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

* His progress and liberal reception at Oxford, is thus related by Wood: “Turning his course to Oxon, in the beginning of the year 1572, he was entertained by the society of Mertoncollege, admitted to the degree of B. A. as a member of that house, in July the same year; and in the beginning of August following, had a chamber set apart for him by the society, who then also decreed that he should have forty shillings yearly allowed to him, so long as he read a Hebrew lecture in their common refectory. For four years, at least, he lived in the said house, and constantly read (as he did sometimes to the scholars of Magdalen college, upon the desire of Dr. Lawrence Humphrey, president thereof,) either Hebrew, Chaldee, or Syriac lectures. In 1573, he was, as a member of the said house of Merton, licensed to proceed in arts, and in the year following was recommended by the chancellor of the university to the members of the convocation, that he might publicly read the Syriac language in one of the public schools, and that for his pains he receive a competent stipend. Soon after, upon consideration of the matter, they allowed him twenty marks, to be equally gathered from among them, and ordered that the same respect be given to him, as to any of the lecturers. He left Oxford in 1576.” His works are very numerous, and many of them still held in great esteem. Niceron has given a catalogue of forty, but as the most valuable part of them consist of bihlical criticisms, and have been incorporated in the “Critici Sacri,” it is unnecessary here to specify the titles of them when published separately. Drusius carried on so extensive a correspondence with the literati of Europe, that after his death there were found among his papers 2300 Latin letters, besides many in Hebrew, Greek, French, English, and Dutch.

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

, a celebrated monk in the abbey of Corby, in the ninth century, was born in Aquitaine, and afterwards taught in the monasteries of Stavelo and Malmedy, in the diocese of Leige. He was very learned for the age he lived in, and left a commentary on St. Matthew, Strasburg, 1514; or Haguenau, 1530, fol. and in the library of the fathers, which contained some opinions respecting transubstantiation that were favourable to the protestant faith. The second edition is scarce, but the first much more so. At the end of each is part of a Commentary on St. Luke and St. John, which he did not finish. The scarcity of his work may be accounted for from its being suppressed, in consequence of his opinions on transubstantiation. Dupin says that his commentaries are short, historical, easy, and without allegories or tropes; and adds, that Druthmar was called the Grammarian, on account of his skill in the languages, particularly Greek and Latin, which he always interpreted literally.

, whose real name was Eichmens, was born at Wetterau, in Hesse, but received his education in France, and took his degree of doctor at Mentz. He went thence to Marpurg, where he was engaged in teaching anatomy for twenty-four years; viz. from 1536 to 1560, when he died. He was of the protestant religion. His works are, “Anatomise pars prior, in qua membra ad caput spectantia, recensentur, et delineantur,” Marpurg, 1537, 4to. He first observed several distinctions, before unnoticed, between the medullary and cortical part of the brain, and he saw the olfactory nerves, which he miscalls the optic nerves. In 1541 he published “Anatomia Mundini ad vetustissimorum aliquot manuscriptorum codicum fidern collata,” 4to, with notes, in which he frequently corrects the errors of his author, and for which he is deservedly placed by Haller among the restorers and improvers of anatomy. He is also mentioned with honour in the Bib. Anat. of Douglas.

, an illustrious English poet, was son of Erasmus Dryden, of Tichmersh, in Northamptonshire, third son of Erasmus Dryden, of Cannons-Ashbv, in the same county, baronet; and born at Aldwincle, near Oundle, in that county, according to the general opinion, August 9, 1631, although Mr. Malone seems inclined to remove his birth to a prior year. He was educated in grammarlearning at Westminster-school, being king’s scholar there, under Dr. Busby; and was thence elected, May II, 1650, a scholar of Trinity-college, Cambridge. During his stay at school, he translated the third satire of Persius for a Thursday night’s exercise, as he tells us himself, in an advertisement at the head of that satire and the year before he left it, wrote a poem on the death of the lord Hastings which however was but an indifferent performance, and particularly defective in point of harmony. He had before this, in 1649, wrote some verses, which have been preserved. In 1652 he was slightly punished for disobedience and contumacy. In January 1654, he took his degree of B. A. but not that of M. A. until June 17, 1668, and then by a dispensation from the archbishop of Canterbury, in consequence of a letter from Charles II. By the death of his father in 1654, he inherited a small estate in Northamptonshire, and after residing seven years at Cambridge, removed to London in 1657. In consequence of his kinsman, sir Gilbert Pickering, being a favourite of Oliver and Richard Cromwell, Dryden in 1658 published “Heroic Stanzas on the late lord Protector,” written after his funeral: and in 1660, “Astraea Redux,” a poem on the happy restoration and return of his sacred majesty Charles the Second. A remarkable distich in this piece exposed our poet to the ridicule of the wits:

In 1661 he produced his first play, “The Duke of Guise,” which was followed the next year by the “Wild Gallant.” In the same year, 1662, he addressed a poem to the lord chancellor Hyde, presented on new-year’s-day; and, the same year also, published a satire on the Dutch*. His next production was “Annus Mirabilis,” the year of wonders, 1666; an historical poem: printed in 1667. His reputation as a poet was now so well established, that this, together with his attachment to the court, procured him the place of poet-laureat, and historiographer to Charles II. of which accordingly he took possession, upon the death of sir William Davenant, in 1668, but his patent was not signed till 1670. The pension of the two offices was 200l. a year. In 1667 he published “An Essay on Dramatic Poesy,” dedicated to Charles earl of Dorset and Middlesex. In the preface we are told that the purpose of this discourse was to vindicate the honour of our English writers from the censure of those who unjustly prefer the French. The essay is drawn up in the form of a dialogue. It was animadverted upon by sir Robert Howard, in the preface to his “Great Favourite, or Duke of Lerma,” to which Dryden replied in a piece prefixed to the second edition of his “Indian Emperor.” Although his first plays had not been very successful, he went on, and in the space of twenty-five years produced twenty-seven plays, besides his other numerous poetical writings. Of the stage, says Dr. Johnson, when he had once invaded it, he kept possession; not indeed, without the competition of rivals, who sometimes prevailed, or the censure of critics, which was often poignant, and often just; but with such a degree of reputation, as made him at least secure of being heard, whatever might be the final determination of the public. These plays were collected, and published in 6 vols. 12mo, in 1725; to which is prefixed the essay on dramatic poetry, and a dedication to the duke of Newcastle by Congreve, in which the author is placed in a very equivocal light.

In 1671 he was publicly ridiculed on the stage under the character of Bays, in the duke of Buckingham’s famous comedy called the “Rehearsal.” The character of Bays, as we are told ia the key printed with that satirical performance in 17 '55, was originally intended for sir Robert Howard, under the name of Bilboa: but a stop being put to the representation by the breaking out of the plague in 1665, it was laid by for several years, and not exhibited on the stage till Dec. 7, 1671. During this interval, Dryden being advanced to the laurel, the noble author changed the name of his poet from Bilboa to Bays; and made great alterations in his play, in order to ridicule several dramatic performances, which had appeared since the first writing of it, and particularly some of Dry den’s. he affected to despise the satire, as appears from his dedication of the translation of Juvenal and Persius; where, speaking of the many lampoons and libels that had been written against him, he says: “I answered not the Rehearsal, because I knew the author sat to himself, when he drew the picture, and was the very Bayes of his own farce; because also I knew, that my betters were more concerned, than I was, in that satire; and lastly, because Mr. Smith and Mr. Johnson, the main pillars of it, were two such languishing gentlemen in their conversation, that I could liken them to nothing but their own relations, those noble characters of men of wit and pleasure about town.” Insensible, however, as he affected to be, he did not fail to take a full revenge on its author, under the character of Zimri, in his “Absalom and Achitophel.”

In 1673, his tragi-comedies, entitled the “Conquest of Granada” by the Spaniards, in two parts, were attacked by Richard Leigh, a player belonging to the duke of York’s theatre, in a pamphlet called “A Censure of the Rota,” &c. which occasioned several other pamphlets to be written. Elkanah Settle likewise criticised these plays; and it is remarkable that Settle, though in reality a mean and inconsiderable poet, was the mighty rival of Dryden, and for many years bore his reputation above him. To the first part of the “Conquest of Granada,” Dryden prefixed an essay on Heroic Plays, and subjoined to the second a Defence of the Epilogue; or, an essay on the dramatic poetry of the last age. In 1679 was published an “Essay on Satire,” written jointly by the earl of Mulgrave and Dryden. This piece, which was handed about in ms. contained severe reflections on the duchess of Portsmouth and the earl of Rochester; and they, suspecting Dryden to be the author of it, hired three men to cudgel him; who, as Wood relates, effected their business as he was returning from Will’s coffee-house through Rose-street, Covent-gardeu, to his own house in Gerrard-street, Soho, at eight o'clock at night, on the 16th of December, 1679. In 1680 came out an English translation in verse of Ovid’s epistles by several hands two of which, viz. Canace to Macareus, and Dido to Æneas, were translated by Dryden, who also wrote the general preface and the epistle of Helen to Paris by Dryden and the earl of Mulgrave.

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

The same year, 1681, he published his Medal, a satire against sedition. This poem was occasioned by the striking of a medal, on account of the indictment against the earl of Shaftesbury for high-treason being found ignoramus by the grand jury at the Old Bailey, November 1611, for which the whig-party made great rejoicings by ringing of bells, bonfires, &c. in all parts of London. The whole poem is a severe invective against the earl of Shaftesbury and the whigs to whom the author addresses himself, ina satirical epistle prefixed to it, thus “I have one favour to desire of you at parting, that, when you think of answering this poem, you would employ the same pens against it, who have combated with so much success against Absalom and Achitophel; for then you may assure yourselves of a clear victory without the least reply. Rail at me abundantly; and, not to break a custom, do it without wit. If God has not blessed you with the talent of rhyming, make use of my poor stock and welcome: let your verses run upon my feet; and for the utmost refuge of notorious blockheads, reduced to the last extremity of sense, turn my own lines upon me, and, in utter despair of your own satire, make me satirize myself.” Settle wrote an answer to this poem, entitled “The Medal reversed;” and is erroneously said to have written a poem called “Azariah and Hushal,” against “Absalom and Achitophel.” This last was the production of one Pordage, a dramatic writer. In 1682, Dryden published a poem, called “Religio Laici; or, the Layman’s Faith.” This piece is intended as a defence of revealed religion, and of the excellency and authority of the scriptures, as the only rule of faith and manners, against deists, papists, and presbyterians. The author tells us in the preface, that it was written for an ingenious young gentleman, his friend, upon his translation of father Simon’s “Critical History of the Old Testament.” In October of this year, he also published his Mac Flecnoe, an exquisite satire against the poet Shad well.

