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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Besides notes upon Seneca, Claudian, and Solinus, he wrote a great number of works, the principal of which are, 1. “Disquisitiones Magicae,” 1601, 3 vols. 4to, an elaborate work, but too well suited to the credulity of the age.

3. Explications of some of the hardest and most important texts of scrpture.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The moral doctrine of Democritus, like that of Epicurus, makes the enjoyment of a tranquil state of mind, s’uQvfjuei, the great end of life, and consequently teaches moderation as the first law of wisdom. Moreover, he maintained that there is nothing naturally becoming or base in human actions, but that every distinction of this nature arises from custom or civil institutions, and that laws are framed to restrain the natural propensity of mankind to injure one another; in this latter respect his opinion seems to have coincided with the more modern doctrine of Hobbes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In 1622, he published at Bologna, in 8vo, “K^auvof xat ctM$ in Glossas Lib. IV. Institut. Justiniani,” &,c. and the following year he published, in 8vo, “De Juramento, Lib. III. Locus et Antiq. Rom. retractatus,” &c. He died at Bologna in 1625.

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

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

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

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

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

Whose fame on the Sophy and Cooper’s Hill stands;

And brought many stationers, who swore very hard,

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

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

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

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

On the above, so often repeated, lines on the Thames, and so often parodied, the reader may find some curious disquisitions in lord Mouboddo’s “Origin and Progress of Language,” and in Mason’s “Essay on the power of Numbers and the principles of Harmony,” 1749. The only opponent of Denham as a poet, generally, is Mr. Scott in his “Critical Essays,” but with Dryden, Johnson, Warton, &c. &c. in his favour, his reputation cannot suffer much by a solitary foe.

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

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

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

The historian of his college says very justly, that whether Dr. Denne is to be considered as the minister of a parish, or as a governor in the church, he never failed, by an uncommon degree of application, to acquit himself with credit in each station. His abilities as a scholar and divine maybe estimated from his printed sermons, amounting to sixteen, preached on occasional subjects; a “Concio ad Clerum,” 174-5; “Articlesof inquiry for a parochial Visitation,” 1732; “The State of Bromley College, in Kent” and “A Register of Benefactions to the parish of Shoreditch,” drawn up in 1745, with notes, but not printed till 1772, 4to. His assiduityand usefulness in promoting what he conceived to be for the interest and credit of this parish, were conspicuous, in his successful researches after the benefactions, and the application of them 5 in the business of rebuilding the church from its origin to the completion; and in establishing upon the present plan the vegetable lecture founded by Mr. Faircliild.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the beginning of 1704 our author distinguished himself as an antagonist of the famous Jeremy Collier. That gentleman had made his first attack upon the stage in. 1698; and, upon occasion of the great storm which happened on the 27th of November 1703, renewed his attack, in. a pamphlet entitled “A Dissuasive from the Play-house; written by way of letter to a Person of Quality.” The design of this piecewas to represent the tempest as a judgment upon the nation for the enormities of the theatre. On this Dennis wrote “The Person of Quality’s Answer to Mr. Collier’s Letter: containing a Defence of a regulated Stage,” fn which he had the prudence to confine himself to the vindication of a theatre under proper regulations; freely giving up the licentiousness and profaneness by which it had formerly been so greatly dishonoured, and which rendered the greater part of Collier’s writings unanswerable.

In 1706 our author published “An Essay on the Operas, after the Italian manner, which are about to be established on the English Stage; with some reflections on the damage which they may bring to the public.” His opinions here iiad been adopted by the most eminent writers of the time, who had some cause for resentment in the cold reception that had been given to the English drama. Our author declares, however, in his preface, that his treatise is only levelled against those operas which are entirely musical; since those which are dramatical may be partly defended by the examples of the ancients. Another of Mr. Dennis’s critical publications, but of what date we are not able to ascertain, is preserved in his select works, “The Grounds of Criticism in Poetry,” a sequel to the sentiments which he had maintained in his “Advancement and Reformation of modern Poetry.” Here he again insists upon the immense scope which religion affords for poetic excellence. Under the word religion he includes the whole system of supernatural machinery, the introduction of superior beings, and all the noble fictions, sentiments, addresses, and images, that may be derived from the knowledge of revelation. In the beginning of 1711 our author produced another tract, which added farther to his reputation as a critic; his three “Letters on the Genius and Writings of Shakspeare,” in which he has drawn the poetical character of our immortal dramatist with sagacity and judgment; and has strongly supported the opinion of Shakspeare’s learning, which has since more decisively been maintained by Dr. Farmer.

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

And shakes his empty noddle at his brother."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Such are the outlines of a life which his biographer has extended to two volumes, of considerable size, without affording a period or an incident on which the mind can dwell with any pleasure. The whole, indeed, forms a most disgusting picture of early and uniform depravity, a character wholly formed of shade, and comparable to nothing we remember. As a poet, Dermody cannot be allowed to rank very high. With a happy ear for versification, he gives us only common ideas and common images variously applied; whether he might have produced any work of a superior kind, had he been regular and studious, cannot now be ascertained. The early age at which he produced many of his pieces affords no ground of probability. If, according to his biographer, he wrote as well at the age of ten, as Cowley, Milton, or Pope, it is certain that he sunk as much below them afterwards.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All Boyle ennobled, and all Bacon knew,

Without a guinea, and without a grave."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

, the first earl of Essex of this name and family, a general equally distinguished for his courage and conduct, and a nobleman not more illustrious by his titles than by his birth, was descended from a most ancient and noble farrr!“, being the son of sir Richard Devereux, knight, by Do 'thy, daughter of George earl of Huntingdon, and gra.idson of Walter viscount of Hereford, so created by king Edward the Sixth. He was born about 1540, at his grandfather’s castle in Carmarthenshire, and during his education applied himself to his studies with great diligence and success. He succeeded to the titles of viscount Hereford and lord Ferrers of Chartley, in the nineteenth year of his age, and being early distinguished for his modesty, learning, and loyalty, stood in higii favour with his sovereign, queen Elizabeth. In 1569, upon the breaking out of the rebellion in the north, under the earls of Northumberland and Westmoreland, he raised a considerable body of forces, which joining those belonging to the lord admiral and the earl of Lincoln, he was declared marshal of the army, and obliged the rebels to disperse. This so highly recommended him to the queen, that in 1572 she honoured him with the garter, and on the 4th of May, the same year, created him earl of Essex, as being descended by his great grandmother from the noble family of Bourchier, long before honoured with the same title. In the month of January following, he was one of the peers that sat in judgment upon the duke of Norfolk. At this time he was such a favourite with the queen, that some, who were for confining her good graces to themselves, endeavoured to remove him by encouraging an inclination he shewed to adventure both his person and fortune for her majesty’s service in Ireland. Accordingly, on the 16th of August, 1573, he embarked at Liverpool, accompanied by lord Darcy, lord Rich, and many other persons of distinction, together with a multitude of volunteers, who were incited by the hopes of preferment, and his lordship’s known reputation. His reception in Ireland was not very auspicious landing at Knockfergus on the 16th of September, he found the chiefs of the rebels inclined apparently to submit; but having gained time, they broke out again into open rebellion. Lord Rich was called away by his own affairs, and by degrees, most of those who went abroad with the earl, came home again upon a variety of pretences. In this situation Essex desired the queen to carry on the service in her own name, and by her own command, though he should be at one half of the expence. Afterwards he applied to the earls of Sussex and Leicester, and the lord Burleigh, to induce the queen to pay one hundred horse and six hundred foot; which, however, did not take effect; but the queen, perceiving the slight put upon him, and that the lord deputy had delayed sending him his commission, was inclined to recal him out of Ulster, if Leicester and others, who had promoted his removal, had not dissuaded her. The lord deputy, at last, in 1574, sent him his patent, but with positive orders to pursue the earl of Desmond one way, while himself pressed him another. The earl of Essex reluctantly obeyed, and either forced or persuaded the earl of Desmond to submission; and it is highly probable, would have performed more essential service, if he had not been thwarted. The same misfortune attended his subsequent attempts; and, excepting the zeal of his attendants, the affection of the English soldiers, and the esteem of the native Irish, he gained nothing by all his pains. Worn out at length with these fruitless fatigues, he, the next year, desired leave to conclude upon honourable terms an accommodation with Turlough Oneile, which was refused him. He then surrendered the government of Ulster into the lord deputy’s hands, believing the forces allowed him altogether insufficient for its defence; but the lord deputy obliged him to resume it, and to majrch against Turlough, Oneile, which he accordingly did; and his enterprize” being in a fair way of succeeding, he was surprized to receive instructions, which peremptorily required him to make peace. This likewise he concluded, without loss of honour, and then turned his arms against the Scots from the western islands, who had invaded and taken possession, of his country. These he quickly drove out, and, by the help of Norris, followed them into one of their islands; and was preparing to dispossess them of other posts, when he was required to give up his command, and afterwards to serve at the head of a small body of three hundred men, with no other title than their captain. All this he owed to Leicester; but, notwithstanding his chagrin, he continued to perform his duty, without any shew of resentment, out of respect to the queen’s service. In the spring of the succeeding year he came over to England, and did not hesitate to express his indignation against the all-powerful favourite, for the usage he had met xvith. But as it was the custom of that great man to debase his enemies by exalting them, so he procured an order for the earl of Essex’s return into Ireland, with the sounding title of earl -marshal of that kingdom, and with promises that he should be left more at liberty than in times past; but, upon his arrival at Ireland, he found his situation so little altered for the better, that he pined away with grief and sorrow, which at length proved fatal to him, and brought him to his end. There is nothing more certain, either from the public histories, or private memoirs and letters of that age, than the excellent character of this noble earl, as a brave soldier, a loyal subject, and a disinterested patriot; and in private life he was of a chearful temper, kind, affectionate, and beneficent to all who were about him. He was taken ill of a flux on the 21st of August, and in great pain and misery languished to the 22d of September, 1576, when he departed this life at Dublin, being scarcely thirty-five years old. There was a very strong report at the time, of his being poisoned; but for this there seems little foundation, yet it must have been suspected, as an inquiry was immediately made by authority, and sir Henry Sidney, then lord deputy of Ireland, wrote very fully upon this subject to the privy-council in England, and to one of the members of that council in particular. The corpse of the earl was speedily brought over to England, carried to the place of his nativity, Carmarthen, and buried there with great solemnity, and with most extraordinary i< monies of the unfeigned sorrow of all the country round about. A funeral sermon was preached on this occasion, Nov. 26, 1576, and printed at London 1577, 4to. He married Lettice, daughter to sir Frances Knolles, knight of the garter, who survived him many years, and whose speedy marriage after his death to the earl of Leicester, upon whom common fame threw the charge of hastening his death, perhaps might encourage that report. By this lady he had two sons, Robert and Walter, and two daughters, Penelope, first married to Robert lord Rich, and then to Charles Blount, earl of Devonshire; and Dorothy, who becoming the widow of sir Thomas Perrot, knight, espoused for her second husband Henry Percy earl of Northumberland.

One important objection only has been brought forward against the character of the first earl of Essex, which is mentioned by Dr. Leland, in his History of Ireland. The story, as literally translated by Mr. O'Connor, from the Irish manuscript annals of queen Elizabeth’s reign, is as follows: “Anno 1574. A solemn peace and concord was made between the earl of Essex and Felim O‘Nial. However, at a feast wherein the earl entertained that chieftain, and at the end of their good cheer, O’Nial with his wife were seized, their friends who attended were put to the sword before their faces. Felim, together with his wife and brother, were conveyed to Dublin, where they were cut up in quarters. This execution gave universal discontent and horrour.” Considering the general character of the earl of Essex, we cannot avoid greatly doubting of the authenticity of this fact; and indeed, if it was founded on truth, it must appear very extraordinary that it should not have occurred in any other narrative of the times.

Mr. Park has allotted this nobleman a place in his additions to the “Royal and Noble Authors,” as having written “The Complaint of a Sinner, made and sung by the earle of Essex upon his beath-bed in Ireland,” printed in the “Paradise of dainty Devises,” 1576. There is a copy of this in the Harleian Mss. 293, with an account of the earl’s sickness and death, which latter is ascribed to a dysentery, without any hint of poison. Besides this, the earl wrote a letter to the council, another to the queen, and a third to lord Burleigh, all which afford favourable proofs of his talents and excellent character. The former is inserted in the Biographia Britannica, and the two latter in Murden’s State Papers.

