindication of which he alleged, that as small faults seemed to him worthy of death, he could find no severer punishment for the greatest crimes. Such, however, was his abhorrence of the crime of taking away life, that he directed a prosecution to be instituted even against inanimate things which had been instrumental to this purpose, and sentenced a statue, which had fallen upon a man and killed him, to be banished an absurdity which shews the rude state of le-? gislation in his time. Some of his laws were the result of age and experience, and owed their effect to the opinion that was entertained of his virtue and patriotism, but the Athenians could not endure the rigour of others, and the legislator himself was obliged to withdraw to the island of Ægina, where he suffered as severely from his friends, as he could from his enemies, being, as we are told, suffocated at the public theatre, amidst the applauses of the people. The rigour of his discipline was in some measure relaxed by Solon, in the 46th olympiad.

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

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

In the mean time it must not be dissembled, concerning the expedition in general, that, through an oversight of Drake, the admiral ran the utmost hazard of being taken by the enemy. For Drake being appointed, the first night of the engagement, to carry lights for the direction of the English fleet, was led to pursue some hulks belonging to the Hansetowns, and so neglected this orh'ce; which occasioned the admiral’s following the Spanish lights, and remaining almost in the centre of their fleet till morning. However, his succeeding services sufficiently atoned for this mistake, the greatest execution done on the flying Spaniards being performed by the squadron under his command. It is remarkable, that the Spaniards, notwithstanding their loss was so great, and their defeat so notorious, took great pains to propagate false stories, which in some places gained so much credit as to hide their shame. A little before this formidable Spanish armament put to sea, the ambassador of his catholic majesty had the confidence to propound to queen Elizabeth, in Latin verse, the terms iipon which she might hope for peace; which, with an English translation of a very homely kind, by Dr. Fuller, we will insert in this place, because Drake’s expedition to the West Indies makes a part of this message. The verses are these:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

, an eminent classical editor, was born at Utrecht, Jan. 1, 1684, where, and at Leyden, he was educated. In 171-6 he was appointed professor of rhetoric and history at Utrecht, an office which he filled with great reputation. The first publication which evinced his talents appeared in 1704, while a student under Barman, entitled “Dissertatio Philologico-Historica de prrefecto urbis,” of which a new edition was printed at Francfort in 1752; and three years after, in 1707, he published another dissertation on taking his degree of doctor of laws, “De officio prsefectorum Prsetorio,” Utrecht, 4to. He died at Utrecht in 1748. As an editor he is principally known by his edition of “Silius Italicus,” 1717, 4to, a very valuable work, not only containing every thing worthy of perusal in the preceding editions, but enriched with the notes and emendations of Heinsius, and excerpta from an Oxford ms. and one belonging to Puteanus and by his “Livy,” printed at Amsterdam, 1738, 7 vols. 4to, superior to all which went before it, although not immaculate, and the commentaries, it is generally allowed, are tediously prolix.

, an English divine and poet, of the sixteenth century, was educated at St. John’s college, Cambridge, where he took his degree of bachelor in divinity in 1569. The same year he was admitted to the prebend of Firles in the cathedral of Chichester, June 27, and on July 2 to that of Chamberlaynward in St. Paul’s, and March 9 following, he was installed archdeacon of Lewes. He seems to have been chaplain to Grindall, when archbishop of York. He was a tolerable Latin poet, and translated the Ecclesiastes into Latin hexameters, 1572, 4to, and published two miscellanies of Latin poetry, the one entitled “Sylva,” and the other “Poemata varia et externa,” the last printed at Paris. In the “Sylva,” he mentions his new version of David’s psalms, which Wartou supposes to have been in English, and says, he had begun to translate the Iliad, but had gone no further than the fourth book. In 1566 he published what he called “A medicinable Morall, that is, the two bookes of Horace his satyres Englished, according to the prescription of St. Hierome,” &c. Lond. and in the following year appeared “Horace, his arte of Poetrie, Pistles, and Satyrs Englished.” This version, which Drant undertook in the character of a grave divine, and as a teacher of morality, is very paraphrastic, and sometimes parodical. His other publications are, 1. “Gregory Nazianzen his Epigrams and spiritual sentences,” 1568, 8vo. 2. “Shaklocki, epigrammatis in mortem Cuthberti Scoti, apomaxis,” Lond. 1565, 4to which occurs in Herbert’s Antiquities under the title “An Epygrame of the death of Cuthberte Skotte some tyme beshoppe of Chester, by Roger Shacklocke, and replyed against by Thomas Drant.” 3. “Thomae Drantae Angli, Advordingamiae Praesul,” 1575, 4to. These two last are in the British Museum. 4. “Three godly and learned Sermons, very necessary to be read and regarded of all men,” 1584, 8vo. Extracts from these are given in the Bibliographer. The time of his death is no where mentioned, but as the archdeaconry of Lewes was vacant in 1578, it might have been in consequence of that event.