His tragedy of the “Duke of Guise,” much altered, with the assistance of Lee, appeared again in 168S, dedicated to Lawrence earl of Rochester, and gave great offence to the whigs. It was attacked in a pamphlet, entitled “A Defence of the charter and municipal rights of the city of London, and the rights of other municipal cities and towns of England. Directed to the citizens of London. By Thomas Hunt.” In this piece, Dryden is charged with condemning the charter of the city of London, and executing its magistrates in effigy, in his “Duke of Guise;” frequently acted and applauded, says Hunt, and intended most certainly to provoke the rahhle into tumults and disorders. Hunt then makes several remarks upon the design of the play, and asserts, that our poet’s purpose was to corrupt the manners of the nation, and lay waste their morals; to extinguish the little remains of virtue among us by bold impieties, to confound virtue and vice, good and evil, and to leave us without consciences. About the same time were printed also “Some Reflections upon the pretended Parallel in the play called The Duke of Guise” the author of which pamphlet tells us, that he was wearied with the dulness of this play, and extremely incensed at the wicked and barbarous design it was intended for; that the fiercest tories were ashamed of it; and, in short, that he never saw any thing that could be called a play, more deficient in wit, good character, and entertainment, than this. In answer to this and Hunt’s pamphlet, Dryden published “The Vindication: or, The Parallel of the French holy league and the English league and covenant, turned into a seditious libel against the king and his royal highness, by Thomas Hunt and the author of the Reflections, &c.” In this Vindication, which is printed at the end of the play, he tells us that in the year of the restoration, the first play he undertook was the “Duke of Guise,” as the fairest way which the act of indemnity had then left of setting forth the rise of the late rebellion; that at first it was thrown aside by the advice of some friends, who thought it not perfect enough to be published; but that, at the earnest request of Mr. Lee, it was afterwards produced between them; and that only the first scene, the whole fourth act, and somewhat more than half the fifth, belonged to him, all the rest being Mr. Lee’s. He acquaints us also occasionally, that Mr. Thomas Shadwell, the poet, made the rough draught of this pamphlet against him, and that Mr. Hunt finished it.

In 1684 he published a translation of “Maimbonrg’s History of the League” in which he was employed by Charles II. on account of the pla'ui parallel between the troubles of France and those of Great Britain. Upon the death of this monarch, he wrote his “Threnodia Augustalis:” a poem sacred to the happy memory of that prince. Soon after the accession of James II. he turned Roman catholic upon which occasion, Mr. Thomas Browne wrote “The reasons of Mr. Bayes’s changing his religion considered, in a dialogue between Crites Eugenius and Mr. Bayes, 1688,” 4to; and also, “The late converts exposed: or, the reasons of Mr. Bayes’s changing his religion considered, in a dialogue; part the second 1690,” 4to. In 1686 he wrote “A defence of the papers written by the late king of blessed memory, and found in his strong box.” This was written in opposition to Stillingfleet’s “Answer to some papers lately printed, concerning the authority of the catholic church in matters of faith, and the reformation of the church of England, 1686,” 4to. He vindicates the authority of the catholic church, in decreeing matters of faith upon this principle, that “The church is more visible than the scripture, because the scripture is seen by the church;” and, to abuse the reformation in England, he affirms, that “it was erected on the foundation of lust, sacrilege, and usurpation, and that no paint is capable of making lively the hideous face of it.” He affirms likewise, that “the pillars of the church established by law, are to be found but broken staffs by their own concessions: for, after all their undertakings to heal a wounded conscience, they leave their proselytes finally to the scripture; as our physicians, when they have emptied the pockets of their patients, without curing them, send them at last to Tunbridge waters, or the air of Montpelier; that we are reformed from the virtues of good living, from the devotions, mortifications, austerities, humility and charity, which are practised in catholic countries, by the example and precept of that lean, mortified, apostle, St. Martin Luther, &c.” Stillingrleet hereupon published “A vindication of the Answer to some late papers,” in 1687, 4to; in which he treats Dryden with some severity; “If I thought,” says he, “there was no such thing as true religion in the world, and that the priests of all religions are alike, I might have been as nimble a convert, and as early a defender of the royal papers, as any one of these champions. For why should not one, who believes no religion, declare for any?” In 1687 he published his “Hind and Panther; a poem.” It is divided into three parts, and is a direct defence of the Romish church, chiefly by way of dialogue between a hind, who represents the church of Rome, and a panther, who sustains the character of the church of England. These two beasts very learnedly discuss the several points controverted between the two churches; as transubstantiation, church-authority, infallibility, &c. In the preface he tells us, that this poem “was neither imposed on him, nor so much as the subject given han by any man. It was written,” says he, “durin;- the last winter and the beginning of this spring, though with long interruptions of ill health and other hindrances. About a fortnight before I had finished it, his majesty’s declaration for liberty of conscience came abroad which it 1 had so soon expected, I might have spared myself the labour of writing many things, which are contained in the third part of it. But 1 was always in some hope the church of England might have been persuaded to have taken off the penal laws and the test, which was one design of the poem when I proposed to myself the writing of it.” This poem was immediately attacked by the wits, particularly by Montague (afterwards earl of Halifax,) and Prior; who joined in writing ' The Hind and Panther transversed to the story of the Country Mouse and the City Mouse.“In 1688 he published” Britannia Rediviva;" a poem on the birth of the prince.

He was supposed, some time before this, to have been engaged in translating Varillas’s History of Heresies, but to have dropped that work before it was finished. This we learn from a passage in Burnet’s “Defence of the Reflections on the ninth book of the first volume” of that history: “I have been informed from England,” says the doctor, “that a gentleman, who is famous both for poetry and several other things, has spent three months in translating Mr. Varillas’s history; but that, as soon as my * Reflections’ appeared, he discontinued his labour, finding the credit of his author was gone. Now, if he thinks it is recovered by his answer, he will perhaps go on with his translation; and this may be, for aught I know, as good an entertainment for him as the conversation he has set on foot between the hinds and panthers, and all the rest of the animals, for whom Mr. Varillas may serve well enough, as an author and this history and that poem are sucb> extraordinary things of their kind, that it will be but suitable to the author of the worst poem to become likwise the translator of the worst history that the age has produced. If his grace and his wit improve both proportional)] y, we shall hardly find that he has gained much by the change he has made, from having no religion to choose one of the worst. It is true, he had somewhat to sink from in matter of wit; but as for his morals, it is scarce possible for him to grow a worse man than he was. He has lately wreaked his malice on me for spoiling his three months labour; but in it he has done me all the honour that any man can receive from him, which is, to be railed at by him. If I had ill nature enough to prompt me to wish a very bad wish for him, it should be, that he would go on and finish his translation. By that it will appear, whether the English nation, which is the most competent judge in this matter, has, upon the seeing our debate, pronounced in Mr. Varilias’s favour or mine. It is true, Mr. Dryden will suffer a little by it but at least it will serve to keep him in from other extravagances and if he gains little honour by this work, yet he cannot lose so much by it as he has done by his last employment.” This passage, besides the information which it affords, shews the opinion, whether just or not, which Burnet entertained of Dryden and his morals.

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

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

In 1699 he entered into a contract with Tonson, the bookseller, to supply him with 10,000 verses, which produced in 1700 his “Fables, ancient and modern;” translated into verse from Homer, Ovid, Boccace, and Chaucer. He tells us in the preface to this his last work, that “he thinks himself as vigorous as ever in the faculties of his soul, excepting only his memory, which,” he says, “is not impaired to any great degree;” and he was then sixtyeight years of age. For this labour he was to get only 30GJ. out of which 250 guineas were paid down, and he was to receive the remainder on the appearance of a second edition, which did not happen till thirteen years after his death. Besides the original pieces and translations hitherto mentioned, he wrote many other things, which have been several times published in the “Six volumes of Miscellanies” under his name, and in other collections. They consist of translations from the Greek and Latin poets epistles to several persons; prologues and epilogues to various plays elegies, epitaphs, and songs. In 1743 came out in two volumes 12mo, a new collection of our author’s poetical works, under the title of “Original Poems and Translations, by John Dry den, esq. now first collected and published together;” that is, collected from the “Six volumes of Miscellanies” just mentioned. The editor observes, in his preface, that “it was but justice to the productions of so excellent a poet, to set them free at last from so disadvantageous, if not unnatural, an union; an union, which, like the cruelty of Mezentius in Virgil, was no less than a junction of living and dead bodies together.” “It is now high time,” says he, “that the partnership should be dissolved, and Mr. Dryden left to stand upon his own bottom. His credit as a poet is out of all danger, though the withdrawing his stock may probably expose many of of his copartners to the hazard of a poetical bankruptcy.” There is a collection of our author’s original poems and translations, published in a thin folio, 1701; but, as it does not contain much above half the pieces, so it does not at all answer the design of this collection; which, with his plays, fables, and translations of Virgil, JuvenaJ, and Persius, was intended to complete his works in twelves. As to his performances in prose, besides essays and prefaces, some of which have been mentioned, he wrote the lives of Plutarch anci Lucian, prefixed to the translations of those authors by several hands; “The Life of Polybius,” before the translation of that historian by sir Henry Sheer; and the preface to the “Dialogue concerning Women,” by William Walsh, esq.

He had for some years been harassed by the gravel and the gout; and in December, 1699, was afflicted with an erysipelas in one of his legs. Having recovered, however, from that disorder, he was sufficiently free from any complaint to apply again to his studies; but he was confined to his house by the gout during the greater part of March and April; and near the end of that month, in consequence of neglecting an inflammation in one of his feet, a mortification ensued, of which he died, after a very short illness, at three o'clock on Wednesday morning, May the 1st, 1700.

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

Dr. Johnson conceived, that no description of Dryden’s person had been transmitted to us but, on the contrary, there are few English poets, of whose external appearance more particulars have been recorded. We have not indeed any original whole-length portrait of him, such as that very curious delineation of Pope, with which we have been lately gratified, whence a more perfect notion of that poet’s external appearance may be obtained than from all the friendly drawings of Richardson; yet from various descriptions of Dryden’s person that have come down to us, a very adequate idea of it may be formed. He was certainly a short, fat, florid man, “corpore quadrato,” as lord Hailes some years ago observed to Mr. Malone, “a description which ^neas Sylvius applied to James the First of Scotland” The same gentleman remarked, that that at one time he wore his hair in large quantity, and that it inclined to gray, even before his misfortunes; a circumstance which, he said, he had learned from a portrait of Dry den, painted by Kneller, formerly in the possession of the late Mr. James West. But perhaps his lordship here is not quite accurate. By “before his misfortunes” was meant before the Revolution; but the portrait in question was probably painted at a later period. From other documents, however, it appears that he became gray before he was deprived of the laurel. In Riley’s portrait, painted in 1683, he wears a very large wig: so also in that by Closterman, done at a late period. By Tom Brown he is always called “little Bayes,” and by Rochester, when he quarrelled with, and wished to depreciate him, he was nick-named “poet Squab.” The earliest portrait of Dryden hitherto discovered is that in the picture gallery, Oxford, but the painter is not known. It is engraved in Mr. Malone’s Life.