, earl of Essex, memorable for having been a great favourite, and an unhappy victim to the arts of his enemies and his own ambition, m the reign of queen Elizabeth, was son of the preceding, and born Nov. 10, 1567, at Netherwood, his father’s seat in Herefordshire. His father dying when he was only in his 10th year, recommended him to the protection of William Cecil lord Burleigh, whom he appointed his guardian. Two years after, he was sent to the university of Cambridge by this lord, who placed him in Trinity college, under the care of Dr. Whitgift, then master of it, and afterwards archbishop of Canterbury. But Mr. Cole, for many reasons, is inclined to think that he was placed at Queen’s, under Dr. Chaderton. He was, however, educated with much strictness, and applied himself to learning with great diligence; though it is said that, in his tender years, there did not appear aoy pregnant signs of that extraordinary genius which shone forth in him afterwards. In 1583, he took the decree of M. A. and kept his public act, and soon after left Cambridge, and retired to his own house at Lampsie in South Wales, where he spent some time, and became so enamoured of his rural retreut, that he was with difficulty prevailed on to quit it. His first appearance at court, at least as a candidate for royal favour, was in his seventeenth year; and he brought thither a fine person, an agreeable behaviour, and an affability which procured him many friends. By degrees he so far overcame the reluctance he first shewed against the earl of Leicester, his father’s enemy, and now very strangely his father-in-law, that in 1585 he accompanied him to Holland, where we find him next year in the field, with the title of general of the horse. In this quality he gave the highest proofs of personal courage in the battle of Zutphen, fought in 1586; and, on his return to England, was made, the year after, master of the horse in the room of lord Leicester promoted. In 1588, he continued to rise, and indeed almost reached the summit of his fortune; for, when her majesty thought fit to assemble an army at Tilbury, for the defence of the kingdom against the Spanish invasion, she gave the command of it, under herself, to the earl of Leicester, and created the earl of Essex general of the horse. From this time he was considered as the favourite declared; and if there was any mark yet wanting to rix the people’s opinion in that respect, it was shewn by the queen’s conferring on him the honour of the garter.

So quick an elevation, and to so great an height, unfortunately excited an impetuosity of spirit that was natural to the earl of Essex, who, among other instances of uncontrouled temper, often behaved petulantly to the queen herself t who did not admit, while she sometimes provoked, freedoms of that kind from her subjects. His eagerness about this time to dispute her favour with sir Charles Blunt, afterwards lord Montjoy and earl of Devonshire, ended in a duel, in which sir Charles wounded him in the knee. The queen, so far from being displeased with it, is said to have sworn a good round oath, that it was fit somebody should take him down, otherwise there would be no ruling him, yet she assisted in reconciling the rivals; who, to their honour, continued good friends as long as they lived. la 1589, sir John Norris and sir Francis Drake having undertaken an expedition for restoring don Antonio to the crown of Portugal, the earl of Essex, willing to share the glory, followed the fleet and army to Spain; which displeasing the queen very bighty, as it was done without her consent or knowledge, she sent him the following letter: “Essex, your sudden and undutifnl departure from our presence and your place of attendance, you may easily conceive how offensive it is and ought to be unto us. Our great favours, bestowed upon you without deserts, have drawn you. thus to neglect and forget your duty; for other construction we cannot make of these your strange actions. Not meaning, therefore, to tolerate this your disordered part, we gave directions to some of our privy-council, to let you know our express pleasure for your immediate repair hither, which you have not performed as your duty doth bind you, increasing thereby greatly your former offence and undutiful behaviour in departing in such sort without our privity, having so special office of attendance and charge near our person. We do therefore charge and command you forthwith, upon the receipt of these our letters, all excuses and delays set apart, to make your present and immediate repair nnto us, to understand our farther pleasure. Whereof see you fail not, as you will be loth to incur our indignation, and will answer for the contrary at your uttermost peril. The 15th of April, 1589.”

At his return, however, he soon recovered her majesty’s good graces, but again irritated her by a private match \ttth Frances, only daughter of sir Francis Walsingham, and widow of sir Philip Sidney. This her majesty apprehended to be derogatory to the honour of the house of Essex; and, though for the present, little notice was taken of it, yet it is thought that it was not soon forgot. In 1591, he went abroad, at the head of some forces, to assist Henry IV. of France: which expedition was afterwards repeated, but with little or no success. In 1592-3, we find him present in the parliament at Westminster, about which time the queen made him one of her privy-council. He met, however, in this and the succeeding years, with various causes of chagrin, partly from the loftiness of his own temper, but chiefly from the artifices of those who envied his great credit with the queen, and were desirous to reduce his power within bounds. Thus a dangerous and treasonable book, written abroad by Parsons, a Jesuit, and published under the name of Doleman, with a view of creating dissension in England about the succession to the crown, was dedicated to him, on purpose to make him odious; and it had its effect. But what chiefly soured his spirit, was his perceiving plainly, that though he could in most suits prevail for himself, yet he was able to do little or nothing for his friends. This appeared remarkably in the case of sir Francis Bacon, which the earl bore with much impatience; and, resolving that his friend should not be neglected, gave him of his own a small estate in land. There are indeed few circumstances in the life of this noble person, that do greater honour to his memory, than his patronage of men of parts and learning. It was this regard for genius which induced him to bury the immortal Spenser at his own expence; and in the latter part of his life, engaged him to take the learned sir Henry Wotton, and the ingenious Mr. Cuffe, into his service: as in his earlier days he had admitted the incomparable brothers, Anthony and Francis Bacon, to share his fortunes and his cares.

But whatever disadvantages the earl might labour under from* intrigues at court, the queen had commonly recourse to his assistance in all dangers and difficulties, and placed him at the head of her fleets and armies, preferably to any other person. His enemies, on the other hand, were contriving and exerting all they could against him, by insinuating to the queen, that, considering his popularity, it would not be at all expedient for her service to receive such as he recommended to civil employments; and they carried this so far, as even to make his approbation a sufficient objection to men whom they had encouraged and recommended themselves. In 1598, a warm dispute arose in the council, between the old and wise lord-treasurer Burleigh and the earl of Essex, about continuing the war with Spain. The earl was for it, the treasurer against it; who at length grew into a great heat, and told the earl that he seemed intent upon nothing but blood and slaughter. The earl explained himself, and said, that the blood and slaughter of the queen’s enemies might be very lawfully his intention; that he was not against a solid, but a specious and precarious peace; that the Spaniards were a subtle and ambitious people, who had contrived to do England more mischief in the time of peace, than of war, &c. The treasurer at last drew out a Prayer-book, in which he shewed Essex this expression: “Men of blood shall not live out half their days.” As the earl knew that methods would be used to prejudice him with the people of England, especially the trading part, who would easily be persuaded to think themselves oppressed by taxes levied for the support of the war, he resolved to vindicate his proceedings, and for that purpose drew up in writing his own arguments, which he addressed to his dear friend Anthony Bacon. This apology stole into the world not long after it was written; and the queen, it is said, was exceedingly offended at it. The title of it runs thus: “To Mr. Anthony Bacon, an Apologie of the Earle of Essexe, against those which falselie and maliciouslie take him to be the only hindrance of the peace and quiet of his countrie.” This was reprinted in 1729, under the title of “The Earl of Essex’s vindication of the war with Spain,” in 8vo.

About this time died the treasurer Burleigh, which was a great misfortune to the earl of Essex; for that lord having shewn a tenderness for the earl’s person, and a concern for his fortunes, had many a time stood between him and his enemies. But now, this guardian being gone, they acted without any restraint, crossed whatever he proposed, stopped the rise of every man he loved, and treated all his projects with an air of contempt. He succeeded lord Burleigh as chancellor of the university of Cambridge; and, going down, was there entertained with great magnificence*. This is reckoned one of the last instances of this great man’s felicity, who was now advanced too high to sit at ease; and those who longed for his honours and employments, very closely applied themselves to bring about his fall. The first great shock he received came from the queen herself, and arose from a warm dispute with her majesty about the choice of some fit and able person to superintend the affairs of Ireland. Camden tells us, that there were only present on this remarkable occasion, the lord admiral, sir Robert Cecil, secretary; and “Windebanke, clerk of the seal. The queen considered sir William Knolls, uncle to Essex, as the most proper person for that charge: Essex contended, that sir George Carew was a much fitter man for it. When the queen could not be persuaded to approve his choice, he so far forgot himself and his duty, as to turn his back upon her in a contemptuous manner; which insolence her majesty not being able to bear, gave him a box on the ear, and, somewhat in her father’s language, bid him” go and be hanged.“He immediately clapped his hand on his sword, and the lord admiral stepping in between, he swore a great oath, declaring that he neither could nor would put up an affront of that nature; that he would not have taken it at the hands of Henry VIII. and in a great passion immediately withdrew from court. The lord keeper advised him to apply himself to the queen for pardon. He sent the lord keeper his answer in a long and passionate letter, which his friends afterwards unadvisedly communicated; in which he appealed from the queen to God Almighty, in expressions to this purpose:” That there was no tempest so boisterous as the resentment of an angry prince; that

considered as a patron of the puritan lord Buckhurst, and he was accordingly

parly, as his deceased father-in-law chosen, had been, the interest of the lord chanthe queen was of a flinty temper; that he well enough knew what was due from him as a subject, an earl, and grand marshal of England, but did not understand the office of a drudge or a porter; that to own himself a criminal was to injure truth, and the author of it, God Almighty: that his body suffered in every part of it by that blow given by his prince; and that it would be a crime in him to serve a queen who had given him so great an affront." He was afterwards reconciled and restored in appearance to the queen’s favour, yet there is good reason to doubt whether he ever recovered it in reality: and his friends have generally dated his ruin from this singular dispute *.

The ear) met with nothing in Ireland but disappointments, in the midst of which, an army was suddenly raised in England, under the command of the earl of Nottingham; nobody well knowing why, but in reality from the suggestions of the earl’s enemies to the queen, that he rather meditated an invasion on his native country, than the reduction of the Irish rebels. This and other considerations made him resolve to quit his post, and come over to England; which he accordingly did, and presented himself before the queen. He met with a tolerable reception; but was soon after confined, examined, and dismissed from all his offices, except that of master of the horse. In the summer of“1600, he recovered his liberty; and in the autumn following, he received Mr. Cuffe, who had been his secretary in Ireland (See Cuffe), into his councils. Cuffe, who was a man of his own disposition, laboured to persuade him, that submission would never do him any good; that the queen was in the hands of a faction, who were his enemies; and that the only way to restore his fortune was to obtain an audience, by whatever means he could, in order to represent his case. The earl did not consent at first to this dangerous advice; but afterwards, giving a loose to his passion, began to declare himself openly, and among other fatal expressions let fall this, that” the queen grew old and cankered; and that her mind was become as crooked as her carcase.“His enemies, who had exact intelligence of all that he proposed, and had provided effectually against the execution of his designs, hurried him upon his fate by a message, sent on the evening of Feb. 7, requiring him to attend the council, which he declined. This appears to have unmanned him, and in his distraction of mind, he gave out, that they sought his life kept a watch in Essex-house all night; and summoned his friends for his defence the next morning. Many disputes ensued, and some blood was spilt; but the earl at last surrendered, and was carried that night to the archbishop’s palace at Lambeth, and the next day to the Tower. On the 19th, he was arraigned before his peers, and after a long trial was sentenced to lose his head: upon which melancholy occasion he said nothing more than this, viz.” If her majesty had pleased, this body of mine might have done her better service; however, I shall be glad if it may prove serviceable to her any way.“He was executed upon the 25th, in his thirty-fourth year, leaving behind him one only son and two daughters. As to his person, he is reported to have been tall, but not very well made; his countenance reserved; his air rather martial than courtly; very careless in dress, and a little addicted to trifling diversions, He was learned, and a lover of learned men, whom he always encouraged and rewarded. He was sincere in his friendships, but not so careful as he ought to have been in making a right choice; sound in his morals, except in point of gallantry, and thoroughly well affected to the protestant religion. Historians inform us, that as to his execution, the queen remained irresolute to the very last, and sent sir Edward Carey to countermand it but, as Camden says, considering afterwards his obstinacy in refusing to ask her pardon, she countermanded those orders, and directed that he should die. There is an odd story current in the world about a ring, which the chevalier Louis Aubrey de Mourier, many years the French minister in Holland, and a man of great parts and unsuspected credit, delivers as an undoubted truth; and that upon the authority of an English minister, who might be well presumed to know what he said. As the incident is remarkable, and has made much noise, we will report it in the words of that historian:” It will not, I believe, be thought either impertinent or disagreeable to add here, what prince Maurice had from the mouth of Mr. Carleton, ambassador of England in Holland, who died secretary of state so well known under the name of lord Dorchester, and who was a man of great merit. He said, that queen Elizabeth gave the earl of Essex a ring, in the height of her passion for him, ordering him to keep it; and that whatever he should commit, she would pardon him when he should return that pledge. Since that time the earl’s enemies having prevailed with the queen, who, besides, was exasperated against him for the contempt he had shewed her beauty, now through age upon the decay, she caused him to be impeached. When he was condemned, she expected to receive from him the ring, and would have granted him his pardon according to her promise. The earl, finding himself in the last extremity, applied to admiral Howard’s lady, who was his relation; and desired her, by a person she could trust, to deliver the ring into the queen’s own hands. But her husband, who was one of the earl’s greatest enemies, and to whom she told this imprudently, would not suffer her to acquit herself of the commission; so that the queen consented to the earl’s death, being full of indignation against so proud and haughty a spirit, who chose rather to die than implore her mercy. Some time after, the admiral’s lady fell sick; and, being given over by her physicians, she sent word to the queen that she had something of great consequence to tell her before she died. The queen came to her bedBide i and having ordered all her attendants to withdraw, the admiral’s lady returned her, but too late, that ring from the earl of Essex, desiring to be excused for not having returned it sooner, since her husband had prevented her. The queen retired immediately, overwhelmed with the utmost grief; she sighed continually for a fortnight, without taking any nourishment, lying in bed entirely dressed, and getting up an hundred times a night. At last she died with hunger and with grief, because she had consented to the death of a lover who had applied to her for mercy." Histoire de Hollancle, p. 215, 216.