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

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

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

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

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

The learned and elegant editor of Phillips’s “Theatrum” appears to have appreciated the poetry of Drayton at its full value, when at the same time that he thinks his taste less correct, and his ear less harmonious than Daniel’s, he asserts, that “his genius was more poetical, though it seems to have fitted him only for the didactic, and not for the bolder walks of poetry. The ‘Poly-Olbion’ is a work of amazing ingenuity; and a very large proportion exhibits a variety of beauties, which partake very strongly of the poetical character; but the perpetual personification is tedious, and more is attempted than is within the compass of poetry. The admiration in which the * Heroical Epistles’ were once held, raises the astonishment of a more refined age. They exhibit some elegant images, and some musical lines. But in general they want passion and nature, are strangely flat and prosaic, and are intermixed with the coarsest vulgarities of ideas, sentiment, and expression. His ‘Barons’ Wars,’ and other historical pieces are dull creeping narratives, with a great deal of the same faults, and none of the excellencies which ought to distinguish such compositions. His ‘Nymphidia’ is light and airy, and possesses the features of true poetry.”

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

, minister of the Calvinist church of Paris, was born July 1595, at Sedan; where his father had a considerable post. He passed through the study of polite literature and divinity at Sedan, but was sent to Saumur, to go through a course of philosophy there under professor Duncan. He was admitted minister in 1618, and discharged his function near Langres, till he was called by the church of Paris in 1620. He had all the qualifications requisite to a great minister. His sermons were very edifying; he was assiduous and successful in comforting the sick; and he managed the atTairs of the church with such skill, that he never failed of being consulted upon every important occasion. His first essay was a “Treatise of Preparation for the Lord’s Supper.” This, and his “Catechism,” the “Short View of Controversies,” and “Consolations against the fears of Death,” have, of all his works, been the most frequently reprinted. Some of them, his book upon death in particular, have passed through above forty editions; and have been translated into several languages, as German, Dutch, Italian, and English. His “Charitable Visits,” in 5 volumes, have served for a continual consolation to private persons, and for a source of materials and models to ministers. He published three volumes of sermons, in which, as in all the forementioned pieces, there is a vein of piety very affecting to religious minds. His controversial works are 1. “The Jubilee” 2. “The Roman Combat” 3. “The Jesuit’s Owl” 4. “An Answer to father Coussin” 5. “Disputes with the bishop of Bellai, concerning the honour due to the Holy Virgin” 6. “An answer to La Milletierre” 7. “Dialogues, against the Missionaries,” in several volumes 8. “The False Pastor Convicted,” 9. ; 'The False Face of Antiquity;“10.” The Pretended Nullities of the Reformation;“11.” An Answer to prince Ernest of Hesse;“12.” An Answer to the speech of the clergy spoken by the archbishop of Sens;“13.” A Defence of Calvin." He wrote some letters, which have been printed; one to the duchess of Tremouille, upon her husband’s departure from the protestant religion; one of consolation, addressed to Madam de la Tabariere; one upon the restoration of Charles II. king of Great Britain; some upon the English episcopacy, &c. He published also certain prayers, some of which were made for the king, others for the queen, and others for the dauphin. Bayle tells us, that what he wrote against the church of Rome, confirmed the protestants more than can be expressed; for with the arms with which he furnished them, such as wanted the advantage of learning, were enabled to oppose the monks and parish priests, and to contend with the missionaries. His writings made him considered as the scourge of the papists; yet, like mons. Claude, he was much esteemed, and even beloved by them. For it was well known that he had an easy access to the secretaries of state, the first president, the king’s advocate, and the civil lieutenant; though he never made any other use of his interest with them than to assist the afflicted churches. He was highly esteemed by the great persons of his own religion; by the duke de la Force, the marshals Chatillon, Gascon, Turenne, and by the duchess of Tremouille. They sent for him to their palaces, and honoured him from time to time with their visits. Foreign princes and noblemen, the ambassadors of England and France, did the same; and he was particularly esteemed by the house of Hesse, as appears from the books he dedicated to the princes and princesses of that name. He died Nov. 3, 1669.