He married the lady Elizabeth Howard, daughter of the earl of Berkshire, who died in June or July 1714, after having been for some years insane. By her he had three sons, Charles, John, and Erasmus—Henry, of all whom we shall take some notice hereafter. There are some circumstances, relating to Dryden’s funeral, recorded in Wilson’s memoirs of the life of Mr. Congreve, which have been generally credited. It is said that the day after his death. Sprat, bishop of Rochester and dean of Westminster, sent word to lady Elizabeth Howard, his widow, that he would make a present of the ground, and all the other abbey fees. Lord Halifax likewise sent to lady Elizabeth, and to Mr. Charles Dryden her son, offering to defray the expences of our poet’s funeral, and afterwards to bestow 500l. on a monument in the abbey; which generous offer from both was accepted. Accordingly, on the Sunday following, the company being assembled, the corpse was put into a velvet hearse, attended by 18 mourning coaches, When they were just ready to move, lord Jefferu-s, son of the chancellor Jefferies, with some of his rakish companions, coining by, asked whose funeral it was; and, being told it was Mr. Dry den’s, he protested, that ho should not be buried in that private manner; that he would himself, with lady Elizabeth’s leave, have the honour of his interment, and would bestow 1000l. on a monument in the abbey for him. This put a stop to the procession; and Jefferies, with several of the gentlemen who had alighted from the coaches, went up stairs to the lady Elizabeth, who was sick in bed. Jefferies repeated the purport of what he had said below; but lady Elizabeth absolutely refusing her consent, he fell on his knees, vowii.g never to rise till his request was granted. The lady, under a sudden surprise, fainted away and lord Jefferies, pretending to have gained her consent, ordered the body to be carried to Mr. RussePs, an undertaker in Cheapside, and to be left there till further orders. In the mean time, the abbey was lighted up, the ground opened, the choir attending, and the bishop waiting some hours to no purpose for the corpse. The next day, Mr. Charles Dryden waited upon lord Halifax and the bishop, and endeavoured to excuse his mother, by relating the truth; but they would not hear of any excuse. Three days after, the undertaker, receiving no orders, waited on lord Jetieries, who turned it off in a jest, pretending, that those who paid any regard to a drunken frolic deserved no better; that he remembered nothing at all of the matter; and that they might do what they pleased with the corpse. Upon this, the undertaker waited on the lady Elizabeth, who desired a day to consider what must be done. Mr. Charles Dryden immediately wrote to lord Jefferies, who returned for answer, that he knew nothing of the matter, and would be troubled no more about it. Mr. Dryden applied again to lord Halifax and the bishop of Rochester, who absolutely refused to do any thing in the affair. In this distress, Dr. Garth sent for the corpse to the college of physicians, and proposed a funeral by subscription which succeeding, about three weeks after Dryden’s decease, Garth pronounced a Latin oration over his body, which was conveyed from the college, attended by a numerous train of coaches, to Westminster-abbey. After the funeral, Mr. Charles Dryden sent lord Jefteries a challenge, which was not accepted; and, Mr. Dryden publicly declaring he would watch every opportunity to fight him, his lordship thought fit to leave the town upon it, and Mr. Dryden never could meet him after. Mr. Malone, however, has very clearly proved that the greater part of all this was a fiction by Mrs. Thomas. The fact is, that, on May 1, a magnificent funeral was projected by several persons of quality, and the body was in consequence conveyed to the College of Physicians, whence, after Dr. Garth had pronounced a Latin oration in his praise, it was, on the 13th of May, conveyed to Westminster-abbey, attended by above one hundred coaches.

As to Dryden’s character, it has been treated in extremes, some setting it too high, others too low; for he was too deeply engaged in party, to have strict justice done him either way. As to his dramatic works, to say nothing more of the Rehearsal, we find, that the critics, his contemporaries, made very free with them and, it must be confessed, they are not the least exceptionable of his compositions. In tragedy, it has been observed, that he seldom touches the passions, but deals rather in pompous language, poetical flights, and descriptions; and that this was his real taste, appears not only from the tragedies themselves, but from two instances mentioned by Mr. Gildon. The first is, that when a translation of Euripides was recommended to him instead of Homer, he replied, that he had no relish for that poet, who was a master of tragic simplicity: the other is, that he generally expressed a very mean, if not a contemptible, opinion of Otway, who is universally allowed to have succeeded in affecting the passions; though, in the preface to his translation of M. Fresnoy, he speaks more favourably of that poet. Gildon ascribes this taste in Dryden to his intimacy with French romances. As to comedy, he acknowledges his want of gem us for it, in his defence of the “Essay on Dramatic Poetry,” prefixed to his Indian Emperor: “I know,” says he, “I am not fitted by nature to write comedy; I want that gaiety of humour which is required in it. My conversation is slow and dull; my humour saturnine and reserved. In short, 1 am none of those who endeavour to break jests in company, or to make repartees. So that those who decry my comedies, do me no injury, except it be in point of profit: reputation in them is the last thing to which I shall pretend.” But perhaps he would have wrote better in both kinds of the drama, had not the necessity of his circumstances obliged him to conform to the popular taste; and, indeed, he insinuates as much in the epistle dedicatory to the Spanish Friar: “I remember some verses of my own Maximin and Almanzor, which cry vengeance on me for their extravagance. All I can say for those passages, which are, I hope, not many, is, that I knew they were bad enough to please, even when I writ them. But I repent of them among my sins; and if any of their fellows intrude by chance in my present writings, I draw a stroke over all those Dalilahs of the theatre, and am resolved I will settle myself no reputation by the applause of fools. It is not that I am mortified to all ambition; but I scorn as much to take it from half-witted judges, as I should to raise an estate by cheatingfof bubbles. Neither do I discommend the lofty style in tragedy, which is naturally pompous and magnificent; but nothing is truly sublime, that is not just and proper.” He tells us, in his preface to Fresnoy, that his “Spanish Friar was given to the people; and that he never wrote any thing in the dramatic way to please himself, but his Anthony and Cleopatra.”

His translations of Virgil, Juvenal, and Persius, and his Fables, were more successful, as we have observed already. But his poetical reputation is built chiefly upon his original poems, among which his Ode on Saint Caecilia’s Day is justly esteemed one of the most perfect pieces in any language. It has been set to music more than once, particularly in the winter of 1735, by Handel; and was publicly performed with the utmost applause, on the theatre in Covent-garden. Congreve, in the dedication of our author’s dramatic works to the duke of Newcastle, has drawn his character to great advantage. He represented him, in regard to his moral character, in every respect not only blameless, but amiable; and, “as to his writings,” says he, “no man hath written in our language so much and so various matter, and in so various manners, so well. Another thing I may say was very peculiar to him; which is, that his parts did not decline with his years, but that he was an improving writer to the last, even to near se* venty years of age; improving even in fire and imagination, as well as in judgment; witness his Ode on St. Caecilia’s Day, and his Fables, his latest performances. He was equally excellent in verse and in prose. His prose had all the clearness imaginable, together with all the nobleness of expression; all the graces and ornaments proper and peculiar to it, without deviating into the language or diction of poetry. I have heard him frequently own with pleasure, that if he had any talent for English prose, it was owing to his having often read the writings of the great archbishop Tillotson. His versification and his numbers he could learn of nobody; for he first possessed those talents in perfection in our tongue. In his poems, his diction is, wherever his subject requires it, so sublimely and so truly poetical, that its essence, like that of pure gold, cannot be destroyed. What he has done in any one species or distinct kind of writing, would have been sufficient to have acquired him a great name. If he had written nothing but his prefaces, or nothing but his songs or his prologues, each of them would have entitled him to the preference and distinction of excelling in his kind.” It may be proper to observe, that Congreve, in drawing this character of Dryden, discharged an obligation laid on him by our poet, in these lines:

Pope had a high opinion of Dryden. His verses upon his Ode on St. Caecilia’s Day are too well known to need transcribing. In a letter to Wycherley, he says, “It was certainly a great satisfaction to me, to see and converse with a man, whom in his writings I had so long known with pleasure; but it was a very high addition to it, to hear you at our very first meeting doing justice to your dead friend Mr. Dryden. I was not so happy as to know him: Frrgtlium tantum vidi. Had I been born early enough, I must have known and loved him; for I have been assured, not only by yourself, but by Mr. Congreve and sir William Trumball, that his personal qualities were as amiable as his poetical, notwithstanding the many libellous misrepresentations of them; against which, the former of these gentlemen has told me he will one day vindicate him.” But what Congreve and Pope have said of Dryden, is rather in the way of panegyric, than an exact character of him. Others have spoken of him more moderately, and yet have probably done him no injustice. Thus Felton observes, th^.t “he at once gave the best rules, and broke them in spite of his own knowledge, and the Rehearsal. His prefaces are many of them admirable upon dramatic writings: he had some peculiar notions, which he maintains with great address; but his judgment in disputed points is of less weight and value, because the inconstancy of his temper did run into his thoughts, and mixed with the conduct of his writings, as well as his life.” Voltaire styles him “a writer whose genius was too exuberant, and not accompanied with judgment enough; and tells us, that if he had writ only a tenth part of the works he left behind him, his character would have been conspicuous in every part; but his groat fault is, his having endeavoured to be universal.” Dryden has made no scruple to disparage himself, where he thought he had not excelled. Thus, in his dedication of his Aurengzebe to the earl of Mulgrave, speaking of his writing for the stage, “I never thought myself,” says he, “very fit for an employment where many of my predecessors have excelled me in all kinds; and some of my contemporaries, even in my own partial judgment, have outdone me in comedy. Some little hopes I have yet remaining (and those too, considering my abilities, may be vain), that I may make the world some part of amends for many ill plays, by an heroic poem,” of which, however, he did not execute any part. Upon the whole, Mr. Malone appears to have examined and delineated his character as a man, with most truth and precision; and as a poet it is impossible to refer to any thing equal to that masterly criticism given by Dr. Johnson in his life of our poet.

It is said, that he had once a design of taking orders, but was refused*; and that he solicited for the provost­* The malignity which Dryden often not have admitted, and such as may expressed against the clergy is ira- vitiate light and unprincipled minds, puted by Langhaiue to a repulse which But there is no reason for supposing he suffered when he solicited ordina- that he disbelieved the religion which tion but he “denied that he ever de- he disobeyed. He forgot his duty rasigned to enter into the church and ther than disowned it. His tendency such a denial,” observes Dr. Johnson, to profaneness is the effect of levity, “he would not have hazarded, if he negligence, and loose conversation, could have been convicted of falsehood, with a desire of accommodating himMalevolence to the Clergy,” adds the self to the corruption of the times, bydoctor, “is seldom at a great distance venturing to be wicked as far as he from irreverence of religion, and Dry- durst. When he professed himself a den affords no exception to this ob- convert to Popery, he did not pretend f^rvatiou. His writings exhibit many to have received any new conviction passages, which, with all the allow- of the fundamental doctrines of Curisance that can be made for characters tianity.” and occasions, are such as piety would ship of Eton-college, but failed also in this. This we have upon the authority of Thomas Brown, who, in “The late Converts exposed, or the reason of Mr. Bayes’s changing his religion,” of which he was supposed to be the author, has the following passage in the preface: “But, prythee, why so severe always upon the priesthood, Mr. Bayes? You, I find, still continue your old humour, which we are to date from the year of Hegira, the loss of Eton, or since orders were refused you.” Langbaine likewise, speaking of our author’s Spanish Friar, tells us, that “ever since a certain worthy bishop refused orders to a certain poet, Mr. Dryden has declared open defiance against the whole clergy; and since the church began the war, he has thought it but justice to make reprisals on the church.”