This account has commonly been treated as a fable; but late discoveries seem to have confirmed it. See the proofs of this remarkable fact, collected in Birch’s Negociations, &c. p. 206, and Hume’s History, at the end of Elizabeth’s reign.

Lord Orford has entered into a long disquisition on the proofs of queen Elizabeth’s love for the earl of Essex, and certainly proves that she had a more than ordinary attachment to him, although in some of the circumstances it ap pears to savour more of the fondness of a capricious mother, than of a mistress. His lordship has done wiser in having placed the earl of Essex among the noble authors of England. The various pieces enumerated by lord Orford justly entitle him to that distinction; and he has a farther claim to it from the numerous letters of his which occur in the different collections of state papers, and especially in Birch’s “Memoirs of the Reign of queen Elizabeth.” “But of all his compositions,” says Mr. Walpole, “the most excellent, and in many respects equal to the performances of the greatest geniuses, is a long letter to the queen from Ireland, stating the situation of that country in a most masterly manner, both as a general and statesman, and concluding with strains of the tenderest eloquence, on finding himself so unhappily exposed to the artifice of his enemies during his absence. It cannot fail to excite admiration, that a man ravished from all improvement and reflection at the age of seventeen, to be nursed, perverted, fondled, dazzled in a court, should, notwithstanding, have snatched such opportunities of cultivating his mind and understanding:” In another letter from Ireland, he says movingly, “I provided for this service a breast-plate, but not a cuirass; that is, I am armed on the breast, but not On the back.”

It has been surmised that the earl of Essex used the pen, first, of Francis Bacon, and afterwards of Cuffe. Speaking of Bacon, Dr. Birch observes, that it is certain that Essex did not want any such assistance, and could not have had it upon many and most important occasions, which required him to write' some of the most finished of his epistolary performances, the style of which is not only very different from, but likewise much more natural, easy, and perspicuous than that of his friend, who acknowledges it to be “far better than his own.” With regard to Cuffe, Mr. Walpole remarks, that he might have some hand in collecting the materials relative to business, but that there runs through all the earl’s letters a peculiarity of style, so adapted to his situation and feelings, as could not have been felt for him or dictated by any body else.

It was as a prose-writer that the earl of Essex excelled, and not as a poet. He is said to have translated one of Ovid’s Epistles; and a few of his sonnets are preserved in the Ashmolean museum. They display, however, no marks of poetic genius. “But if Essex,” says Mr. Warton, “was no poet, few noblemen of his age were more courted by poets. From Spenser to the lowest rhymer he was the subject of numerous sonnets, or popular ballads. I will not except Sydney. I could produce evidence to prove, that he scarcely ever went out of England, or even left London, on the most frivolous enterprize, without a pastoral in his praise, or a panegyric in metre, which were sold and sung in the streets. Having interested himself in the fashionable poetry of the times, he was placed high in the ideal Arcadia now just established; and, among other instances which might be brought, on his return from Portugal in 1589 he was complimented with a poem called” An Egloge gratulatorie entituled to the right honorable and renowned shepherd of Albion’s Arcadia, Robert earl of Essex, and for his returne lately into England.“This is a light in which lord Essex is seldom viewed. I know not if the queen’s fatal partiality, or his own inherent attractions, his love of literature, his heroism, integrity, and generosity, qualities which abundantly overbalance his presumption, his vanity, and impetuosity, had the greater share in dictating these praises. If adulation were any where justifiable, it must be when paid to the man who endeavoured to save Spenser from starving in the streets of Dublin, and who buried him in Westminster-abbey with becoming solemnity. Spenser was persecuted by Burleigh because he was patronised by Essex.”

No small degree of popularity has always adhered to the character and memory of the earl of Essex. A strong proof of this is his having been the subject of four different tragedies. We refer to the “Unhappy favourite,” by John Banks the “Fall of the Earl of Essex,” by James Ralph the “Earl of Essex,” by Henry Jones and the “Earl of Essex,” by Henry Brooke.

, son to the former, and third earl of Essex, was born in 1592, at Essex-house, in the Strand; and at the time of his father’s unhappy death, was under the care of his grandmother, by whom he was sent to Eton school, where he was first educated. In the month of January 1602, he was entered a gentleman-commoner of Merton- college, Oxford, where he had an apartment in the warden’s lodgings, then Mr. Savile, afterwards the celebrated sir Henry Savile, his father’s dear friend, and who, for his sake, was exceedingly careful in seeing that he was learnedly and religiously educated. The year following, he was restored to his hereditary honours; and in 1605, when king James visited the university of Oxford, our young earl of Essex was created M. A. on the 30th of August, for the first tirne, which very probably he had forgotten, or he would not have received the same honour above thirty years afterwards. He was already in possession of his father’s high spirit, of which he gave a sufficient indication in a quarrel which he had with prince Henry. Some dispute arose between them at a game at tennis; the prince called his companion the son of a traitor; who retaliated by giving him a severe blow with his racket; and the king was obliged to interfere to restore peace. At the age of fourteen, he was betrothed to lady Frances Howard, who was still younger than himself; but he immediately set out on his travels, and during his absence the affections of his young wife were estranged from him, and fixed upon the king’s favourite, Carr, afterwards earl of Somerset. The consequence was a suit instituted against the husband for impotency, in which, to the disgrace of the age, the king interfered, and which ended in a divorce. The earl of Essex, feeling himself disgraced by the sentence, retired to his country seat, and spent some years in rural sports and amusements. In 120, being wearied of a state of inaction, he joined the earl of Oxford in a military expedition to the Palatinate, where they served with companies of their own raising, under sir Horatio Vere, and in the following year they served in Holland, under prince Maurice, In the course of the winter they returned to England, and lord Essex appeared in the ranks of the opposition in parliament. On this account he was not favourably received at court, which was the mean of attaching him the more closely to foreign service. He commanded a regiment raised in England for the United States in 1624, and though nothing very important was atchieved by the English auxiliaries, yet he acquired experience, and distinguished himself among the nobility of the time. On the accession of Charles I. he was employed as vice-admiral in an expedition against Spain, which proved unsuccessful. In 1626, he made another campaign in the Low Countries, and shortly after he formed another unhappy match, by marrying the daughter of sir William Paulet, from whom, owing to her misconduct, he was divorced within two years. He now resolved to give himself up entirely to public life; he courted popularity, and made friends among the officers of the army and the puritan ministers. He was, however, employed by the king in various important services; but when the king and court left the metropolis, lord Essex pleaded in excuse his obligation to attend in his place as a peer of the realm, and was accordingly deprived of all his employments; a step which alone seemed wanting to fix him in opposition to the king; and in July 1642 he accepted the post of general of the parliamentary army. He opposed the king in person at Edge-hill, where the victory was so indecisive, that each party claimed it as his own. After this he was successful in some few instances, but in other important trusts he did little to recommend him to the persons in whose interests he was employed. He was, however, treated with external respect, until the self-denying ordinance threw him entirely out of the command: he resigned his commission, but not without visible marks of discontent. Unwilling to lose him altogether, the parliament voted that he should be raised to a dukedom, and be allowed 10,000l. per annum, to support his new dignity; but these were vented by a sudden death, which, as in the case of his grandfather, was by some attributed to unfair means. He died September 14, 1646. Parliament directed a public funeral for him, which was performed with great solemnity in the following month, at Westminster abbey. In his conduct, the particulars of which may be seen in the history of the times, a want of steadiness is to be discovered, which candour would refer to the extraordinary circumstances in which public men were then placed. Personal affronts at court, whether provoked or not, led him to go a certain length with those who, he did not perceive, wanted to go much farther, and although he appeared in arms against his sovereign, no party was pleased with his efforts to preserve a balance; yet, with all his er/ors, Hume and other historians, not friendly to the republican cause, have considered his death as a public misfortune. Hume says, that fully sensible of the excesses to which affairs had been carried, and of the worse consequences which were still to be apprehended, he had resolved to conciliate a peace, and to remedy as far as possible all those ills to which, from mistake rather than any bad intention, he had himself so much contributed. The presbyterian, or the moderate party among the commons, found themselves considerably weakened by his death; and the small remains of authority which still adhered to the house of peers, were in a manner wholly extinguished.

, a French adventurer, of whose private life little is known, and whose public history is not of the most reputable kind, requires, however, some notice, as the author of various publications, and an agent in some political transactions which once were deemed of importance. He styled himself advocate in the parliament of Bourdeaux. The first notice of him occurs about 1763, when he had a concern in the quarrel between the count de Guerchy, ambassador extraordinary from the court of France, and the chevalier D‘Eon, (see D’EoN). About this time D‘Eon published a letter to the count de Guerchy, by which we learn that De Vergy solicited his (D’Eon’s) acquaintance, which he declined unless he* brought letters of recommendation, and that De Vergy, piqued at the refusal, boasted of being perfectly well known to the count de Guerchy, which proved to be a falsehood. This produced a quarrel between D‘Eon and De Vergy, and a pamphlet in answer to D’Eon’s letter, and another answer under the title of “Centre Note.” After the more celebrated quarrel between de Guerchy and D‘Eon, De Vergy published a parcel of letters from himself to the due de Cboiseul, in which he positively asserts that the count de Guerchy prevailed with him to come over to England to assassinate D’Eon. He even went farther, and before the grand jury of Middlesex, made oath to the same effect. Upon this deposition, the grand jury found a bill of intended murder against the count de Guerchy; which bill, however, never came to the petty jury. The king granted a noli prosequi in favour of De Guerchy, and the attorney-general was ordered to prosecute De Vergy, with the result of which order we are unacquainted; but it is certain that De Vergy, in his last will, confesses his concern in a plot against D'Eon, and intimates that he withdrew his assistance upon finding that it was intended to affect the chevalier’s life. After the above transaction, we find him in 1767, publishing “Lettre centre la Raison,” or, “A Letter against Reason, addressed to the chevalier D'Eon,” in which he repeats some of the hacknied doctrines of the French philosophical school, and professes himself a free-thinker. This was followed by a succession of novels, entitled “The Mistakes of the Heart;” “The Lovers” “Nature” “Henrietta;” “The Scotchman;” and “The Palinode,” written in remarkably good English, and with much knowledge of human nature; but scarcely one of them is free from the grossest indelicacies. He wrote also, in 1770, “A Defence of the duke of Cumberland,” a wretched catchpenny. De Vergy died Oct. 1, 1774, aged only forty-two, and remained unburied until March, his executor waiting for directions from his family. He had desired in his will that his relations would remove his body to Bourdeaux, but it was at last interred in St. Pancras church-yard.

, a learned physician, and voluminous writer on medicine and natural philosophy, was born at Meurs, in the duchy of Juliers, October 16th, 4612. After studying the classics and the Arabic and Persian languages, he went to Leyden, where he completed his education by taking the degree of M. D. in 1634; and three years after was appointed professor in mathematics at Meurs. In 1639, he was called to succeed Isaac Pontanus in the chair of natural philosophy and mathematics; and in 1642 to that of medicine, at Hardenvick, to which was added the office of physician to the city. From Harderwick he went to Groningen, where he was not only professor of medicine, but rector of the university, and ancient of the church. Amid the business which such accumulated duties heaped upon him, he found leisure to write a greater number of treatises on the different parts of medicine and philosophy than have fallen from the pen. of almost any other man. Haller and Manget have given a list of fifty-four, but a small number of these are on practical subjects, many of them being metaphysical and controversial. Those relating to his controversy with Silvius, are written with great acrimony; though the subjects, which are mostly physiological, do not seem calculated to excite so much rancour as we see infused into them. Among these are, “Joannes Cloppenburgius, Heautontimorumenos, seu retorsio injuriarum de libello falsidico, cui titulus, Res judicata, cumulatarum,” 1643, 4to. The subject of dispute is the nature of the soul, and on the intelligences that direct the course of the stars.