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

, the third son of the preceding, was born at Paris in 1633, and after studying some years at Saumur, he went to Montpellier, where he completed his medical course, and took his doctor’s degree. He afterwards attended the marshal Turenne in his campaigns, and was by him appointed physician to the army. The skill and ability he had shewn in this situation, occasioned his being nominated to succeed Vander Linden, in 168S, as professor of medicine at Leyden, whither he obtained permission to go, though he had been made, several years before, one of the physicians to Lewis the Fourteenth. Two years after, he was advanced to the chair of anatomy in the same university. He was also made physician to William, prince of Orange, and to his princess, Mary. As rector of the university of Leyden, he spoke the congratulatory oration to the prince and princess, on their accession to the throne of England. He continued to hold his professorships, the offices of which he filled so as to give universal satisfaction, to the time of his death, which happened on the last day of May, 1697. He was a voluminous and learned writer; his works, which were much read in his time, and passed through several editions, were collected and published together in 1671, and again in 1680, in 4 vols. 12mo. But the most complete edition of them is that published at the Hague, in 1727, in 4to. In one of his orations he has been careful to exculpate professors of medicine from the charge of impiety, so frequently thrown upon them. “Oratio Doctoralis Monspessula, qufi Medicos Dei operum consideratione atque contemplatione permotos, caeteris hominibus Religioni astrictiores esse demons tratur: atque adeo impietatis crimen in ipsos jactatum diluitur.” He also, in his “Apologia Medica,” refutes the idea of physicians having been banished from, and not allowed to settle in Rome for the space of six hundred years. He was a lover of Greek literature, and like his countryman, Guy Patin, an enemy to the introduction of chemical preparations into medicine, which were much used in his time. He was also a strong opponent to his colleague Sylvius Bayle has given him a high character. As a man he describes him benevolent, friendly, pious, and charitable; as a scholar, versed in the Greek and Latin tongues, and in all polite literature in as high a degree as if he had never applied himself to any thing else; as a professor of physic, clear and exact in his method of reading lectures, and of a skill in anatomy universally admired; as an author, one whose writings are of an original and inimitable characier.

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

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

, advocate, born at Chateauneuf, in Thimerais, the 10th of May, 1714, was for some time of the magistracy of that town. Preferring at an early period of life the pursuits of literature to the practice of the bar, he quitted his station, and composed a great number of pieces in verse and prose. His poetical productions are very indifferent, but several of his works in prose are curious. The principal are: 1. “Bibliotheque historique & politique du Poitou,” 1754, 5 vols. 12mo, containing much sound and judicious criticism.

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

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

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

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

, was born on the 24th of December, 1680, in a small cabin near the present corner of Walnut and Second Streets in the city of Philadelphia. His parents came from a place called Beverly, in Massachusetts Bay. The banks of the Delaware, on which the city of Philadelphia now stands, were inhabited, at the time of his birth, by Indians, and a few Swedes and Hollanders. He often talked to his companions of picking wortleberries, and catching rabbits, on spots now the most populous and improved of the city. He recollected the second time William Penn came to Pennsylvania, and used to point to the place where the cabin stood, in which he and his friends that accompanied him were accommodated upon their arrival. At twelve years of age he went to Boston, where he served an apprenticeship to a cabinetmaker. In the year 1745 he returned to Philadelphia with his family, where he lived till the time of his death. He was four times married, and had eighteen children, all of whom were by his first wife. At one time of his life he sat down at his own table with fourteen children. Not long before his death he heard of the birth of a grand-child to one of his grand-children, the fifth in succession from himself.