Of Dryden’s sons, Charles, the eldest, was born at Charlton, Wiltshire, and educated at Westminster-schoolj and King’s-college, Cambridge, of which he was admitted a member,' in June 1683. In the following year he wrdte some Latin verses addressed to lord Roscommon, which were prefixed to that nobleman’s “Essay on Translated Verse:” and in 1685 contributed a Latin poem to the Cambridge Collection of Verses published on the death of Charles II. In Dryden’s “Second MisceUany” published in the same year, we find another Latin poem by him, descriptive of lord Arlington’s gardens. He also translated the seventh satire in his father’s Juvenal. About 1692 he went to Italy, and was so well recommended to pope Innocent XII. that he was appointed chamberlain to his household. While at Rome, he wrote a poem in English, “On the happiness of a retired life,” published in 1694, in his father’s “Fourth Miscellany.” He is supposed to have returned to England about 1698, and after the death of his father, administered to his effects, which probably did little more than pay his debts. In the following year Mr. George Granville having altered Shakspeare’s “Merchant of Venice” to a drama, which he entitled “The Jew of Venice,” he gave the profits of that piece to Charles Dryden; and two representations of it were performed for his benefit, a proof that his circumStances were far from good. A few years afterwards, unfortunately attempting to swim across the Thames, near Datchet, he was drowned, and was buried at Windsor, August 20, 1704.

, our author’s second son, was born probably in 1667 or 1663, and educated at Westminsterschool, from which he was elected to Oxford, but instead of being matriculated of Christ-church, was placed by his father, now become a Roman catholic, under the private tuition of Obadiah Walker, master of University college, a concealed papist. It is supposed that he went to Rome about the end of 1692, and obtained some office under his brother in the pope’s household. Previously to his leaving England, he translated the fourteenth satire for his father’s Juvenal, and while at Rome, wrote a comedy, “The Husband his own Cuckold,” which was acted in London, and published with a preface by his father. He made a tour in Sicily and Malta, of which his account, after remaining many years in manuscript, was published in 1776, in an 8vo pamphlet. Soon after his return to Rome from this excursion, in 1701, he is said to have died there of a fever.

, Dryden’s third son, was born May 2, 1669, and educated at the Charter-house, and, like his brothers, went to Rome, where he became a captain of the pope’s guards. He succeeded to the title of baronet, by the death of sir John Dryden, and died on the 4th of December, 1710.

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

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

A collection of his won.s was made in his life-time, and printed at Lyons in 1554; but after his death, another edition, more complete, was published in 1579, under the inspection of Nicholas Cisner, who had been his scholar, and was afterwards professor of civil law at Heidelberg. Whether this, or the edition afterwards printed in 1592, contains the same number of pieces, we have not an opportunity of examining. His principal works are: 1. “Commentaria in varies titulos digesti &. codicis.” 2. “Disputation um anniversariarum libri dno.” 3. “De jure accrescendi libri duo.” 4. “De ratione docendi discendique juris.” 5. “De jurisdictione & imperio.” 6. “Apologia adversus Eguinarium Baronem.” 7. “De plagiariis.” This Bayle calls “a curious treatise, but too short for so copious a subject.” 8. “In consuetudines feudorum commentarius.” 9. “De sacris ecclesiae ministeriis ac beneficiis.” 10. “Pro libertate ecclesiae Gallicanrc adversus artes Romanas defensio.” This piece prejudiced the court of Rome against him, and procured it a place in the Index Expurgatorius. II. “Epistola ad Sebast. Albespinam, regis Gallise oratorem.” 12. “Epistola de Francisco BaU duino.” 13. “Defensio adversus Balduini sycophante maledicta.”

, a French ecclesiastic of considerable fame, was born Sept. 1661, at the chateau Dubos, near the town of Blesle, in Auvergne, descended from a family allied to many considerable personages in that province. After having studied with much reputation and rapid progress in the classics, philosophy, and divinity, he took his degrees at the college of Sorbonne, and was appointed by the bishop of Lucon, principal archdeacon, and confidential grand vicar of that see. After the death of this patron, he was elected dean, which office he filled with great credit until his death, Oct. 3, 1724, which was much lamented by his friends and by the poor. His chief publications form the continuation of the “Conferences de Luon” of which the abbe Louis had published 5 vols. 12mo, in 1685. To those Dubois added seventeen more, on baptism, confirmation, the eucharist, &c, and left materials for still farther additions. He also wrote the life of his patron, Barillon, bishop of Lugonj which was published in 1700, 12mo.

, an eminent French writer and critic, secretary, and one of the forty members of the French academy, censor-royal, &c. was born at Beauvais, in December, 1670. After some elementary education at home, he came to Paris in 1686, and pursuing his studies, took his bachelor’s degree in divinity in 1691. One of his uncles, a canon of the cathedral of Beauvais, being attacked by a dangerous illness, resigned his canonry to him in 1695, but on his recovery chose to revoke his resignation. The nephew appears to have felt this and other disappointments in his view of promotion so keenly, as to determine to change his profession. He accordingly left Beauvais in the last-mentioned year, returned to Paris, and soon was distinguished as a man of abilities. The same year he acquired a situation in the office for foreign affairs, and became patronized by M. de Torcy, by whose means he accompanied the French plenipotentiaries to Ryswick, in 1696, where peace was concluded. After his return to France, he was sent to Italy in 1699, although without an ostensible character, to negociate some affairs of importance in the Italian courts, which occupied him until 1702. Some time after, he went to England, as charge d'affaires, and while the war occasioned by the contest about the crown of Spain was at its height, and had involved all Europe, he was the only minister France had at the court of St. James’s, where he resided without rank or character. He then went to the Hague, and to Brussels, and at this latter place wrote the manifesto of the elector of Bavaria, which did him so much credit. In 1707 we find him at Neufchatel, and in 1710 at Gertruydenburgh, and he appears to have had a considerable hand in the treaties of peace concluded at Utrecht, Baden, and Rastadt. All these services were recompensed in 1705, by the priory of Veneroles, and in 1714 by a canonry of the church of Beauvais. Having been employed in other state affairs by the regent and by cardinal Dubois, he was rewarded in 1716 by a pension of 2000 livres, and in 1723 was promoted to the abbey of Notre-Dame de Ressons, near Beauvais. As it was now his intention to execute the duties of these preferments, he received in 1724 the orders of subdeacon and deacon, and was about to have taken possession of his canonry, when he was seized with a disorder at Paris, which proved fatal March 23, 1742. In 1720 he was elected into the French academy, and in 1723 was appointed their secretary.

His works, which procured him a very high reputation in France, were published inxhe following order: 1. “Histoire des quatre Gordiens, prouvee et illustree par les medailles,” Paris, 1695, 12mo, in which he proves, contrary to the common opinion, that there was a fourth Gordianus, the son of the younger Gordianus of Africa; but this produced two answers, in which his opinion was attacked. 2. “Animadversiones ad Nicolai Bergerii librog de publicis et militaribus imperii Romani viis,” Utrecht and Leyden, 1699. 3. “Les interets de PAngleterre, mal entendiis dans la guerre presente,” Amst. 1704, of which there have been several editions, but it appears to have been better relished in France than in England; it consists of many melancholy prophecies respecting England, one of which only, the separation of the American colonies from the mother country, which he hints at, has been fulfilled. 4. “Histoire de la ligue de Cambrai, faite Tan 1508, centre la republique de Venise,” Paris, 1709, 2 vols. 12mo, and reprinted in 1728. 5. “Reflections critiques sur la Poesie et la Peinture,” Paris, 1719, 2 vols. 12mo, and often reprinted in 3 vols, and translated into English. This work, on which the abbe“Dubos’s reputation now principally rests, contains many useful remarks, in a style peculiarly agreeable, but his taste has been frequently attacked, and his enthusiasm for the arts doubted. Voltaire gave him the praise of having seen, heard, and reflected upon the fine arts, and he must be allowed to be upon some topics an elegant writer, and an ingenious reasoner; but, with regard to the subject of music, both his prejudices and his ignorance are visible. He not only determines, says Dr. Burney, that the French and Fleming* cultivated music before the Italians; but, wholly unacquainted with the compositions of other parts of Europe, asserted that there was no music equal to that of Lulli, only known and admired in France. And where, adds the doctor, will he be believed, except in that kingdom, when he says that foreigners allow his countrymen to understand time and measure better than the Italians? He never loses an opportunity of availing himself of the favourable opinions of foreigners in behalf of French music, against that of other parts of Europe. Not only Guicciardini, but Addison, Gravina, and Vossius, all equally unacquainted with the theory, practice, or history of the art, and alike deprived of candour by the support of some favourite opinion or hypothesis, are pressed into the service of his country. If when D'Alembert wrote his Eulogy, he could say that Dubos was one of those men of letters who had more merit than fame, the converse of the proposition is now nearer the truth, and yet the merit of having produced a very agreeable book may be allowed him; and a book, a great deal of which will contribute to form a just taste on those subjects with which he is really acquainted. 6.” Histoire critique de l'etablissment de la monarchic Franoise dans les Gaules," Paris, 1734, 3 vols. 4to. Profiting by some criticisms on this work from the pen of M. Hoffman, professor of history at Wittemberg, he left for publication a corrected edition, which appeared in 1743, 2 vols. 4to. Besides these, he published a translation in French prose, of part of Addison’s Cato, and some discourses held in the French academy.

, one of the martyrs to the cause of the protestant religion in France, in the sixteenth century, was a native of Auvergne, sou to Stephen du Bourg, comptroller general of the customs in Languedoc, and brother to Anthony du Bourg, president of the parliament of Paris, and afterwards chancellor of France. He was born in 1521, designed for the church, and ordained priest; but embracing the protestant religion, was honoured with the crown of martyrdom. He was a man of great learning, especially in the law, which he taught at Orleans with much reputation, and was appointed counsellor-clerk to the parliament of Paris in October 1557. In this high station, he declared himself the protector of the protestants, and endeavoured either to prevent or soften the punishments inflicted upon them. This alarmed some of Henry II.'s counsellors, who advised that monarch to get rid of the protestants, and told him that he should begin by punishing those judges who secretly favoured them, or others who employed their credit and recommendations to screen them from punishment. They likewise suggested that the king should make his appearance unexpectedly in the parliament which was to be assembled on the subject of the Mercurials, or Checks, a kind of board of censure against the magistrates instituted by Charles VIII. and called Mercurials from the day on which they were to be held (Wednesday). The king accordingly came to parliament in June 1559, when Du Bourg spoke with great freedom in his defence, and went so far as to attack the licentious manners of the court; on which the king ordered him to be arrested. On the 19th he was tried, and declared a heretic by the bishop of Paris, ordered to be degraded from the character of priest, and to be delivered into the hand of the secular power; but the king’s death, in July, delayed the execution until December, *vhen he was again condemned by the bishop of Paris, and the archbishop of Lyons, his appeals being rejected by the parliament. Frederick, elector Palatine, and other protestant princes of Germany, solicited his pardon, and probably might have succeeded, had it not been for the assassination, at this time, of the president M in art, whom Du Bourg had challenged on his trial; and it was not therefore difficult, however unjust, to persuade his persecutors that he had a hand in this assassination. He was accordingly hanged, and his body burnt Dec. 2O, 1559; leaving behind him the character of a pious and learned man, an upright magistrate, and a steady friend. At his execution he avowed his principles with great spirit; and the popish biographers are forced to allow that the firmness and constancy shown by him and others, about the same time, tended only to “make new heretics, instead of intimidating the old.”