, an eminent French architect, was born at Paris, Nov. 9, 1729. He was educated by one of his uncles, and from his earliest infancy discovered an. unconquerable partiality for the study and practice of architecture, in which he afterwards became a great proficient. His chief master was Lejay, who at this period had just established a new school of the profession, and recovered it from the contempt in which it had been held from the age of Lewis XIV. In 1752 Dewailly obtained the chief architectural prize, and the privilege of studying at Rome for three years, at the expence of the nation. Upon this success, his biographer notices an action truly generous and laudable in the mind of an emulous young man. The student to whom the second prize was decreed, and whose name was Moreau, appeared extremely sorrowful. Dewailly interrogated him upon the subject of his chagrin; and learning that it proceeded from his having lost the opportunity of prosecuting his profession in Italy, he flew to the president of the architectural committee, and earnestly solicited permission that his unfortunate rival might be allowed to travel to Rome as well as himself. On an objection being adduced from the established rules “Well, well,” replied he, “I yet know a mode of reconciling every thing. I am myself allotted three years; of these I can dispose as I like; I give eighteen months of them to Moreau.” This generous sacrifice was accepted; and Dewailly was amply rewarded by the public esteem which accompanied the transaction. In most of the modern buildings of taste and magnificence in his own country, Dewailly was a party employed, and many of his designs are engraven in the Encyclopedic and in Laborde’s Description of France. He was a member of the academy of painting, as well as that of architecture; in the latter of which he was at once admitted into the higher class, without having, as is customary, passed through the inferior. Of the national institute he was a member from its establishment. He died in 1799, having been spared the affliction of beholding one of his most exquisite pieces of workmanship, the magnificent hall of the Odeon, destroyed by fire, a catastrophe which occurred but a short time after his demise.

D‘Ewes (Sir Symonds), an English historian and antiquary, was the son of Paul D’Eues, esq. and born in 1602, at Coxden in Dorsetshire, the seat of Richard Syxnonds, esq. his mother’s father. He was descended from an ancient family in the Low Countries, from whence his ancestors removed hither, and gained a considerable settlement in the county of Suffolk. In 1618, he was entered a fellow- commoner of St. John’s college in Cambridge and about two years after, began to collect materials for forming a correct and complete history of Great Britain. He was no less studious in preserving the history of his own times; setting down carefully the best accounts he was able to obtain of every memorable transaction, at the time it happened. This disposition in a young man of parts recommended him to the acquaintance of persons of the first rank in the republic of letters, such as Cotton, Selden, Spelman, &c. In 1626, he married Anne, daughter to sir William Clopton of Essex, an exquisite beauty, not fourteen years old, with whom he was so sincerely captivated, that his passion for her seems to have increased almost to a degree of extravagance, even after she was his wife. He pursued his studies, however, as usual, with great vigour and diligence, and when little more than thirty years of age, finished that large and accurate work for which he is chiefly memorable. This work he kept by him during his life-time it being written, as he tells us, for his own private use. It was published afterwards with this title “The Journals of all the Parliaments during the reign of queen Elizabeth, both of the House of Lords and House of Commons, collected by sir Symonds D'Ewes, of Stowhall in the county of Suffolk, knt. and bart. revised and published by Paul Bowes, of the Middle Temple, esq. 1682,” folio. In 1633, he resided at Islington in Middlesex. In 1639, he served the office of high sheriff of the county of Suffolk, having been knighted some time before and in the long parliament, which was summoned to meet Nov. 3, 1640, he was elected burgess for Sudbury in that county. July 15, 1641, he was created a baronet; yet upon the breaking out of the civil war, he adhered to the parliament, and took the solemn league and covenant in 1643. He sat in this parliament till Dec. 1648, when he was turned out among those who were thought to have some regard left for the person of the king, and the old constitution in church and state. He died April 18, 1650, and was succeeded in his titles and large estate by his son Willoughby D'Ewes; to whom the above Journals were dedicated, when published, by his cousin Paul Bowes, esq. who was himself a gentleman of worth and learning.

Though these labours of sir Symonds contributed not a little to illustrate the general history of Great Britain, as well as to explain the important transactions of one of the most glorious reigns in it, yet two or three circumstances of his life have occasioned him to have been set by writers in perhaps a more disadvantageous light than he deserved; not to mention that general one, common to many others, of adhering to the parliament during the rebellion. Having occasion to write to archbishop Usher in 1639, he unfortunately let fall a hint to the prejudice of Camden’s *' Britannia;“for, speaking of the time and pains he had spent in collecting materials for an accurate history of Great Britain, and of his being principally moved to this task, by observing the many mistakes of the common writers, he adds,” And indeed what can be expected from them, considering that, even in the so much admired ‘Britannia’ of Camden himself, there is not a page, at least hardly a page, without errors?“This letter of his afterwards coming to light, among other epistles to that learned prelate, drew upon him the heaviest censures. Smith, the writer of the Latin life of Camden, assures us, that his” Britannia“was universally approved by all proper judges, one only, sir Symonds D'Ewes, excepted; who,” moved,“says he,” by I know not what spirit of envy, gave out that there was scarce a page,“&c. Nicolson, in his account of Camden’s work, says, that” some early attempts were made by an envious person, one Brook or Brookmouth, to blast the deservedly great reputation of this work but they perished and came to nothing; as did likewise the terrible threats given out by sir Symonds D'Ewes, that he would discover errors in every page.“Bishop Gibson has stated the charge against this gentleman more mildly, in his Life of Camden, prefixed to the English translation of his Britannia.” In the year 1607,“says the bishop,” he put the last hand to his Britannia, which gained him the titles of the Varro, Strabo, and Pausanias of Britain, in the writings and letters of other learned men. Nor did it ever after meet with any enemies that I know of, only sir Symonds D‘Ewes encouraged us to hope for animadversions upon the work, after he had observed to a very great man, that there was not a page in it without a fault. But it was only threatening; and neither the world was the better, nor was Mr. Camden’s reputation e’er the worse for it." Sir Symonds was certainly not defensible for throwing out at random, as it should seem, such a censure against a work universally well received, without ever attempting to support it; yet some have excused him by saying that this censure was contained in a private letter; and that sir Symonds had a high sense of Camden’s merit, whom he mentions very respectfully in the preface to his Journals, &c.

Another thing which hurt his character with some particular writers, was a very foolish speech he made in the long parliament, Jan. 2, 1640, in support of the antiquity of the university of Cambridge. This was afterwards published under the title of “A Speech delivered in parliament by Symonds D'Ewes, touching the antiquity of Cambridge, 1642,” 4to, and exposed him to very severe usage from Wood, Hearne, &c. as it still must to the contempt of every accurate antiquary. Other writers, however, and such as cannot be at all suspected of partiality to him, have spoken much to his honour. Echard, in his History of England, savs, “We shall next mention sir Symonds D'Ewes, a gentleman educated at the university of Cambridge, celebrated for a most curious antiquary, highly esteemed by the great Selden, and particularly remarkable for his Journals of all the parliaments in queen Elizabeth’s reign, and for his admirable ms library he left behind him, now in the hands of one of the greatest geniuses of the age:” meaning the late earl of Oxford. Some curious extracts from the ms journal of his own life (preserved among the Harieian Mss.) are printed in the “Bibliotheca Topographica Britannica, 1783.” In this he has given a minute account of his courtship and marriage. The only love-letter he had occasion to send, and which was accompanied with a present of a diamond carcanet, was as follows:

"Blest is the heart and hand that sincerely sends these meaner lines, if another heart and eye gratiouslie daigne to pittie the wound of the first, and the numnes of the latter: and thus may this other poore inclosed carcanett, if not adorn the purer neck, yet be hidden in the private cabinet of her, whose humble sweetness and sweet humility deserve the justest honour, the greatest thankfulness. Nature made stones, but opinion jewels; this, without your milder acceptance and opinion, will prove neither stone nor jewel. Do but enhappie him that sent it in the ordinary use of it, who though unworthie in himself, yet resolves to continue your humblest servant,

Simonds That sir Symonds D'Ewes’s judgment and taste with regard to wit were as contemptible as can well be imagined, will be evident from the following passage, taken from his account of Carr earl of Somerset, and his wife. " This discontent gave many satyrical wits occasion to vent themselves into stingie libels, in which they spared neither the persons, families, nor most secret avowtries of that unfortunate paire. There came alsoe two anagrams to my handes, not unworthie to be owned by the rarest witts of this age, though the first be resolved into somewhat too broad an expression for soe nobly an extracted ladie: Frances Howard, Thomas Overburie,

In his estimation of the merit of historical composition, sir Symonds displayed a far superior discernment. He was a passionate admirer of Thuanus’s History, anxiously applied to the younger Thuanus, to obtain copies of such parts of it as had not hitherto been published, and was successful in procuring a picture of that great author, and another of the famous admiral Coligni. Several of his ms collections and correspondence are preserved in the British Museum.

, a painter of history and portrait, was born at Amsterdam in 1695, and acquired the principles of his art from Albert Spiers, a portrait painter. He afterwards became a disciple of Jaques Van Halen, an historical painter of considerable reputation; under whose instructions he made great improvement, particularly by copying some capital paintings of Rubens and Vandyke. In 1713, he obtained the first prize in the academy, for designing after a living model, and the first prize for painting history; and he became more known by sketching several of the ceilings in the Jesuits’ church at Antwerp, originally painted by Rubens and Vandyke, which had been much injured by lightning. He declined the painting of portraits, though much solicited to engage in this branch of his art, and chiefly restricted himself to the painting of ceilings and grand apartments, in which he excelled by an elegance of taste, and tolerable correctness of design. His most noted work was for the burgo masters of Amsterdam, in their great council-chamber; in which he chose for his subject Moses appointing the 70 elders, and which he executed in a manner highly honourable to him as an artist. Without ever having seen Rome, he acquired the style of the Italian masters, by studying after the finest designs of the best artists of that country, which he collected with great judgment and ex pence. The colouring of Dewit is extremely good, and his compositions are grand and pleasing; his pencil is free, and his touch abounds with spirit and brilliancy; and a better taste of design would have rendered him truly eminent. But his singular excellence consisted in his imitations of bas-relief in stone, wood, or plaster, which he painted both in oil and in fresco, so as to give them the appearance of real carvings. His sketches, though slight, are much admired for their freedom and spirit, and are purchased by persons of the best taste. This artist, who died at Amsterdam in 1754, etched, from his own designs, a set of six small plates, representing “groupes of boys,” which are executed in a very spirited style; and the “Virgin and Child.”

, the famous pensionary of Holland, was the second son of Jacob De Witt, burgomaster of Dort, and deputy to the states of Holland; and born in 1625. He was educated at Dort, and made so great a progress in his studies, that at twenty-three he published “Elementa Curvarum Linearum” one of the ablest books in mathematics that had appeared in those days. After he had taken the degree of LL. D. he travelled for some years; and, on his return in 1650, became a pensionary of Dort, and distinguished himself early in the management of public affairs. He opposed with all his power the war between the English and Dutch, representing in strong colours the necessary ill consequences of it to the republic: and, when the events justified his predictions, gained so great credit, that he was unanimously chosen pensionary of Holland; first to officiate provisionally, and afterwards absolutely into the office. On this occasion, some of his friends, reminding him of the fate of his predecessor Barnevelt, he replied, that “human life was liable to trouble and danger; and that he thought it honourable to serve his country, which he was resolved to do, whatever returns he might meet with.” The continuance of the war was so visibly destructive to the commerce and interest of the republic, that the pensionary with his friends used all their skill to produce a negociation. Ambassadors were sent to Cromwell, who by this time had called a new parliament. To this assembly the Dutch ministers were directed to apply, but quickly found them very different people from those with whom they had been accustomed to deal; for they entertained the ambassadors with long prayers, and discovered a total ignorance of the business, telling Cromwell, that, if he would assume the supreme authority, they might soon come to a right understanding. This was precisely what he wanted; and though he rejected their advice in words, declaring himself an humble creature of the parliament, yet he soon after found means to get rid of them, and took upon him the government under the title of protector. He then made a peace with the Dutch; the most remarkable condition of which was, the adding a secret article for the exclusion of the house of Orange, to which the States consented by a solemn act. But the article of the exclusion raised a great clamour in Holland: it was insinuated to be suggested to Cromwell by De Witt; and the pensionary and his friends found it difficult to carry points absolutely necessary for the service of the people. The clergy too began to meddle with affairs of state in their pulpits; and, instead of instructing the people how to serve God, were for directing their superiors how to govern their subjects. But his firmness got the better of these difficulties; and so far overcame all prejudices, that when the time of his high office was expired, he was unanimously continued in it, by a resolution of the States, Sept. 15, 1663.