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

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

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

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

In October 17 ‘7 he was promoted to be one of the commissioners of the excise, an office which he retained during the remainder of his lite. In July 1727 he had been named one of the commissioners and trustees for improving fisheries and manufactures in Scotland, and, as connected with the city of Edinhurgh, he now became the principal agent in the patriotic institution of a public infirmary. By his exertions, accordingly, a charter was procured in August 1736, and the foundation-stone of the present building was laid on Aug. 2, ’738, and the edifice completed at the expence of 13,000l. a great part of which was subscribed by opulent individuals in consequence of his active solicitation.

In 1745, on the breaking out of the second rebellion, he exerted himself with his usual spirit and loyalty, in raising several companies of volunteers; and in endeavouring, though without success, to keep the rebels out of the city; and when that could not be accomplished, he joined sir John Cope at Dunbar, and was present at the unfortunate battle of Preston-pans, in which the king’s troops were defeated. After this action, he attended sir John Cope to Berwick, and remained with him during his stay there, procuring from time to time, from Edinburgh, intelligence of the motions of the rebels, which was communicated to the secretaries of state. The city was in possession of the rebels at the usual time of their annual election of magistrates this year. But when his majesty issued his royal warrant for a post election, Mr. Drummond was again chosen lord provost, which office he discharged so much to the satisfaction of his fellow-citizens, that he was afterwards four times re-elected, which is as often as the constitution of the city permits. Peace being restored, he began his farther improvements, by laying the foundationstone of the Exchange in 1753; and in October 1763, during his sixth provostship, he laid the first stone of the north bridge, which connects the new town of Edinburgh with the old. Mr Driunmond, after a life thus spent in eminent public services, died Nov. 4, 1766.

, an English prelate, was the second son of George Henry, seventh earl of Kinnoul, and Abigail, youngest daughter of Robert Harley, earl of Oxford and Mortimer, lord high treasurer of Great Britain. He was born in London, Nov. 10, 1711, and after being educated at Westminster school, was admitted student of Christ church, Oxford, where he prosecuted his studies with great diligence and credit. When he had taken his first degree in arts, he accompanied his cousingerman, Thomas duke of Leeds, on a tour to the continent. From that he returned in 1735 to college, to pursue the study of divinity; the same year, June 13, he was admitted M. A. and soon after entered into holy orders, and was presented by the Oxford family to the rectory of Bothall in Northumberland; and in 1737, by the recommendation of queen Caroline, was appointed chaplain in ordinary to his majesty. In 1739 he assumed the name and arms of Drummond, as heir in entail of his great grandfather William, first viscount of Strathallan. In 1743, he attended the king abroad, and on his return was installed prebendary of Westminster, and in 1745 was admitted B. D. and D. D. In 1748 he was promoted to the see of St. Asaph; a diocese where his name will ever be revered, and which he constantly mentioned with peculiar affection and delight, as having enjoyed there for thirteen years, a situation most congenial to his feelings, and an extent of patronage most gratifying to his benevolent heart.

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

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

On his return to Scotland he found the nation distracted by political and religious disputes, which combined with the same causes in England to bring on a civil war. But why these should oblige him, immediately on his return, to quit his paternal seat, we know not. The author of his Life, prefixed to the folio edition of his works, in 1711, merely informs us, that having found his native country in a state of anarchy and confusion, he retired to the seat of his brother-in-law, sir John Scot of Scotstarvet, a' man of letters, and probably of congenial sentiments on public affairs. During his stay with this gentleman he wrote his “History of the Five James’s,” kings of Scotland, a work so inconsistent with liberal notions of civil policy as to have added very little to his reputation, although when first published, a few years after his death, and when political opinions ran in extremes, it was probably not without its admirers. It is uncertain at what time he was enabled to enjoy his retirement at Hawthornden, but it appears that he was there in his forty fifth year when he married Elizabeth Logan, (grand-daughter of sir Robert Logan, of the house of Restelrig), in whom he fancied a resemblance to his first mistress. About two years before this event, he repaired his house, and placed the following inscription on it: “Divino muncrt Gitlitlmus Drummondus ab Hawthornden, Joannis Equitis aurati filius, ut honesto otio quiescerct, sibi Hf successoribtu instauravit, 1638.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

He was the author of several works, which shew him to have been well skilled in Hebrew, and to have gained a considerable knowledge in the Jewish antiquities, and the text of the Old Testament. He was a man of great modesty, and uncommonly free from prejudices; which making him more reserved than many others in condemning and applauding, occasioned him to be decried as a lukewarm protestant, and created him many enemies.