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

, an eminent antiquary and medailist, was born in 1721 at Housseau, in the canton of Soleure in Switzerland, whence, at nine years of age, he was sent to Denmark, and entered soon after as a student in the university of Copenhagen. Having completed his stud'es in that seminary, he repaired to France, which he considered from that moment as his adopted country, and entered into a Swiss regiment, in the service of it. In his military capacity his conduct was such as to merit and receive the esteem of his superior officers. At the battle of Fontenoy, he received two musket-shots, but still remained in his station, and could not be prevailed upon to leave the field of action, until his leg and part of his thigh had been carried off by a cannon-ball. Being thus rendered unfit for service, he was obliged to take refuge in the hospital for invalids, where he first resolved to extend his knowledge by cultivating foreign languages. After an obstinate pursuit of his object, which occupied all his thoughts, and occasioned several journies among the northern nations, expressly for the purpose of acquiring proficiency in this favourite study, he arrived at such a degree of eminence, as justly to merit the office of interpreter to the royal library for the English, Dutch, German, and Flemish, as well as the Swedish, Danish, and Russian languages. He fulfilled the duties of this important station with so much probity and exactness, that the council of the admiralty appointed him to occupy the same functions in the maritime department; and, during the thirtytwo years in which he filled this office, he gave repeated proofs of his integrity and disinterestedness. Possessing a mind equally unclouded by ambition and the love of pleasure, he employed all his leisure hours in the study of coins and medals, in which he acquired great proficiency. He began with considering and collecting such as had been struck during sieges, and in times of necessity; a pursuit analogous to his taste, and to the profession to which his early life had been devoted. Having completed this task, he undertook to form and to publish a more complete collection of the different species of money struck by the barons of France, than any that had hitherto appeared. In this, which may be called a national work, not content with consulting all the authors who had treated on the subject, he also searched a number of different cabinets, on purpose to verify the original pieces, and to satisfy himself as to their existence and authenticity. But while occupied in drawing up an account of the coins of the first, second, and third race of the kings of France, he was snatched from his favourite avocations by the hand of death, Nov. 19, 1782, when his family were left to mourn the loss of a good husband and father, society to regret an estimable and a modest man, and the sciences to lament an able and an indefatigable investigator. In 1790, the works he had finished were published in a splendid form in 3 vols, imperial 4to, with many plates, at Paris, under the title, “The Works of the late Mr. P. A. T. Duby, &c.” containing in vol. I. a general collection of pieces struck during sieges, or in times of necessity; and in vols. II. and III. a treatise on the money coined by the peers, bishops, abbots, &c. of France. The coins in these volumes are admirably executed, and the whole is a strong proof of the author’s skill in antiquities and general knowledge of every branch connected with his subject.

, a French ecclesiastic of the eighteenth century, was a priest of the diocese of Rouen, and vicar of St. Lawrence in that city, where his talents and religious conduct being conspicuous, notwithstanding his modesty, he was appointed to the curacy of Trouville in Caux, which he would have declined, had not the lord of that parish, and the curate of St. Lawrence, represented to him the great need there was of a diligent and well-informed ecclesiastic in that situation, not only to recover the inhabitants from their extreme ignorance of religion, but to inspire the neighbouring curates with a disposition for employing their time to the advantage of their flocks. M. le Due succeeded in these respects beyond expectation; but, after having done all the good he could in his cure, which he called his mission, left it to the great regret of his parishioners, and went to Paris, where he was obliged to accept the vicarship of St. Paul, out of respect to M. Gueret, who succeeded M. Bourret, and had drawn him to that parish. In this situation he laboured with good success during fifteen years, but being interdicted by M. de Vintimelle, 1731, on account of his opposition to some of the decrees of the church, he retired to the parish of St. Severin, and there died, May 3, 1744. An abridgment of his life appeared in 1745, at Paris, 12mo, in which the following works are attributed to him: “L‘Anne’e Ecclesiastique,” 15 vols. 12mo; an “Imitation, with Reflexions, Exercises, and Prayers,” 12mo; a translation of cardinal Bona’s “Way to Heaven, and shortest Way to go to God,” 12mo; the translation of several hymns in the Paris Breviary and part of the translation of M. de Thou, 16 vols. 4to.

, an eminent English civilian and antiquary, was born in 1713 in Normandy; whence his father, who was descended from an ancient family at Caen in that province, came to England, soon after the birth of his second son James, and resided at Greenwich. The early rudiments of instruction he probably received in his own country. In 1729, being at that time a scholar at Eton, he was three months under the care of sir Hans Sloane, on account of an accident which deprived him of the sight of one eye. In 1731, he was admitted a gentleman-commoner of St. John’s college, Oxford; proceeded LL. B. June 1, 1738, and LL. D. Oct. 21, 1742; became a member of the college of Doctors Commons in November, 1743; and married, in 1749, Susanna a worthy woman, who had been his servant; and who survived him till Oct. 6, 1791, when she died in an advanced age.

Though disappointed in his wishes of entering into holy orders, he became intimately connected with the church He was elected commissary or official of the peculiar and exempt jurisdiction of the collegiate church or free chapel of St. Katharine, near the Tower of London, 1753; was appointed commissary and official of the city and diocese of Canterbury, by archbishop Herring, in December, 1758; and of the subdeanries of South Mailing, Pagham, and Terring, in Sussex, by archbishop Seeker, on the death of Dr. Dennis Clarke, in 1776. He was elected F. A. S. Sept. 22, 1737, and was one of the first fellows of the society nominated by the president and council on its incorporation 1755. He was also elected Aug. 29, 1760, member of the Society of Antiquaries at Cortona; on which occasion he sent them a Latin letter drawn up by his friend the late rev. Philip Morant. He was admitted F. R. S. Feb. 18, 1762; became an honorary fellow of the Society of Antiquaries of Cassel, by diploma, dated in November, 1778; and of that of Edinburgh in 1781. In 1755, he solicited the place of sub-librarian at the Museum, in the room of Mr. Empsom; but it was pre-engaged.

The doctor’s first publication, though without his name, was “A Tour through Normandy, described in a letter to a friend,” 1754, 4to. This tour through part of his native country was undertaken, in company with Dr. Bever, in the summer of 1752; and his account of it, considerably enlarged, was re-published under the title of “Anglo-Norman Antiquities considered, in a Tour through part of Normandy, by Dr. Ducarel, illustrated with 27 copperplates, 1767,” fol. inscribed to Dr. Lyttelton, bishop of Carlisle, then president of the Society of Antiquaries. His lordship had first remarked, 1742, the difference between the mode of architecture used by the Normans in their buildings, and that practised by the contemporary Saxons in England; and the doctor’s observations, actually made on the spot ten years afterward, confirmed the rules then laid down. This ancient dependance of the English crown, with the many memorials in it by the English, was a favourite object of his contemplation. Its coinage was his next research; and he published “A series of above 200 Anglo-Gallic or Norman and Aquitaine Coins of the ancient kings of England, exhibited in sixteen copper-plates, and illustrated in twelve letters, addressed to the Society of Antiquaries of London, and several of its members; to which is added, a map of the ancient dominions of the Icings of England and France, with some adjacent countries, 1757,” 4to. His portrait, engraved by Perry, from a painting by A. Soldi, 1746, was first prefixed to this work, which was the result of his acquaintance with i\l. de Boze, keeper of the French king’s medals, and secretary of the academy of inscriptions and belles lettres. (See Boze). In this undertaking- the doctor found himself seconded by sir Charles Frederick, who engraved all the Aquitaine coins in his possession, in 36 quarto plates, but without any description or letter-press, and intended only for private use, being little known before their circulation on his decease.

Dr. Ducarel had some view to forming a series of English medals, which, by admitting such as have been struck abroad relative to the history of this kingdom, he thought could be carried beyond the conquest, provided the medals proved genuine. But when he engaged Francis Perry to engrave a series, of which the late Mr. Hollis gave the outline, he began no earlier than Henry VIII. and closed it with James I. in ten plates. Three supplemental ones were afterwards published of the same period. Mr. Hollis intended it should be more extensive, by taking in the Roman medals: he, however, assisted Perry in his own. way. It was taken up by Mr. Snelling, who did not publish it in Mr. Hollis’s life-time. Mr. Snelling’s being a posthumous publication, there is no letter-press to accompany his 33 plates, which reach from the conquest to 1742. It will be easily seen that the medals of the first five kings are by Dassier. Another work which the doctor patronized was the “Series of ancient Windows,” engraved by Francis Perry, from the rude sketches of Aubrey in his ms collections, from a transcript made by Mr. Ames of an abstract of Aubrey’s four volumes of collections, taken by Mr. Hutchins for his private use, from the larger work in, the hands of Mr. Awnsham Churchill, of Henbury. In 1760 he printed, for private use, in 4to, an account of his friend Browne Willis, read at the Society of Antiquaries that year. A thick quarto volume of Dr. Willis’s letters to Dr. Ducarel is in the possession of Mr. Nichols.