He seemed now to have vanquished even Envy herself. In all difficult cases, his ministry was employed: and when the prince of East-Friesland quarrelled with his subjects, he was put at the head of the deputation to terminate the disputes. When war with England, alter the king’s restoration, became necessary, he was one of the deputies that prevailed on the states of Guelder and Overyssel to furnish their quota: he was appointed one of the commissioners for the direction of the navy, and made such vigorous dispositions, that he had a fleet in much better condition, and more ready for sea, than the admirals themselves imagined possible; though naval affairs were quite new to him. When it was thought expedient, after Opdam’s defeat and death, that some of their own deputies should command the fleet, he was one of those three that were put in commission. When he came on board, the fleet was shut up in the Texel, and, in order to secure the outward-bound East India fleet, it was necessary for it to put to sea; which, as the wind then stood, the sailors declared impossible. It was the received doctrine, that there were but 10 points of the compass from which the wind could carry ships out, and that 22 were against them. The pensionary was alone of another opinion; and, as he was a great mathematician, soon discovered the falsity of this notion: he discovered, that there were in reality no less than 28 points for them, and but four against them. He engaged to carry one of their greatest ships through the Spaniard’s-gat with the wind at S. S. W. which he performed Aug. 16, 1665; the greatest part of the fleet followed him without the least accident, and the passage has since been called Witt’s-diep. They met with a dreadful storm on the coast of Norway, which lasted two days: De Witt remained upon deck all the time, never changed his cloaths, nor took any refreshment, but in common with the men; and, when he saw a want of hands, obliged his officers to work by his own example. He wrote a plain and accurate relation of all that happened during the expedition, and at his return verified every article of this account so fully to the States, that they gave him solemn thanks for his good services, and offered him a considerable present, which, however, he declined to accept.

When the famous battle in 1666 was fought between the English and Dutch for three days, he was sent by the States to take a full account of the affair; and he drew up one from the best authorities he could obtain, which is justly esteemed a master-piece in its kind, and a proof of his being as capable of recording great actions as of achieving them. In 1667, finding a favourable conjuncture for executing the great design of the warm republicans, he established the perpetual edict, by which the office of stacltholder was for ever abolished, and the liberty of Holland, as it was supposed, fixed on an eternal basis. In 1672, when the prince of Orange was elected captain and admiral-general, he abjured the stadtholdership. A tumult happened at Dort, and the people declared they would have the prince for stadtholder; to which place he came in person on their invitation, and accepted the office. Most of the other towns and provinces followed the example and seditions arose from these pretences, that the De Witts plundered the state, and were enemies to the house of Orange. The pensionary begged his dismission from the post; which was granted, wiih thanks for his faithful services. He did not affect business, when he saw it was no longer in his power to benefit the public; and he deplored in secret the misfortunes of his country, which, from the highest prosperity, fell, as it were, all at once to the very brink of ruin. The invasion of the French, their rapid progress, their own intestine divisions, spread every where terror and confusion; and the prince of Orange’s party heightened these confusions, in order to ruin the De Witts. The mob were encouraged to pull down a house, in which the pensionary was supposed to lie sick; an attempt was made to assassinate the two brothers on the same day, in different places; the count de Monthas, who had married their sister, was ordered to be arrested in his camp as a traitor, though he had behaved with the greatest bravery. Cornelius De Witt, on the accusation of Ticklaer, a barber, of a design of poisoning the prince, was imprisoned and condemned to exile, though his judges could not declare him guilty. The same ignominious wretch persuaded the people, that he would be rescued out of prison; upon which they instantly armed, and surrounded the place, where it unfortunately happened the pensionary was with his brother. They broke open the doors, insisted on their walking down, and barbarously murdered them. They carried their dead bodies to the gallows, where they hung the pensionary a foot higher than his brother; afterwards mangling their bodies, cut their cloaths in a thousand pieces, and sent them about the country, as trophies of conquest; and some of them, it is said, cut out large pieces of their flesh, which they broiled and ate.

Thus fell this zealous patron of the glory and liberty of his native country, in his 47th year; the greatest genius of his time, and the ablest politician in war as well as peace. He was a frank sincere man, without fraud or artifice, unless his silence might be thought so. Sir W r illiam Temple, who was well acquainted with his character, speaks of him, on various occasions, with the utmost esteem, and with the highest testimonies of praise and admiration. He observes, that when he was at the head of the government, h differed nothing in his manner of living from an ordinary citizen. When he made visits, he was attended only by a single footman; and on common occasions he was frequently seen in the streets without any servant at all. His office, for the first ten years, brought him in little more than 300l. and in the latter part of his life not above 700l. per annum. He refused a gift of 10,000l. from the States, because he thought it a bad precedent in the government. His fortune was much inferior to what, in our times, we see commonly raised by an underclerk in a high office. With great reason, therefore, sir William Temple, speaking of his death, observes, that he “deserved another fate, and a better return from his country, after eighteen years spent in their ministry, without any care of his entertainments or ease, and little of his fortune. A man of unwearied industry, inflexible constancy, sound, clear, and deep understanding, and untainted integrity; so that, whenever he was blinded, it was by the passion he had for that which he esteemed the good and interest of his state. This testimony is justly due to him from all that were well acquainted with him; and is the more willingly paid, since there can be as little interest to flatter, as honour to reproach the dead.” Hume, with equal truth, describes him as “a minister equally eminent for greatness of mind, for capacity, and for integrity. Though moderate in his private deportment, he knew how to adopt in his public councils that magnanimity winch suits the minister of a great state. It was ever his maxim, that no independent government should yield to another any evident point of reason or equity; and that all such concessions, so far from preventing war, served no other purpose than to provoke fresh claims and insults.”

Besides the works already mentioned, he wrote a book containing those maxims of government, upon which he acted; which will be a never-fading monument to his immortal memory. It shews the true and genuine principles of policy, on which alone it is possible to erect an administration profitable at home, and which must command respect abroad. On the one hand are pointed out the mischiefs of tyranny, arbitrary power, authority derived from faction, monopolies, and every other species of corruption. On the other hand is explained the true method of acquiring and securing power, riches, peace, and of managing and extending trade of supporting liberty Avithout running into licentiousness, and of administering the commomvealth in such a manner, as that the possessors of power shall not be either envied or feared. A translation of it from the original Dutch, entitled “The true interest and political maxims of the republic of Holland,” has been printed in London; to the last edition of which, in 1740, are prefixed historical memoirs of the illustrious brothers Cornelius and John De Witt, by the late John Campbell, esq. from whom the original compilers of this work received the above particulars.

, a French naturalist and biographer, was born at Paris in the beginning of the last century. He was the son of a bookseller of Paris, and was educated in his native city, but a considerable time after this he spent in foreign countries, particularly in Italy, where he formed a taste for the fine arts. He became acquainted with men of science in various parts of Europe, and was elected in 1750 member of the royal society in London, and of the academy of sciences at Montpelier. He wrote some considerable articles, particularly those of gardening and hydrography, in the French Encyclopaedia; and in 1747 he published, in quarto, “La Theorie et la Pratique du Jardinage;” and in 1757, “Conchyliologie, ou Traite sur la nature des Coquillages,” 2 vols. 4to, reprinted 1757, and accounted his most valuable work. His arrangement is made from the external form of shells, according to which he classes them as univalve, bivalve, and multivalve; he then divides them again into shells of the sea, of fresh water, and of the lands. He also gave an account of the several genera of animals that inhabit shells. He published also “L'Orycthologie ou Traite des pierres, des mineraux, des metaux et autres Fossiles,” 1755, 4to. But the work by which he is best known and most valued by us, is what we have frequent occasion to quote, his “Abreg6 de la Vie de quelques Peintres celebres,” 3 vols. 4to, and 4 vols. 8vo, a work of great labour and taste, although not absolutely free from errors. He practised engraving sometimes himself. He died at Paris in 1766; and his son continued the biography began by the father by the addition of two volumes, containing the lives of architects and sculptors.

, a native of the island of Melos, surnamed the Atheist, lived in the ninety-first olympiad, or 412 B. C. and was a follower of Democritus. Having been sold as a captive in his youth, he was redeemed by Democritus for 10,000 drachmas, and instead of being made his servant, was trained up in the study of philosophy, for which he had probably showed a capacity. At the same time he cultivated polite learning, and distinguished himself in the art of lyric poetry, which was so successfully practised about that period by Pindar, Bacchylis, and others. His name has been transmitted to posterity as an. avowed advocate for the rejection of all religious belief; and although Clemens Alexandrinus and others have taken pains to exculpate him, by pleading that his only intention was to ridicule heathen superstitions, the general voice of antiquity has so strongly asserted his atheistical principles, that we cannot refuse credit to the report without allowing too much indulgence to historical scepticism. It is easy to conceive, that one who had studied philosophy in the school of Democritus, who admitted no other principles in nature than atoms and a vacuum, would reject the whole doctrine of Deity as inconsistent with the system which he had embraced. And it is expressly asserted by ancient writers, that when, in a particular instance, he saw a perjured person escape punishment *, he publicly declared his disbelief of divine providence, and from that time not only spoke with ridicule of the gods, and of all religious ceremonies, but even attempted to lay open the sacred mysteries, and to dissuade the people from submitting to the rites of initiation. These public insults offered to religion brought upon him the general hatred of the Athenians; who, upon his refusing to obey a summons to appear in the courts of judicature, issued forth a decree, which was inscribed upon a brazen column, offering the reward of a talent to any one who should kill him, or two talents to any one who should bring him alive before the

* The story is thus told: Diagoras work as his own. Diagoras, consiclcrdelighted in making verses, and had ing that he who had injured him had

had stolen from him. He sued the theft and perjury, but also acquired

the crime, and soon after he gained a was no providence, nor any gods, and

great reputation by publishing that wrote some books to prove it. judges. This happened in the ninety-first olympiad. From that time, Diagoras became a fugitive in Attica, and at last fled to Corinth, where he died. It is said, that being on board a ship during a storm, the terrified sailors began to accuse themselves for having received into their ship a man so infamous for his impiety; upon which Diagoras pointed out to them other vessels, which were near them on the sea in equal danger, and asked them, whether they thought that each of these ships also carried a Diagoras? and that afterwards, when a friend, in order to convince him that the gods are not indifferent to human affairs, desired him to observe how many consecrated tablets were hung up in the temples in grateful acknowledgment of the escapes from the dangers of the sea, he said, in reply, “True but here are no tablets of those who have suffered shipwreck, and perished in the sea.” But there is reason to suspect that these tales are mere inventions; for similar stories have been told of Diogenes the Cynic, and others.

, a distinguished Portuguese navigator, is celebrated as the discoverer of the Cape of Good Hope. He was employed by king John II. of Portugal, on a voyage of discovery on the coast of Africa, and in 1486 he had traced nearly a thousand miles of new country, and after encountering violent tempests, and losing the company of the victualling vessel which attended him, he came in sight of the cape that terminates Africa; but the state of his ship, and the untoward disposition of his crew, obliged him to return without going round it. He named it, on account of the troubles which he had undergone in the voyage, “Cabo Tormentoso,” or the “Stormy Cape.” He returned to Lisbon in December 1487, and from his report the sovereign foresaw that the course to the Indies was now certainly pointed out, and he denominated the newly-discovered point “Cabo del Bueno Esperanza,” or the “Cape of Good Hope.”

, one of the early martyrs to the protestant religion, was born at Cnenza, in Spain, in the beginning of the sixteenth century, and studied theology at Paris, where, from reading the books of Luther and his disciples, he soon embraced his doctrines. This circumstance rendering it necessary to quit Paris, he went to Calvin at Geneva, with whom, and with Budeus and Crispinus, he studied for some time. He then went to Strasburgh, and became known to Bucer, who, perceiving his promising talents, obtained leave of the council of that town to take him with him to the conference at Ratisbon. Diaz was no sooner arrived there, than he found out Malvenda, whom he had known at Paris, who employed the strongest arguments he could muster to induce him to return into the bosom of the church; but Diaz persevered in his opinions. Soon after, having got\e to Nenbnrg, to attend the correcting of a book of Bucer’s which was then at press, he was surprised to see arrive at that place one of his brothers named Alfonsus, an advocate at the court of Rome, who, having heard of his apostacy, as he termed it, immediately set out in hopes to reclaim him, but was not more successful than Malvenda. Instead, however, of lamenting what he might term the obduracy of his brother, he laid a plan against his life; to execute which base purpose, he feigned to return home, and went as far as Augsburg; but the day following he returned, accom.­panied by a guide, and at break of day was again at Neuburg. His first business was to seek his brother accordingly he went straight to his lodgings with his companion, who was disguised as a courier, and waited at the foot of the staircase, while the accomplice went up to the apartment of Diaz, for whom he pretended he had letters to deliver from his brother. Dia/ being roused from sleep, the pretended messenger delivered lam the letters, and while he read them, made a fatal stroke at his head with an axe which he had concealed under his cloak, and fled with his instigator Alfonsus. The report of this murder, which happened March 27, 1546, excited great indignation at Augsburg and elsewhere; the assassins were vigorously pursued, were taken, and imprisoned atlnspruck; but the emperor Charles V. put a stop to the proceedings under pretext that he would take cognizance himself of the affair at the approaching diet. This did not, however, appease the conscience of Alfonsus, the fratricide, who put an end to the torments of reflection by hanging himself. A particular history of the whole transaction was published in Latin under the name of Claude Senarclaeus, 8vo, which is very scarce. Jt was addressed to Bucer, under the title “Historia vera de morte J. Diazii.” Diaz was the author of a “Summary of the Christian Religion,” of which a French translation was published at Lyons, 1562, 8vo.