A question being started by the hon. Daines Barrington, concerning trees indigenous to Great Britain, in the “Philosophical Transactions,” and the chesnut, elm, Him 1 and sycamore, box, abele, and yew, accounted non-indigenous; the doctor undertook the defence of the first of these trees, and to prove it a native here in which he was supported by his antiquarian friends Thorpe and Hasted, who, as Kentishinen, seern to have thought themselves more particularly interested in the dispute. His and their letters on the subject were printed in the “Philosophical Transactions,” vol. LXI.; and Mr. Harrington, in the next article, gave up the controversy, and Dr. Ducarel received great congratulations on his victory. His account of the early cultivation of botany in England, and more particularly of John Tradescant, a great promoter of that science, and of his monument and garden at Lambeth, appeared originally in the “Philosophical Transactions;” whence it is copied, in the “History of Lambeth,” with several improvements, communicated by the doctor to Mr. Nichols. Dr. DucarePs letter to Gerard Meerman, grand pensioner at the Hague, on the dispute concerning Corsellis, as the first printer in England, read at the Society of Antiquaries, 1760, and translated into Latin by Dr. Musgrave, with Mr. Meerman’s answer, were published in the second volume of Meerman’s “Origines Typographies, 1765,” and, with a second letter from Mr. Meerman, were given to the public by Mr. Nichols in a Supplement to his learned partner’s “Two Essays on the Origin of Printing, 1776.” Upon printing the new edition of bishop Gibson’s “Codex,” at the Clarendon press, 1761, the doctor collated the ms collections of precedents annexed to it with the originals at Lambeth, and elsewhere; in return for which, at his own desire, the delegates of the press presented him with two copies of the new edition handsomely bound. From the time of Dr. Ducarel’s appointment to be keeper of the library at Lambeth, his pursuits took a different turn to the ecclesiastical antiquities of this kingdom, and more particularly to those of the province of Canterbury, for which he was so well supplied with materials from that library. In 1761 he circulated printed proposals for publishing a general repertory of the endowments of vicarages, for the service both of vicars and their parishioners, as nothing conduces so much to ascertain their mutual rights as ancient original endowments, which are to be found in the registries of the bishop or dean and chapter of the diocese, or in the chartularies and register books of religious houses. He had proceeded so far as to set down, in alphabetical order, the name and date of every endowment in the registers of the see of Canterbury; and all such as he could discover in the public libraries, or in printed books. He therefore next solicited the like communications from the other diocesans, or from possessors of ancient records; and subjoined a specimen of his method, and a list of the endowments already discovered, in this inquiry the assistance he received was very considerable, and it was at one time in contemplation to print an account of all these several registers, in a volume of his epistolary correspondence with some of the first characters in literature, accompanied with several valuable antiquarian tracts collected by Dr. Ducarei. The proposal for publishing the general repertory of endowments of vicarages, originally circulated, with a specimen annexed, in a single sheet, 4to, dated Dec. 3, 1761, was prefixed (with a new date, Dec. 23, 1762) to “A Repertory of the Endowments of Vicarages in the Diocese of Canterbury, 1763,” 4to, printed for the benefit of the charity-school at Canterbury; of which Mr. Gough had the doctor’s copy, with considerable additions in ms. by him, which were all incorporated into a second edition in 8vo, 1782; to which were added, endowments of vicarages in the diocese of Rochester. In a letter to the rev, Mr. Cole, of Milton, 1757, he says, “I hope, within this year, to have about twelve dioceses ready for the press;” and in another, to the rev. Dr. Cox Macro, 1763, he tells him he had eleven other dioceses then ready. In 1768 he appears to have entertained thoughts of going to press with these collections. In 1763 he drew up an account of the Mss. in the Norfolk library belonging to the royal society, amounting to 563, including 45 then first catalogued. On this occasion he was of a committee with lord Charles Cavendish and the late Dr. Birch. Jn the same year he was appointed by the lords commissioners of the Treasury, at the head of whom Mr. Grenville then was, in conjunction with sir Joseph Ayloffe, bart. and Mr. Astle, to digest and methodize the records of the state paper office at Whitehall; and afterwards those in the augmentationofh'ce. A calendar of the records of the latter, in two volumes, folio, was purchased at his sale for the Bodleian library. In 1766, he communicated to the society of antiquaries a paper on Bezants; which bishop Lyttleton, in a letter to him, styled “curious and elaborate.”

The share he took in the Rowleian discovery and controversy, of which he entertained what is now the general opinion, may be seen in the Gentleman’s Magazine, vol. LVI. pp. 361, 362, 461 464, 544—547, 530, 859 where is printed, his correspondence with Mr. Chapman, rector of Weston near Bath, bishop Percy, Mr. Barrett, the historian of Bristol, whose credulity in these matters was notorious, and Mr. Whitaker. In 1776 was printed, for private use, “A list of various editions of the Bible and parts thereof, in English, from 1526 to 1776,” in a single sheet, 8vo; and an improved edition, 1778, at the expence of archbishop Cornwallis. This little tract owed its rise to a list of English Bibles copied from one compiled Ly Mr. Ames, from 1526 to 1757, presented by Dr. Gifford to the Lambeth library. It was completed by Dr. Ducarel from his own observations, and the later discoveries of his learned friends, Dr. Percy, bishop of Droniore, and Mr. Tutet. Mr. Nichols also, and Mr. Herbert, editor of the new edition of Ames’s “Typographical Antiquities,” contributed not a few articles from their own collections. The account of Dr. Stukeley and his writings prefixed to the second volume of his Itinerary, published 1776, was drawn up by Dr. Ducarel, who also prepared an epitaph for him.

The doctor gave a ms abstract of the large history of the Benedictine abbey of Bee in Normandy, drawn up by Dom John Bourget (see Bourget), monk of that house, and F. A. S. of London, to Mr. Nichols, who printed it in 1771', 8vo, with an appendix of original deeds; and who likewise printed, in the same year, in two volumes, 8vo. “Some account of the Alien Priories, and of such lands as they are known to have possessed in England and Wales,” collected by John Warburton, esq. Somerset herald, and Dr. Ducarel (who did not, however, at the time, permit his name to be mentioned); and considerably augmented by Mr. Gough and some other learned friends of the publisher; to which was prefixed, a general description of the seven Norman cathedrals, with very neat prints of them, The very useful and excellent “Collection of Royal and Noble Wills,” from the conqueror to Henry VII. printed by Mr. Nichols in 1780, was given to the world in consequence of the suggestions of Dr. Ducarel; from whose stores the far greater part of the materials was purchased by the printer at a very considerable price.

Of all the honours Dr. Ducarel enjoyed, none gave him greater satisfaction than the commissariate of St. Katharine’s, a place to which he has done due honour in “The History of the Koyal Hospital and Collegiate church of St. Katharine, near the Tower of London, from its foundation, in 1273, to the present time, 1782,” 4to, with seventeen plates. This history was originally compiled by the doctor for the use of her present majesty, to whom a copy of it was presented in ms. a short time after her accession to the patronage of this collegiate church, the only ecclesiastical preferment in the gift of the queen consort of England. On a thorough repair of this curious old church in 1778, an empty vault was discovered in the chance.1, of a size that would hold two coffins, and no more. This spot the doctor claimed in virtue of his office; and has often pointed out to his friends, as a resting-place for his ashes and those of his lady; and the remains of both have been actually there deposited. Two additional plates to the history of St. Katharine’s, representing the curious grotesque carvings under the old stalls there, were engraved a little before his death, at his particular request, and were given to the public in 1790, with a short appendix to that history, in, the “Bibliotheca Topographica Britannica, No. LII.” In 1783, he published, as No. XII. of Bibliotheca Topograpica Britannica, “Some account of the Town, Church, and Archiepiscopal Palace of Croydon, in the county of Surrey, from its foundation to 1783,” 4to r originally drawn up by him in 1754, at the request of archbishop Herring. He also drew up in the “Bibliotheca Topographica Britannica, No. XXVII,” “The History and Antiquities of the Archiepiscopal Palace of Lambeth, from its foundation to the present time, 1785, 4to,” which was dedicated, by permission, to archbishop Moore; and, in 1786, he contributed largely to “The History and Antiquities of the parish of Lambeth, in the county of Surrey; including biographical anecdotes of several eminent persons; compiled from original records, and other authentic sources of information.” Some additions to this history were also, in 1790, printed in the same collection.

His memoirs of archbishop Hutton and his family, fairly written, were purchased at his sale, by the rev. Dr. Lort, for the Hutton family. In May 1757 he was appointed to the place of librarian at Lambeth (to which a salary of 30l. per annum is annexed) under archbishop Hutton; and the catalogues of that valuable collection are not a little benefited by his diligence and abilities. The catalogue begun by bishop Gibson, while librarian here, and continued by Dr. Wilkins with the greatest minuteness, was perfected by him to his own time; a distinct catalogue made of the books of archbishop Seeker, who expended above 300l. in arranging and improving the ms library and printed books here; and another, in three volumes folio, of the pamphlets and tracts bound up by the direction of archbishop CornwaLlis; and of the library of Mss. the catalogue begun by Dr. Wilkins, 720, and continued by succeeding librarians to No. 888, he extended to No. 1147, in two volumes. In 1757, he addressed to archbishop Seeker a letter concerning the first edition of archbishop Parker’s valuable book, “De Antiquitate Britannicae Ecclesiae,” now in the ms library at Lambeth, No. 959, giving an account of a great many ancient deeds, ms notes, &c. &c. contained therein. This letter is printed at large in the appendix to his “History of Lambeth Palace.”

He was engaged also in arranging and indexing above 30 folio volumes of leases, papers, &c. and such was his assiduity in whatever he undertook, that, besides the fair copy of the index by him taken of all the Lambeth registers, and the general index which he made to them, he reserved for himself another, which at his sale became the property of Mr. Gough, and at the sale of the latter was bought for the British Museum. It contains in 48 volumes folio, neatly bound, an account of every instrument relative to the see, province, and diocese of Canterbury, from Pecham to Herring; and, with a great variety of other materials amassed by the doctor, may be justly styled a fund of ecclesiastical antiquities for that province in particular, and for the kingdom at large. In this laborious undertaking he was materially assisted by the industry of his friend Mr. Howe-Mores; by Mr. Hall, his predecessor in the office of librarian; and by Mr. Pouncey, who for many years was his assistant, as clerk and deputy librarian. Dr. Ducarel had an intention of publishing his abstract of archbishop Pecham’s register; and the rough draught of a Latin title, with a preface or dedication to archbishop Herring, together with a copy of the abstract, and various notes by Mr. Mores, came to Mr. Gough by purchase, at Mr. Mores’ s sale.

Dr. Ducarel’s great researches into antiquities occasioned his assistance to be courted on many publications, particularly that of Dr. Burton’s “Monasticon Eboracense.” He also was a candidate for the employment of arranging Mr. Bridges’s Northamptonshire papers, with the late rev. Peter Whalley, and with the late rev. Mr. Buckler, of All-souls college. A catalogue of the Mss. was sent him; and the general sense of the committee was in favour of Mr. Buckler; but at the meeting, on the ballot, Mr. Whalley had live votes, Mr. Buckler four, and Dr. Ducarel three, out of the thirteen who attended. He had drawn up also, an account of Doctors-commons, and, as an appendix to it, complete lists of the different chancellors of the several dioceses of this kingdom, as high as the registers go, in folio, which were so nearly ready for publication, that he repeatedly promised them with that express intention to Mr. Nichols, who, at the doctor’s request, caused complete indexes to be made to both. The materials for both these were among his collections in Mr. Cough’s library. Another work which he intended for Mr. Nichols’s press, and for which an index was in like manner made, was “Testamenta Lambethana; being a complete list of all the wills and testaments recorded in the archiepiscopal register at Lambeth, from A. D. 1312, to A. D. 163G, extracted by Dr. Ducarel, F. R. and A. Ss. Lambeth librarian, &c. with a complete index, A. D. 1779.”

For many years it was his custom to travel incognito in August, with his friend Samuel Gale, esq. attended only by his own coachman and Mr. Gale’s footman, George Monk. Twenty miles was their usual stage on the first day, and every other day about fifteen. It was a rule not to go out of their road to see any of their acquaintance. The coachman was directed to say, “it was a job; and that he did not know their names, but that they were civil gentlemen;” and the footman, “that he was a friend of the coachman’s, who gave him a cast.” They usually took up their quarters at an inn, and penetrated into the country for three or four miles round. After dinner, Mr. Gale smoked his pipe, whilst Dr. Ducarel took notes, which he regularly transcribed, and which after his death were purchased by Mr. Gough. They constantly took with them Camden’s Britannia, and a set of maps. In Vertue’s plate of London-bridge chapel, the figure measuring is Dr. Ducarel; that standing is Mr. Samuel Gale.