, a disciple of Aristotle, was born at Messina in Sicily. He was a philosopher, historian, and mathematician, and composed a great many books on various subjects, and in all sciences, which were much esteemed. Cicero speaks frequently in the highest terms both of the man and his works. Geography was one of his principal studies; and we have a tieatise, or rather a fragment of a treatise, of his still extant upon that subject. It was first published by Henry Stephens in 1589, with a Latin version and notes; and afterwards by Hudson at Oxford in 1703, among the “Veteris geographiae scriptures Graecos minores, &c.” Pliny tells us that “Dicearchus, a man of extraordinary learning, had received a commission from some princes to take the height of the mountains, and found Pelion, the highest of them, to be 1250 paces perpendicular, from whence he concluded it to bear no proportion which could affect the rotundity of the globe.” He published some good discourses upon politics and government; and the work he composed concerning the republic of Lacedaemon was thought so excellent, that it was read every year before the youth in the assembly of the ephori. As a philosopher, his tenets have little to recommend them* He held that there is no such thing as mind, or soul, either in man or beast; that the principle by which animals perceive and act, is equally diffused throngh the body, is inseparable from it, and expires with it; that the human race always existed; that it is impossible to foretel future events; and that the knowledge of them would be an infelicity.

, bart. of Prestonfield, an eminent physician, the third son of sir William Cunningham, of Caprington, by dame Janet Dick, the only child and heiress of sir James Dick, of Prestonfield, near Edinburgh, was born Oct. 23, 1703. While his two elder brothers succeeded to ample fortunes, the one as heir to his father, and the other to his mother, the provision made for a younger son was not sufficient to enable him to live in a manner agreeable to his wishes without the aid of his own exertions. After, therefore, receiving a classical education at Edinburgh, he studied medicine at Leyden under the celebrated Boerhaave, and obtained the degree of M. D. from that univer c; Aug. 31, 1725. On this occasion he published an i“, > -,gural dissertation,” De Epilepsia," which did him much credit. Not long after this he returned to Scotland, and had the honour of receiving a second diploma for the degree of M. D. conferred upon him by the university of St. Andrew’s, Jan. 23, 1727, and Nov. 7 of the same year, was admitted a fellow of the royal college of physicians of Edinburgh. But after Dr. Cunningham (for at that time he bore the name of his father) had received these distinguishing marks of attention at home, he was still anxious to obtain farther knowledge of his profession by the prosecution of hi-, studies abroad. With this intention he made the tour of Europe; and although medicine was uniformly his first and principal object, yet other arts and sciences were not neglected.

On his return to Britain, Mr. Hooke, a gentleman with whom he had formed an intimate friendship, and who possessed a large fortune in Pembrokeshire, persuaded him to settle as a physician in that country, where for several years he practised with great reputation and success. But his immediate elder brother, sir William Dick, dying without issue, he succeeded to the family estate and title, assuming from that time the name and arms of Dick; and very soon after fixed his residence at the family-seat of Preston-field. Although he now resolved to relinquish medicine as a lucrative profession, yet, from inclination, he still continued to cultivate it as an useful science. With this view he supported a friendly and intimate correspondence with the physicians of Edinburgh, and paid particular attention to the business of the royal college, among the list of whose members his name had been enrolled at a very early period of his life. In 1756 he was unanimously chosen president of the college, and was afterwards elected to that office for seven years successively. He not only contributed liberally towards the building of a hall for their accommodation, but strenuously exerted himself in promoting every undertaking in which he thought the honour or interest of the college was concerned. He was also long distinguished as a zealous and active member of the philosophical society of Edinburgh, and when the present royal society of Edinburgh received its charter, the name of sir Alexander Dick stood enrolled as one of the first in the list. For many years he discharged the duties of a faithful tfnd vigilant manager of die royal iniirinnrj of Kdinburgh; and took on all occasions an active share in promoting every public and useful undertaking. When the seeds of the true rhubarb were first introduced into Britain by the late Dr. Mounsey of Petersburg!), he not only bestowed great attention on the culture of the plant, but also on the drying of the root, and preparing it for the market. His success in these particulars was so great, that the society in London for the encouragement of arts and commerce, presented him, in 1774, with a gold medal, which is inscribed “To sir Alexander Dick, bart. for the best specimen of British rhubarb.” While steady in the pursuit of every object which engaged his attention, his conduct in every transaction through life was marked with the strictest honour and integrity. This, disposition, and this conduct, not only led him to be constant and warm in his friendship to those with whom he lived in habits of intimacy, but also procured him the love and esteem of all who really knew him. Notwithstanding the keenness and activity of his temper, yet its striking features were mildness and sweetness. He was naturally disposed to put the most favourable construction on the conduct and actions of others, which was both productive of much happiness to himself, and of general benevolence to mankind. And that serenity and cheerfulness which accompanied his conduct through life, were the attendants even of his last moments for on Nov. 10, 1785, he died with a smile upon his countenance, lamented as a great loss to society.

, a celebrated physician and chemist, was son of William Dickinson, rector of Appleton in Berkshire, and born there in 1624. He acquired his classical learning at Eton, and from thence, in 1642, was sent to Merton-college in Oxford. Having regularly taken the degrees in arts, he entered on the study of medicine, and took both the degrees in that faculty. In 1655 he published his “Delphi Phcenicizantes, *kc.” a very learned piece, in which he attempts to prove that the Greeks borrowed the story of the Pythian Apollo, and all that rendered the oracle of Delphi famous, from the holy scriptures, and the book of Joshua in particular *. His work procured him much reputation both at home and abroad; and Sheldon (afterwards archbishop of Canterbury) is said to have had so high a sense of its value, that he would have persuaded the author to have applied himself to divinity, and to have taken orders; but he was already fixed in his choice. To this treatise were added, 1. “Diatriba de Nore in Italiam adventu; ejusque nominibus ethnicis.” 2. “De origine Druidum.” 3. Oratiuncula pro philosophia liberanda,“which had been spoken, by him in the hall of Merton college, July 1653, and was the first tiling which made him known among the learned. 4.” /acharias Bogan Edmundo Dickinson;“a letter filled with citations from the most ancient authors in support of his opinions, and the highest commendations of his learning, industry, and judgment. The” Delphi Phoenicizantes,“&c. came out first at Oxford in 1655, 12mo, and was reprinted at Francfort, 1669, 8vo, and at Rotterdam in 1691, by Crenius, in the first volume of his” Fasciculus dissertation uo> Historico-critico-philologicarum," 12mo. Afterwards Dr. Dickinson applied himself to chemistry with much assiduity; and, about 1662, received a visit from Theodore Mundanus, an illustrious adept of France, who encouraged him mightily to proceed in the study of alchemy, and succeeded in persuading him of the possibility of the transmutation of metals, a credulity for which he probably paid first in his purse, and afterwards in his reputation. At length he left his college, and took a house in the High-street, Oxford, for the sake of following the business of his profession more conveniently. In. li>69 he married for the first time; but his wife dying in child- bed, and leaving him a daughter, he some time after married a second, who also died in a short time. His wives were both gentlewomen of good families.

On the death of Dr. Willis, which happened in 1684, Dickinson removed to London, and took his house in St. Martin’s- lane where, soon after recovering Henry Bennet, earl of Arlington, lord chamberlain to Charles II. when all hopes of recovery were past, that nobleman introcluced him to the king, who made him one of his physicians in ordinary, and physician to his household. As that prince was a lover of chemistry, and a considerable proficient, Dickinson grew into great favour at court; which favour lasted to the end of Charles’s reign, and that of his successor James, who continued him in both his places. In 1636 he published in Latin his epistle to Theodore Mundanus, and also his answer, translated from the French into Latin: for, in 1679, this chemist had paid him a second visit, and renewed his acquaintance. The title of it in English is, “An Epistle of E. D. to T. M. an adept, concerning the quintessence of the philosophers, and the true system of physics, together with certain queries concerning the materials of alchemy. To which are annexed the answers of Mundanus,” 8vo. After the abdication of his unfortunate master, he retired from practice, being old, and much afflicted with the stone, but continued his studies. He had long meditated a system of philosophy, not founded on hypothesis, or even experiment, but, chiefly deduced from principles collected from the Mosaic history. Part of this laborious work, when he had almost finished it, was burnt; but, not discouraged by this accident, he began it a second time, and did not discontinue it, till he had completed the whole. It came out in 1702 under the title of “Physica vetus et vera sive tractatus de naturali veritate hexoemeri Mosaici, &c.” In this he attempts, from the scriptural account of the creation, to explain the manner in which the world was formed. Assuming, as the ground of his theory, the atomic doctrine, and the existence of an immaterial cause of the concourse of indivisible atoms, he supposes the particles of matter agitated by a double motion; one gentle and transverse, of the particles among themselves, whence elementary corpuscles are formed; the other circular, by which the whole mass is revolved, and the regions of heaven and earth are produced. By the motion of the elementary corpuscles of different magnitude and form, he supposes the different bodies of nature to have been produced, and attempts, upon this plan, to describe the process of creation through each of the six days. He explains at large the formation of human nature, shewing in what manner, by means of a plastic seminal virtue, man became an animated being. This theory, though founded upon conjecture, and loaded with unphilosophical fictions, the author not only pretends to derive from the Mosaic narrative, but maintains to have been consonant to the most ancient Hebrew traditions. The use which this theorist makes of the doctrine of atoms, shews him to have been wholly unacquainted with the true notion of the ancients on this subject; and indeed the whole work seems to have ben the offspring of a confused imagination, rather than of a sound judgment. Burnet, who attempted the same design afterwards, discovered far more learning and ability. This work, however, was in such demand as to be printed again at Rotterdam in 1703, in 4to, and at Leoburg, 1705, 12mo.

Besides the pieces above mentioned, he is supposed to have been the author of “Parabola philosophica, seu iter Philareti ad montem Mercurii.” He left behind him also in ms. a Latin treatise on the Grecian games, which was annexed to an account of his life and writings, published at London in 1739, 8vo, by the Rev. W. N. Blomberg, rector of Fulham. He died of the stone, April 1707, being then in his eighty-third year, and was interred in the church of St. Martin in the Fields.

, an eminent divine of the church of Scotland, the son of John Dickson, a merchant in Glasgow, was born about 1583, and educated at the university of his native city. After taking the degree of M. A. he was admitted regent, or professor of philosophy, an office which, at that time, somewhat after the manner of the foreign universities, was held only for a term of years (in this case, of eight years) after which these regents received ordination. Accordingly, in 1618, Mr. Dickson was ordained minister of the town of Irvine, which preferment he held about twenty-three years, and became a very popular preacher. Although always inclined to the presbyterian form of church-government, he had shewn no great reluctance to the episcopal forms until the passing of what are known, in the ecclesiastical history of Scotland, by the name of the Perth articles; five articles, which enjoined kneeling at the sacrament; private adtninistratioa of it in extreme sickness; private baptism, if necessary; episcopal confirmation; and the observation of Epiphany, Christmas, &c. These, however harmless they may appear to an English reader, were matters not only of objection, but abhorrence to a great proportion of the Scotch clergy; and Mr. Dickson having expressed his dislike in strong terms, and probably in the pulpit, was suspended from his pastoral charge, and ordered to remove to Turriff, in the north of Scotland, within twenty days. After much interest, however, had been employed, for he had many friends among persons of rank, who respected his talents and piety, he was allowed in 1623 to return to Irvine. As during the progress of the rebellion in England, the power of the established church decayed also in Scotland, Dickson exerted himself with considerable effect in the restoration of the presbyterian form of church-government, and there being a reluctance to this change on the part of the learned divines of Aberdeen, he went thither in 1637, and held solemn disputations with Doctors Forbes, Barron, Sibbald, &c. of that city, which were afterwards published. In 1641 he was removed from Irvine to be professor of divinity in the university of Glasgow; and in 1643 he assisted in drawing up some of those formularies which are contained in the “Confession of Faith,” a book which is still subscribed by the clergy of Scotland. The “Directory for public worship,” and “The sum of saving knowledge,” were from his pen, assisted, in the former, by Henderson and Calderwood and in the latter, by Durham. Some years after, probably about 1645, he was invited to the elmir of professor of divinity at Edinburgh, which he held until the restoration, when he was ejected for refusing the oath of supremacy. He did not survive this long, dying in 1662. He was esteemed one of the ablest and most useful men of his time, in the promotion of the church of Scotland as now established, and his writings have been accounted standard books with those who adhere to her principles as originally laid down. His principal works are, I. “A Commentary on the Hebrews,” 8vo. 2. “On Matthew,” 4to. 3. “On the Psalms,” 1655, 3 vols. 12mo. 4. “On the Epistles,” Latin and English, folio and 4to. 5. “Therapeutica Sacra, or Cases of Conscience resolved,” Latin 4to, English 8vo. 6. “A treatise on the Promises,” Dublin, 1630, 12mo. Besides these he wrote some pieces of religious poetry for the common people, and left several Mss. As he had had a considerable hand in the “Confession of Faith,” he lectured, when professor of divinity, on that book, the heads of which lectures were afterwards published, as he had delivered them, in Latin, under the title “Prelectiones in Confessionem Fidei,” folio but they have been since translated and often reprinted, under the title of “Truth’s Victory over Error,” one of the most useful, and now, we believe, the only one of his works which continues still popular in Scotland. Prefixed is a life of the author by Woodrow, the ecclesiastical historian, from which we have extracted the above particulars.

, is the supposed name of a very ancient historian, who, serving under Idomeneus, a king of Crete, in the Trojan war, wrote the history of that expeilition in nine books; and Tzetzes tells us, that Homer formed his Iliad upon his plan: but the Latin history of Dictys, which we have at present, is altogether spurious. There are two anonymous writers still extant, who pretend to have written of the Trojan war previously to Homer, one of whom goes under the name of Dictys Cretensis, the other that of Dares Phrygius, of which last we have already taken some notice. Before the history of Dictys there are two prefaces the first of which relates that Dictys wrote six volumes of the Trojan war in the Phœnician characters; and in his old age, after he was returned to his own country, ordered them, a little before his death, to be buried with him in a leaden chest or repository, which was accordingly done; that, however, after many ages, and under the reign of Nero, an earthquake happened at Cnosus, a city of Crete, which uncovered Dictys’s sepulchre, and exposed the chest; that the shepherds took it up, and expecting a treasure, opened it; and that, finding this history, they sent it to Nero, who ordered it to be translated, or rather transcharactered, from Phoenician into Greek. It has been inferred from this story that the history was forged by some of Nero’s flatterers, as he always affected a fondness for any thing relating to Trojan antiquities. The other preface to Dictys is an epistle of L. Septimius, the Latin translator, in which he inscribes it to Arcadius Kuffinus, who was consul in the reign of Constantino; and tells nearly the same story of the history we have already related. That the present Latin Dictys had a Greek original, now lost, appears from the numerous Grecisms with which it abounds; and from the literal correspondence of many passages with the Greek fragments of one Dictys cited by ancient authors. The Greek original was very probably, as we have just hinted, forged under the name of Dictys, a traditionary writer on the subject, in the reign of Nero. The best editions of Dictys and Dares Phrygius, are that of madame Dacier, Paris, 1680, 4to, and that of Smids, 4to and 8vo, Anist. 1702, 2 volumes.

, of the academy of Berlin, an eminent French writer, was the son of a cutler, and was bora at Langres, in 1713. The Jesuits, with whom he went through a course of study, were desirous of having him in their order, and one of his uncles designing him for a canonry which he had in his gift, made him take the tonsure. But his father, seeing that he was not inclined to be either a Jesuit or a canon, sent him to Paris to prosegute his studies. He then placed him with a lawyer, to whose instructions young Diderot paid little attention, but employed himself in general literature, which not coinciding with the views of his father, he stopped the remittance of his pecuniary allowance, and seemed for some time to have abandoned him. The talents of the young man, however, supplied him with a maintenance, and gradually made him known. He had employed his mind on physics, geometry, metaphysics, ethics, belles-lettres, from the time he began to read with reflection, and although a bold and elevated imagination seemed to give him a turn for poetry, he neglected it for the more serious sciences. He settled at an early period at Paris, where the natural eloquence which animated his conversation procured him friends and patrons. What first gave him reputation among a certain class of readers, unfortunately for France, too numerous in that country, was a little collection of “Pensees philosophiques,” reprinted afterwards under the title of “Etrennes aux esprits-forts.” This book appeared in 1746, 12mo. The adepts of the new philosophy compared it, for perspicuity, elegance, and force of diction, to the “Pensees de Pascal.” But the aim of the two authors was widely different. Pascal employed his talents, and erudition, which was profound and various, in support of the truths of religion, which Diderot attacked by all the arts of an unprincipled sophist. The “Pensées philosophiques,” however, became a toiletbook. The author was thought to be always in the right, because he always dealt in assertions. Diderot was more usefully employed in 1746, in publishing a “Dictionnaire universelle de Medecine,” with Messrs. Eidous and Toussaint, in G vols. folio. Not that this compilation, says his biographer, is without its defects in many points of view, or that it contains no superficial and inaccurate articles; but it is not without examples of deep investigation; and the work was well received. A more recent account, however, informs us that this was merely a translation of Dr. James’s Medical Dictionary, published in this country in 1743; and that Diderot was next advised to translate Chambers’ s Dictionary; but instead of acting so inferior a part, he conceived the project of a more extensive undertaking, the “Dictionnaire Encyclopedique.” So great a monument not being to be raised by a single architect, D'Alembert, the friend of Diderot, shared with him the honours and the dangers of the enterprise, in which they were promised the assistance of several literati, and a variety of artists. Diderot took upon himself alone the description of arts and trades, one of the most important parts, and most acceptable to the public. To the particulars of the several processes of the workmen, he sometimes added reflections, speculations, and principles adapted to their elucidation. Independently of the part of arts and trades, this chief of the encyclopedists furnished in the different sciences a considerable number of articles that were wanting; but even his countrymen are inclined to wish that in a work of such a vast extent, and of such general use, he had learned to compress his matter, and had been less verbose, less of the dissertator, and less inclined to digressions. He has also been censured for employing needlessly a scientific language, and for having recourse to metaphysical doctrines, frequently unintelligible, which occasioned him to be called the Lycophron. of philosophy; for having introduced a number of definitions incapable of enlightening the ignorant, and which he seems to have invented for no other purpose than to have it thought that he had great ideas, while in fact, he had not the art of expressing perspicuously and simply the ideas of others. As to the body of the work, Diderot himself agreed that the edifice wanted an entire reparation; and when two booksellers intended to give a new edition of the Encyclopedic, he thus addressed them on the subject of the faults with which it abounds: “The imperfection of this work originated in a great variety of causes. We had not time to be very scrupulous in the choice of the coadjutors. Among some excellent persons, there were others weak, indifferent, and altogether bad. Hence that motley appearance of the work, where we see the rude attempt of a school-boy by the side of a piece from the hand of a master; and a piece of nonsense next neighbour to a sublime performance. Some working for no pay, soon lost their first fervour; others badly recompensed, served us accordingly. The Encyclopedic was a gulf into which all kinds of scribblers promiscuously threw their contributions: their pieces were ill-conceived, and worse digested; good, bad, contemptible, true, false, uncertain, and always incoherent and unequal; the references that belonged to the very parts assigned to a person, were never filled up by him. A refutation is often found where we should naturally expect a proof; and there was no exact correspondence between the letter-press and the plates. To remedy this defect, recourse was had to long explications. But how many unintelligible machines, for want of letters to denote the parts!” To this sincere confession Diderot added particular details on various parts; such as proved that there were in the Encyclopedic subjects to be not only re-touched, but to be composed afresh; and this was what a new company of literati and artists undertook, but have not yet completed. The first edition, however, which had been delivering to the public from 1751 to 1767, was soon sold off, because its defects were compensated in part by many well-executed articles, and because uncommon pains were taken to recommend it to the public.

The great objects which Diderot and his coadjutors had in view when they entered upon this work, are now universally known. It has been completely proved, that their intention was to sap the foundation of all religion; not directly or avowedly, for \mre-faced atheism would not then have been suffered in France. They had engaged a very worthy, though not very acute clergyman, to furnish the theological articles, and while he was supporting, by the best arguments which he could devise, the religion of his country, Diderot and D'Alembert were overturning those arguments under titles which properly allowed of no such disquisitions. This necessarily produced digressions: for the greatest genius on earth could not, when writing on the laws of motion, attack the mysteries of Christianity without wandering from his subject; but that the object of these digressions might not pass unnoticed by any class of readers, care was taken to refer to them from the articles where the question was discussed by the divine. That when employed in this way, Diderot seems to write obscurely, is indeed true; but the obscurity is not his. His atheism was so plain, that for the most part, D'Alembert or some other leader, had to retouch his articles, and throw a mist over them, to render their intention less obvious.

Diderot, who had been working at this dictionary for near twenty years, had not received a gratuity proportionate to his trouble and his zeal, and saw himself not long after the publication of the last volumes, reduced to the necessity of exposing his library to sale, which he pretended to be very copious and valuable. The empress of Russia ordered it to be bought for her at the price of fifty thousand livres, and left him the use of it. It is said, that when her ambassador wanted to see it, after a year or two’s payments, and the visitation could be no longer put off, Diderot was obliged to run in a hurry through all the booksellers shops in Germany, to fill his empty shelves with old volumes. He had the good fortune to save appearances; but the trick was discovered, because he had been niggardly in his attention to the ambassador’s secretary. This, however, did not hinder him from visiting the empress, where he behaved in such a manner, that her majesty thought it necessary to send him back, and he comforted himself for this disgrace, with the idea that the Russians were not yet ripe for the sublimity of his philosophy.

In the mean time, the “Encyclopedic,” which had partly procured its editor these foreign honours and remunerations, gave great offence at home. Certain positions on government and on religion occasioned the impression to be suspended in 1752. At that time there were no more than two volumes of the dictionary published; and the prohibition of the succeeding ones was only taken off at the end of 1753. Five new volumes then successively appeared. But in 1757 a new storm arose, and the book was suppressed. The remainder did not appear till about ten years after; and then was only privately distributed. Some copies were even seized, and the printers were imprisoned in the Bastille. To whatever cause all these interruptions were imputable, Diderot did not suffer his genius to be impeded by the difficulties that were thrown in his way. Alternately serious and sportive, solid and frivolous, he published at the very time he was working on the Dictionary of Sciences, several productions which could scarcely have been thought to proceed from an encyclopedical head. His “Bijoux indiscrets,” 2 vols. 12mo, are of this number a disgusting work, even to those young- people who are unhappily too eager after licentious romances. Even here a certain philosophical pedantry appears, in the very passages where it is most misplaced; and never is the author more aukvvard than when he intends to display a graceful ease. The “Fils naturel,” and the “Pere de Famille,” two comedies in prose, which appeared in 1757 and 1758, are of a superior kind of moral and affecting dramas, where we see at once a nervous style and pathetic sentiments. The former piece is a picture of the trials of virtue, a conflict between interests and passions, wherein love and friendship play important parts. It has been said that Diderot has borrowed it from Golcloni; if that be the case, the copy does honour to the original; and, with the exception of a small number of places, where the author mixes his philosophical jargon with the sentiments, and some sentences out of place, the style is affecting and natural. In the second comedy, a tender, virtuous, and humane father appears, whose tranquillity is disturbed by the parental solicitudes, inspired by the lively and impetuous passions of his children. Tin’s philosophical, moral, and almost tragical comedy, has produced considerable effect on several theatres of Europe. The dedication to the princess of Nassau Saarbruck, is a little moral tract, of a singular turn, without deviating from nature; and proves that the author possessed a great fund of moral sentiments and philosophical ideas. At the end of these two pieces, published together under the title of “Theatre de M. Diderot,” are dialogues containing profound reflections and novel views of the dramatic art. In his plays he has endeavoured to unite the characters of Aristophanes and Plato; and in his reflections he sometimes displays the genius of Aristotle. This spirit of criticism is exhibited, but with too much licence, in two other works, which made a great noise. The former appeared in 1749, 12mo, under the title of “Letters on the blind, for the use of those who sec.” The free notions of the author in this work cost him his liberty, and he underwent a six months imprisonment atVincennes. Having naturally strong passions and a haughty spirit, finding himself on].a sudden deprived of liberty, and of all intercourse with human beings, he had like to have lost his reason; and to prevent this, his keepers were obliged to allow him to leave his room, to take frequent walks, and to receive the visits of a few literary men. J. J. Rousseau, at that time his friend, went and administered consolation to him, which he ought not to have forgot. The letter on the blind was followed by another on the “deaf and dumb, for the use of those who can hear and speak,” 1751, 2 vols. 12mo. Under, this title, the author delivered reflections on metaphysics, on poetry, on eloquence, on music, &c. There are some good things in this essay, mixed with others superficial and absurd. Though he strives to be perspicuous, yet he is not always understood, and indeed, of all “that he has composed on abstract subjects, it has been said that he presents a chaos on which the light shines only at intervals. The other productions of Diderot betray the same defect of clearness and precision, and the same uncouth emphasis for which he has always been blamed. The principal of them are: 1.” Principles of Moral Philosophy,“1745, 12mo, of which the abbe des Fontaines speaks well, though it met with no great success. It was our philosopher’s fate to write a great deal, and not to leave a good book, or at least a book well composed. 2.” History of Greece, translated from the English of Stanyan,“1743, 3 vols. 12mo, an indifferent translation of an indifferent book. 3.” Pieces on several mathematical subjects,“1748, 8vo. 4.” Reflections on the Interpretation of Nature,“1754, 12mo. This interpreter is very obscure. 5.” The Code of Nature,“1755, 12mo, which is certainly not the code of Christianity. 6.” The -Sixth Sense,“1752, 12mo. 7.” Of Public Education,“one of that swarm of publicutio. produced by the appearance of Emilius, and the abolition of the Jesuits but some of his ideas in this work are very judicious, and would be highly useful in the execution. 8.” Panegyric on Richardson,“full of nerve and animation. 9.” Life of Seneca.“This was his last work; and', is one of those which may be perused with most pleasu even while we cannot approve the judgments be passes on beneca and other celebrated men. The abb Barruel says that he was the author of” Systeme de la Nature,“which is usually given to Robinet; and it is certain that if he was not the author, he furnished hints, and revised the whole. Naigeon, his friend and disciple, collected and published his works in 15 vols. 8vo, at Paris, 1797, containing some articles which we have not noticed; and in 18 10 a small publication appeared, entitled” Diderotiana."