Dr. Ducarel closed a life of unremitted industry and application in antiquarian pursuits, at his house at South Lambeth, May 29, 1785, after he had returned only three days from a fortnight’s journey into Kent, where he had held a visitation for himself, and three different ones for his friend archdeacon Backhouse. He was a stout., athletic man, and had a strong prepossession that he should live to a great age. He frequently said, that he had the stamina of long life; and that if he escaped any violent accident, or a stroke of the palsy, “he should take a peep into the next century.” The immediate cause of the disorder which carried him off, was a sudden surprize, on receiving, whilst at Canterbury, a letter informing him that Mrs. Ducarel was at the point of death. He hastened home, took to his bed, and died in three days; and was buried in his favourite church of St. Katharine, on the north side of the altar, in a vault which (as has been already mentioned) he had many years ago selected for that purpose.

He had appointed his old and intimate friends Mr. Fountaine and Mr. Tutet, executors to his will; but both these gentlemen declining the trust, it devolved upon his nephew and heir, Gerard Gustavus Ducarel, esq. Dr. Ducarel had the happiness of enjoying the esteem of five successive primates, and lived to be the oldest officer in the palace of Lambeth. His official attendance to the duties of Doctors-commons was unremitting, and his attachment to the study of English antiquities formed his principal amusement. His collection of books and Mss. was valuable; and his indexes and catalogues so exact as to render them highly convenient to himself and the friends he was desirous to oblige. All these, with a good collection of coins and medals, he gave by his last will, to his nephew Gerard Gustavus, in the fond hopes of their being preserved as heir-looms in his family. But they were all afterwards consigned to the hammer of the auctioneer, and the greater part of the Mss. passed into the hands of Mr. Gough, many of which are now in Mr. Nichols’s possession. In the latter part of life he was too much immersed in professional engagements to enter into new attachments of friendship, but with his old friends he associated on the most liberal terms. Though he never ate meat till he was fourteen, nor drank wine till he was eighteen, as he was frequently heard to declare; yet it was a maxim which he punctually observed, that “he was an old Oxonian, and therefore never knew a man till he had drunk a bottle of wine with him.”' His entertainments were in the true style of the old English hospitality and he was remarkably happy in assorting the company he not un frequently invited to his table.

, was a Greek historian, concerning the life of whom it is only known that he was employed inseveral negotiations. He wrote a history, which is still extant, of the Grecian empire, from the reign of the elder Andronicus, to the fall of that empire. Ducas is preferred to Chalcondylas, though he writes in a barbarous style, because he relates facts not to be found elsewhere, and was an attentive witness of what passed. His work was printed at the Louvre, in 1649, folio, under the care of Ismael Bouillaud, who accompanied it with a Latin version and learned notes. The president Cousin translated it afterwards into French, and it concludes the 8th volume of his History of Constantinople, printed at Paris, in 1672 and 1674, 4to; and reprinted in Holland, 16S5, 12mo.

, was an artist who flourished in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, but in what school he was educated is uncertain. Sigismondo Tizio, of Castiglione, who lived at Siena from 1482 to 1528, in his histories, speaks of him as the first artist of his time, (1311), and makes him a pupil of Segna, a name as celebrated once as now obscure. The works of Duccio are from 1275, the year in which he received a commission for S. Maria Novella at Florence, to 1311, the period at which he was employed in the cathedral of Siena, to paint the principal altar-piece, a work that still exists, which marks probably an epoch of art, at which he laboured three years, and for which he was paid upward of 3000 scudi d'oro, the expence of gilding and ultramarine included. That part of it which faced the audience, represented in large figures the Madonna and various saints; that which fronted the choir, divided into many compartments, exhibited numerous compositions of gospel subjects in figures of small proportions: it cannot be denied, that with all its copiousness, the whole savours strongly of the Greek manner. Duccio is celebrated as the restorer of that inlaid kind of Mosaic, called “lavoro di commesso,” which composes the floor of the dome of Siena.

, a learned dissenting minister, was born in Ireland 1697. He had his early education under the direction of an uncle his preparatory studies were greatly assisted by the well-known Mr. Abernethy and he finished his course of study at the universitv or Glasgow which, in- testimony of his merit, conferred en him the degree of D.D. He resided for ten or eleven years at Cambridge, as the pastor of a small congregation there; where he enjoyed the advantage of books, and of learned conversation, which he improved with the greatest diligence. On Mr. Abernethy’s removal from Antrim, he succeeded him in that place; and on the death of that gentleman, was chosen to be minister to the protestant dissenting congregation of Wood-street, Dublin, in which situation he continued to his death, which happened in 1761.

During his residence here, when he was in the decline of life, of a valetudinary habit, and had frequent avocations in the way of his profession, he composed and wrote sermons to the amount of more, it appears on the best computation, than 700. From this mass a collection was taken after his death, and published in 1764, 3 vols. 8vo. They are mostly on new and uncommon subjects; and though they cannot bear a strict critical examination, yet a vein of strong manly sense and piety runs through the whole. During his life, he published a volume of excellent discourses on the presumptive arguments in favour or the Christian religion; and many occasional tracts, both in England and Ireland.

, a French editor, distinguished among the literati of his time, was born at Metz in 1658. He was trained to the law, and followed the bar, till the reformed were driven out of France, by the revocation of the edict of Nantz. In 1701 he settled at Berlin became a member of the academy of sciences and died there in 1735. He was regarded as a very learned person, yet is distinguished as an editor rather than an author. His peculiar taste for the ancient French writers, led him to give new editions of the Menippean Satires, of the works of Rabelais, of the Apology for Herodotus, by Henry Stephens, &c. all accompanied with remarks of his own. He held a correspondence with Bayle, whom he furnished with many particulars for his Dictionary, and whose attachment to expatiating on indelicate passages, notes, &c. he too closely copied. After his death was published a “Ducatiana,” at Amsterdam, 1738, 2 vols. 12mo.

, born at Paris, Oct. 29, 1668, was the son of a gentleman of the bedchamber to the French king. His father took great pains in his education; but left him scarcely any property, and he soon had recourse to his pen as the means of gaining a subsistence. The marchioness de Maintenon, having seen some of his essays, made choice of him to furnish her pupils at St. Cyr with sacred sonnets, and recommended him so strongly to Pontchartrain, the secretary of state, that the minister, taking the poet for some considerable personage, went and made him a visit. Duche, seeing a secretary of state enter his doors, thought he was going to be sent to the Bastille^; but he was soon relieved from his fright by the civilities of the minister. Duche had as much gentleness in his disposition as charms in his wit, and never indulged in any strokes of satire. Rousseau and he were the delight of the companies they frequented; but the impression made by Duche, though less striking at first, was most lasting. He was also admired for the talent of declamation, which he possessed in no common degree. The academy of inscriptions and belles lettres were pleased to admit him of their body; but he died in the prime of life, Dec. 14, 1704. Duche presented the French theatre with three tragedies, Jonathan, Absalom, and Deborah, of which the second, containing several pathetic scenes, still keeps its ground on the stage; and also wrote some ballets, tragedies, &c. for the opera. Of these last, his “Iphigenia” is his best performance and in the opinion of his countrymen, has many of the excellencies of the Grecian tragedies. There is likewise by this author a collection of edifying stories, which used to be read at St. Cyr with no less edification than pleasure, but which has sometimes been confounded with the pious and moral stories of the abbé de Choisi. The two works are indeed written in the same design, that of disengaging youth from frivolous reading but the collection of the poet is less known than that of the abbé yet is not inferior to it, either in elevation of sentiment, in truth of character, or even in elegance of style. His hymns and his sacred canticles were also sung at St. Cyr.

, an English civilian, was born at Heavy-Tree, near Exeter in Devonshire, 1580, of a considerable family, and was the younger brother of Nicholas Duck, recorder of Exeter. At the age of fifteen he was entered of Exeter college, Oxford, took his degree of B. A. and became a fellow-commoner in 1599. From thence he removed to Hart-hall, took his master’s degree, and afterwards was elected fellow of All-souls but his genius leading him to the study of the civil law, he took his degree of doctor in that faculty.* He travelled into France, Italy, and Germany; and, after his return, was made chancellor of the diocese of Bath and Wells. He was afterwards made chancellor of London, and at length master of the requests: but the confusions, which were then beginning, probably hindered him from rising higher. In 1640 he was elected burgess for Minehead in Somersetshire, and soon after siding with king Charles in the time of the rebellion, became a great sufferer in the fortunes of his family, being stripped by the usurpers of 2000l. In 1648 he was sent for by his majesty to Newport in the Isle of Wight, to assist in his treaty with the commissioners from the parliament; but, that treaty not succeeding, he retired to his habitation at Chiswick near London, where he died in May 1649, but in Smith’s obituary he is said to have died in December preceding. He was an excellent civilian, a man of piety, a tolerable poet, especially in his younger days, and very well versed in history, ecclesiastical as well as civil. His only defect was a harshness of voice in pleading. He left behind him, “Vita Henrici Chichele,” &c. Oxon. 1617, 4to, added to Bates’s Lives, and translated into English, 1699, and “De usu & authoritate Juris Civilis Romanorum in dominiisprincipmn Christianorum:” a very useful and entertaining work, which has been printed several times at home and abroad, and is added to De Ferriere’s “History of Civil Law,” 1724, 8vo. He was greatly assisted in this work by the learned Dr. Gerard Langbaine.

, a very extraordinary person, who from a thresher became a poet, and was afterwards advanced to the cure of a parish, was born about the beginning of the last century, and had originally no other teaching than what enabled him to read and write English: and, as arithmetic is generally joined with this degree of learning, he had a little share of that too. About his fourteenth year he was taken from school, and was afterwards successively engaged in the several lowest employments of a country life, which lasted so long, that he had almost forgot all the arithmetic he had learned at school. However, he read sometimes, and thought oftener: he had a certain longing after knowledge; and, when he reflected within himself on his want of education, he began to be particularly uneasy, that he should have forgot any thing of what he had learned, even at his little school. He thought of this so often, that, at last, he resolved to try his own strength; and, if possible, to recover his arithmetic again.

He was then about 24 years of age; was married, and at service: he had little time to spare: he had no books, and no money to get any; but used to work more than other day-labourers, by which means he got some little matter added to his pay. This overplus was at his own disposal; and with this he bought first a book of vulgar arithmetic, then one of decimal, and a third of measuring land; of all which, by degrees, he made himself a tolerable master, in those hours he could steal from sleep after the labours of the day. He had, it seems, one dear friend, who joined with him in this literary pursuit; and with whom he used to talk and read, when they could steal a little time for it. This friend had been in a service at London for two or three years, and had an inclination to books, as well as Stephen Duck. He had purchased some, and brought them down with him into the country; and Stephen had always the use of his little library, which in time was increased to two or three dozen of books. “Perhaps,” says his historian, Mr. Spence, “you would be willing to know, what books their little library consisted of. I need not mention those of arithmetic again, nor his Bible. Milton, the Spectators, and Seneca, were his first favourites; Telemachus, with another piece by the same hand, and Addisou’s Defence of Christianity, his next. They had an English dictionary, and a sort of English grammar, an Ovid of long standing with them, and a Bysshe’s Art of Poetry of later acquisition. Seneca’s Morals made the name of L'Estrange dear to them; and, as I imagine, might occasion their getting his Joseph us in folio, which was the largest purchase in their whole collection. They had one volume of Shaksneare, with seven of his plays in it. Besides these, Stephen had read three or four other plays; some of Epictetus. Waller, Dryden’s Virgil, Prior, Hudibras, Tom Browne, and the London Spy.”