It is remarkable that there were moments in which Diderot, notwithstanding his avowed impiety, seems to have been compelled by the force of truth, to pay homage to the New Testament. An acquaintance found him one day explaining it to his daughter, with all the apparent seriousness and energy of a believer. On expressing his surprize, Diderot replied, “I understand your meaning; but after all, where is it possible to find better lessons for her instruction?” This from him who had given so many lessons of a different kind, and had been a more zealous teacher of impiety and profligacy than perhaps any man in France, appears somewhat improbable; yet it may coincide with a report, which is more certain, that in his latter days he shewed some signs of contrition. In 1784 his health began visibly to decline; and one of his domestics, perceiving that his death was at no great distance, acquainted him with his apprehensions, and addressed him on the importance of preparing for another world. He heard the man with attention, thanked him kindly, acknowledged that his situation required seriousness, and promised to weigh well what he had said. Some time after this conversation he desired a priest might be brought, and the same domestic introduced one, whom Diderot saw several times, and was preparing to make a public recantation of his errors. Condorcet, and his other philosophic friends, now crowded about him, persuaded him that he was cheated, that his case was not so dangerous as it was said to be, and that he only wanted the country air to restore him to health. For some time he resisted their attempts to bring him back to atheism, but was at last prevailed upon to leave Paris; and his departure being kept secret, he was concealed in the country till July 2, when he died. His dead body was then secretly brought back to Paris, and his friends eagerly spread the report that he died suddenly on rising from the table, without the least sign of repentance. His character, from what has been said, is not very difficult to be understood. Some of his countrymen extol his frankness, his candour, his disinterestedness, his integrity while others represent him as artful, interested, and concealing iiis cunning- under a cheerful air, and sometimes >ven a rough behaviour which we confess appears more probable, as the genuine result of his principles. Towards the laiter part of uis life he hurt himself in th.: public opinion, by taking up too warmly the pretended ahVo-Ls he imagined to exist against him in the “Confessions” of his old friend J. J. Rousseau; and by this conduct left unfavourable impressions both of his heart and his understanding. This Rousseau, whom he so much decries, praises him in the second manuscript part of his Confessions; but says in one of his letters, that “though naturally kind, i of a generous disposition, Diderot had the unhappy ;>ensity to misinterpret the speeches and actions of his :ids; and that the most ingenuous explanations only furnished the subtilty of his invention with new interpretations against them.” The enthusiasm Diderot displays in some of his productions, appeared in the circle of his, friends, on every topic of discourse. He spoke with rapidity, with vehemence, and the turns of his phrases were often poignant and original. It has been said, that nature by mistake made him a metaphysician, and not a poet; but though he was often a poet in prose, he has left some verses which prove him to have had but little talent for poetry. The intrepid philosophy of which he boasted, affected always to brave the shafts of criticism; and his numerous censors were unable to cure him either of his taste for a system of metaphysics scarcely intelligible, or of his fondness for exclamations and apostrophes which prevailed in his conversation and in his writings. He married, and we are told by his friends, was in domestic life sensible and obliging; easily provoked, but as easily calmed; yielding to transient ebullitions of temper, but generally having it under command. The goodness or badness of his temper, however, as affecting his relatives, is a matter of little consequence, compared to the more extensive mischief which arose from his writings as an infidel, and his example as a profligate. Of the latter we need no more decided proof than the extract from one of his letters to Wilkes, published by lord Teignmouth in his “Life of Sir William Jones.” La Harpe, to whose “Lyceum” we may refer for an impartial account of Diderot, thinks very justly that the principal cause of the success of the French infidels, in gaining readers and followers, arose from their enlisting the passions on their side. Such, says he, is the basis of their system, the general spirit of their sect, and the principle of their success. The method is not very honourable, but with a little address it is almost sure to succeed, at least for a time, for nothing is more easy than to pass off as a theory, a corruption which already exists as a fashion.

, an eminent French printer, who deserves a more satisfactory article than the French biographers have as yet enabled us to give him, was born at Paris in 1730, and was the son of a printer and bookseller, who provided him with an excellent classical education before he introduced him into business. Full of enthusiasm for the advancement of the art of printing, young Didot determined to rival those celebrated printers, Joachim Ibarra of Spain, and Baskerville of England, and lived to surpass both. He soon brought his press to a state of excellence unattained by any of his contemporaries; and extended his skill to every branch connected with it. Among the number of improvements perfected by his exertions, is the construction of mills for making fine paper, which he assisted not only by his zeal and activity, but by pecuniary contribution. He also invented a press by which the workman is enabled to print, equally and at once the whole extent of a sheet; and he was the inventor of many other machines and instruments now commonly used in printing offices, all which have powerfully contributed to the modern advancement of the typographical art. The elegant editions of the classics published by order of Louis XIV. for the education of the Dauphin, were the production of the Didots 1 press, as well as the collection of romances called the D'Artois, in 64 vols. 18mo; the Theatrical Selections by Corneille, the works of Racine, Telemachus, Tasso’s Jerusalem, two superb Bibles, and a multiplicity of other inestimable works, each of which, on its publication, seemed to make nearer approaches to perfection. Didot sedulously endeavoured to unite in his family every talent auxiliary to the printing art; one of his sons became a celebrated type-founder; and the voice of fame announces the superior rank which they both deservedly hold among the printers of the age. The fond father delighted to observe that he was excelled by his children; while they dutifully ascribed their success to the force of his instruction, and the benefit of his example. The life of JDidot was the life of honour; his abilities were universally known and respected; and the following anecdote will prove the goodness of his heart: in one of his journeys to the paper mills of Anonay, he met an artist who had introduced in France an improvement in the application of cylinders, &c. and believing that his ingenuity merited reward, exerted all his interest with government; but unfortunately, when he was on the point of succeeding, the artist died, leaving two girls in the helpless state of infancy. Didot took the orphans in his arms, proclaimed himself their father, and kept his word. At the age of seventy-three, Didot read over five times, and carefully corrected, before it was sent to the press, every sheet of the stereotype edition of Montague, printed by his sons. At four o'clock in the morning he was pursuing this fatiguing occupation. The correctness of the text will therefore render this work particularly valuable among the productions of the modern press. About eighteen months previous to his death, he projected an alphabetical index of every subject treated upon in Montague’s Essays. He had collected all his materials, at which he laboured unceasingly; and perhaps too strict an application to this favourite study accelerated the death of this eminent artist and benevolent man, which took place July 10, 1804. His business is still successfully carried on by his sons, Peter and Firmia Didot. The reputation of the elder Didot was much assisted by the labours of his brother, Peter Francis, who died in 1795, and to whom we owe the beautiful editions of Thomas a Kempis, fol. of Telemachus, 4to the “Tableau de l'empire Ottoman,” &c.

, of Alexandria, surnamed “Bowels of Brass,” from his indefatigable application to study, lived in the reign of Augustus, and is said by Seneca to have written 4000 treatises, not one of which has descended to our times but some scholia on Homer are attributed to him, which Schrevelius has joined to an edition of that poet, Amsterdam, 1656, 2 vols. 4to, and they occur in some other editions, but they appear to be the work of a later author.

, of Alexandria, was an ecclesiastical writer of the fourth century, who supplied a very important defect by dint of genius and application. Jerome and Ruffinus assure us that though he lost his eyes at five years of age, when he had scarcely learned to read, yet he applied himself so earnestly to study, that he not only attained in a high degree grammar, rhetoric, logic, arithmetic, music, and the other arts, but even was able to comprehend some of the most difficult theorems in mathematics. He was particularly attached to the study of the Scriptures; and was selected as the most proper person to fill the chair in the famous divinity-school at Alexandria. His high reputation drew a great number of scholars to him; among the principal of whom were Jerome, Ruffinus, Palladius, and Isidorus. He read lectures with wonderful facility, answered upon the spot all questions and difficulties relating to the Holy Scriptures, and refuted the objections which were raised against the orthodox faith. He was the author of a great number of works of which Jerome has preserved the titles in his catalogue of ecclesiastical writers; and of many more whose titles are not known. We have yet remaining a Latin translation of his book upon the Holy Spirit, to be found in the works of Jerome, who was the translator; and which is perhaps the best treatise the Christian world ever saw upon the subject. Whatever has been said since that time, in defence of the divinity and personality of the Holy Ghost, seems, in substance, to be foand in this book. His other works extant are, a treatise against the Manichees, in the original Greek, and “Enarrations upon the seven catholic epistles in Latin,” and in the Greek Chains are fragments of some of his commentaries. J. C. Wolff, of Hamburgh, published a large collection of notes and observations of Didymus upon the Acts of the Apostles, taken from a manuscript Greek chain, at Oxford. See Wolfii Anecdot. Graec. 1724. Didymus also wrote commentaries upon Origen’s books of Principles, which he defended very strenuously against all opposers. He was a great admirer of Origen, used to consider him as his master, and adopted many of his sentiments; on which account he was condemned by the fifth general council. He died in the year 395, aged eightyfive years.

, another of the name, was an eminent musician of Alexandria, and, according to Suidas, cotemporary in the first century with the emperor Nero, by whom he was much honoured and esteemed. This proves him to have been younger than Aristoxenus, and more ancient than Ptolemy, though some have imagined him to have preceded Aristoxenus. He wrote upon grammar and medicine, as well as music; but his works are all lost, and every thing we know at present of his barmonical doctrines is from Ptolemy, who, by disputing, preserved them. However, this author confesses him to have been well versed in the canon and harmonic divisions; and if we may judge from the testimony, even of his antagonist, he must have been not only an able theorist in music, but a man of considerable learning. As this musician preceded Ptolemy, and was the first who introduced the minor tone into the scale, and, consequently, the practical major 3d -f, which harmonized the whole system, and pointed out the road to counterpoint; an honour that most critics have bestowed on Ptolemy, he seems to have a better title to the invention of modern harmony, or music in parts, than Guido, who appears to have adhered, both in theory and practice, to the old division of the scale into major tones and limmas. “The best species of diapason,” says Doni, “and that which is the most replete with fine harmony, and chiefly in use at present, was invented by Didymus. His method was this: after the major semitone E F T-f, he placed the minor tone in the ratio of V, between F G, and afterwards the major tone between G A; but Ptolemy, for the sake of innovation, placed the major tone where Didymus placed the minor.” Ptolemy, however, in speaking of Didymus and his arrangement, objects to it as contrary to the judgment of the ear, which requires the major tone below the minor. The ear certainly determines so with us, and it is therefore probable, that in Ptolemy’s time the major key was gaining ground. Upon the whole, however, it appears that these authors only differ in the order, not the quality of intervals.

, a Lutheran divine, was born June 30, 1647, at Stade in the duchy of Bremen, where his father was also a clergyman. He studied at Giessen, Jena, and Wirtemberg, at which last university he took his master’s degree. In 1672 he finished his course of study, and in 1675 was appointed rector of Stade. In 1683 he was raised to the dignity of superintendant of the duchies of Bremen and Ferden, and about that time was honoured with the degree of doctor of divinity by the university of Kiel. In 1712, the war obliging him to leave Stade, he went to Bremen; but after three years returned, and was re-instated in his office at Stade, where he died July 4, 1720. He wrote, 1. “De naturalismo cum aliorum, turn maxime Joannis Bodini, ex opere ejus manuscripto anecdoto, de abditis rerum subliinium arcanis, schediasnaa,” Leipsic, 1684, 12mo. This is a very able answer to the impious freedoms of Bodin (See Bodin). 2. “Specimen glossarii Latino-theodisci.” 3. “Dissertationes de sparsione florum.” 4. “De dissensu ecclesiae orientalis et Latinae circa purgatorium.” 5. “Enneacles animadversionum in diversa Joca annalium cardinalis Baronii,” &c. He wrote also various tracts in the German language, collected in a volume, Hamburgh, 1709, 4to. But he is, perhaps, better known as the publisher of an edition of the Stade Bible, which is a revision of Luther’s German Bible.