With these helps Stephen grew something of a poet, and something of a philosopher. He had from his infancy a cast in his mind towards poetry, as appeared from several little circumstances; but what gave him a higher taste of it than he had been used to, was Milton’s Paradise Lost. This he read over twice or thrice with a dictionary before he could understand the language of it thoroughly; and this, with a sort of English grammar he had, is said to have been of the greatest use to him. It was his friend that helped him to the Spectators; which, as he himself owned, improved his understanding more than any thing. The pieces of poetry scattered in those papers helped on his natural bent that way; and made him willing to try whether he could not do something like them. He sometimes turned his own thoughts into verse, while he was at wo;k and at la>-t bo;,an to venture those thoughts a little upon paper. The thing took air; and Stephen, who had before the name of a scholar among the country people, was said now to be able to write verses too. This was mentioned accidentally, about 1729, before a gentleman of Oxford, who sent for Stephen and, after some talk with him, desired him to write him a letter in verse. He did so; and that letter is the epistle which stands the last in his poems, though the first whole copy of verses that ever he wrote.

By these attempts, one after another, he became known to the clergymen in the neighbourhood; who, upon examining him, found that he had a great deal of merit, made him some presents, and encouraged him to go on. At length some of his essays falling into the hands of a lady of quality who attended on queen Caroline, he became known to her majesty, who took him under her protection, and settled on him a yearly pension, supposed to be of 30l.; it was such a one at least as was sufficient to maintain him independently of labour. This Duck very gratefully acknowledges in the dedication of his poems to the queen “Your majesty,” says he, “has indeed the same right to them, as you have to the fruits of a tree, which you have transplanted out of a barren soil into a fertile and beautiful garden. It was your generosity which brought me out of obscurity, and still condescends to protect me; like the Supreme Being, who continual‘.;,’ supports the meanest creature which his goodness has produced.” Swift, who might, one would think, easily have overlooked such an object as Duck, but whose spleen prompted him to be satirical on any occasion or none, was so piqued at this generosity in the queen, while we suppose he thought himself and his own friends neglected, that he wrote the following quibbling epigram, as he calls it, “on Stephen Duck, the thresher and favourite poet:”

In 1733 the queen made him one of the yeomen of the guards, from which situation, by a singular, and, we think, absurd transition, he was admitted into orders, and preferred to the living of Byfleet in Surrey. The only qualification for this office which his biographers mention, is a small knowledge of Latin, not enough surely to justify such an abuse of church patronage. Before this he was appointed keeper of the queen’s select library at Richmond, called Merlin’s Cave, where he had apartments, which were continued to his daughter after his decease. Here and at Byfleet he continued for many years to make poems and sermons, and was much followed by the people as a preacher; till, falling at length into a low-spirited melancholy way, he flung himself into the Thames from a bridge near Reading, or, as some say, into a trout stream, which is near Reading, and was drowned. This unhappy accident, for he was perfectly lunatic, befell him some time in March or April, 1756. In the preface to his poems he makes his acknowledgments to some gentleman who “first took notice of him in the midst of poverty and labour.” What those gentlemen did was highly generous and praise-worthy, and it was but gratitude in Stephen to acknowledge it yet it is more than probable, that if he had been suffered to pass the remainder of his lite, after he had spent so much of it, in poverty and labour, he had lived and died more happily. It was thought that his melancholy proceeded from a notion that he had not been sufficiently provided for, and if so, his injudicious patrons must have flattered him into a very false estimate of his merit. Warton says that Spence, who wrote Duck’s life and published his poems, was the means of his obtaining the living of Byfleet; and such was the taste of the courtiers of queen Caroline, that they actually wished to set up this poor versifier as a rival to Pope. But although, to use Warburton’s sarcastic language, “queen Caroline, who moderated, as a sovereign, between the two great philosophers, Clarke and Leibnitz, in the most sublime points in metaphysics and natural philosophy, chose this man for her favourite poet,” it was beneath such a man as Spence to persuade poor Duck that he merited the higher rewards of genius. Few men, if we may judge from his works, had ever less pretensions.

, born at Dinant in Bretagne, about the close of 1705, the son of a hatter, received a distinguished education at Paris. His taste for literature obtained him admission to the most celebrated academies of the metropolis, of the provinces, and of foreign countries. Being chosen to succeed Mirabaud, as perpetual secretary of the French academy, he filled that post as a man who was fond of literature, and had the talent of procuring it respect. Though domesticated at Paris, he was appointed in 1744 mayor of Dinant; and in 1755 had a patent of nobility granted him by the king, in reward for the zeal which the states of Bretagne had shewn for the service of the country. That province having received orders to point out such subjects as were most deserving of the favours of the monarch, Duclos was unanimously named by the tiers-6tat. He died at Paris, March 26, 1772, with the title of historiographer of France. His conversation was at once agreeable, instructive and lively. He reflected deeply, and expressed his thoughts with, energy, and illustrated them by well selected anecdotes. Lively and impetuous by nature, he was frequently the severe censor of pretensions that had no foundation. But age, experience, intercourse with society, a great fund of good sense, at length taught him to restrict to mankind in general those hard truths which never fail to displease individuals. His austere probity, from whence proceeded that bluntness for which he was blamed in company, his beneficence, and his other virtues, gave him a right to the public esteem. “Few persons,” says M. le prince de Beauvau, “better knew the duties and the value of friendship. He would boldly serve his friends and neglected merit on such occasions he displayed an art which excited no distrust, and which would not have been expected in a man who his whole life long chose rather to shew the truth with force, than to insinuate it with address.” At first he was of the party which went under the name of the philosophers; but the excesses of its leader, and of some of his subalterns, rendered him somewhat more circumspect. Both in his conversation and in his writings he censured those presumptuous writers, who, under pretence of attacking superstition, undermine the foundations of morality, and weaken the bands of society. Once, speaking on this subjert, “these enthusiastic philosophers,” said he, “will proceed such lengths, as at last to make me devout.” Besides, he was too fond of his own peace and happiness to follow them in their extravagancies, and placed no great value on their friendship or good will. “Duclos est a la fois droit et adroit,” said one of his philosophical friends, and it was in consequence of this prudence, that he never would publish any tiling of what he wrote as historiographer of France. “Whenever I have been importuned,” said he, “to bring out some of my writings on the present reign, I have uniformly answered, that I was resolved neither to ruin myself by speaking truth, nor debase myself by flattery. However, I do not the less discharge my duty. If I cannot speak to my contemporaries, I will shew the rising generation what their fathers were.” Indeed, we are told that he did compose the history of the reign of Lewis XV. and that after his death it was lodged in the hands of the minister. The preface to this work may be seen in the first vol. of the “Pieces inte>essantes” of M. de la Place. Duclos’s works consist of some romances, which have been much admired in. France; 1. “The Confessions of count ***.” 2. “The baroness de Luz.” 3. “Memoirs concerning the Manners of the eighteenth Century;” each in 1 vol. 12mo. 4. <l Acajou;“in 4to and 12mo, with plates. In the Confessions he has given animation and action to what appeared rather dry and desultory in his” Considerations on the Manners.“Excepting two or three imaginary characters, more fantastical than real, the remainder seems to be the work of a master. The situations, indeed, are not so well unfolded as they might have been; the author has neglected the gradations, the shades; and the romance is not sufficiently dramatical. But the interesting story of madame de Selve proves that M. Duclos knew how to finish as well as to sketch. His other romances are inferior to the” Confessions.“The memoirs relating to the manners of the eighteenth century abound in just observations on a variety of subjects. Acajou is no more than a tale, rather of the grotesque species, but well written. 5.” The History of Lewis XI.“1745, 3 vols. 12mo; and the authorities, an additional volume, 1746, contain curious matter. The style is concise and elegant, but too abrupt and too epigrammatical. Taking Tacitus for his model, whom, by the way, he approaches at a veryhumble distance, he has been less solicitous about the exact and circumstantial particularization of facts, than their aggregate compass, and their influence on the manners, laws, customs, and revolutions of the state. Though his diction has been criticised, it must be confessed that his lively and accurate narration, perhaps at the same time rather dry, is yet more supportable than that ridiculous pomp of words which almost all the French authors have employed in a department where declamation and exaggeration are the greatest defects. 6.” Considerations on the Manners of the present Century,“12mo; a book replete with just maxims, accurate definitions, ingenious discussions, novel thoughts, and well-drawn characters, although the style is sometimes obscure, and there is here and there an affectation of novelty, in which a writer of consummate taste would not have indulged; but these defects are amply compensated by a zeal for truth, honour, probity, beneficence, and all the moral and social virtues. Lewis XV. said of this book,” It is the work of a worthy man.“7.” Remarks on the general Grammar of PortRoyal.“In these he shews himself a philosophical grammarian. 7.” Voyage en Italie,“1791, 8vo. This trip he took in 1767 and 1768. 8.” Memoirs secrets sur les regnes de Louis XIV et Louis XV. 1791," 2 vols. 8vo, in which are many curious anecdotes and bold facts. He wrote also several dissertations in the Memoirs of the academy of belles-lettres, which contain much eruuiti Hi, qualified by the charms of wit, and ornamented by a diction clear, easy, correct, and always adapted to the subject. Duclos had a greater share than any other in the edition of 1762 of the Dictionary of the French Academy; in which his usual accuracy and judgment are everywhere apparent and he had begun a continuation of the history of that society. His whole works were collected for the first time, and printed at Paris in 1806, 10 vols. 8vo, with a life by M. Auger, and many pieces left by him in manuscript. This edition appears to have revived his fame in France, and made him be enrolled among her standard authors.

, an eminent prelate, was born Feb. 6, 1533, at Buda, and educated by his uncle, who was bishop of Vaccia, or Veitzen, and out of respect to him he took the name of Shardellet. In 1560 the emperor Ferdinand II. admitted Dudith into his council, and appointed him bishop of Tina. He was sent soon after to the council of Trent, in the name of the emperor, and all the Hungarian clergy; and there made a very eloquent speech, April 9, 1568, which was heard with great pleasure. But this was not the case with another speech which he delivered in that place on July 6; for, though he shewed great zeal for the pope, and exclaimed strongly against Luther, yet he expressed himself so freely, both there and in his common conversation, on the necessity of episcopal residence, and in favour of marriage among the clergy, and administering the cup in the sacrament, that the legates, apprehensive of his drawing many prelates to his opinion, wrote to the pope, informing him, that Dudith was a dangerous man, and that it was necessary he should leave Trent. Upon tnis the pope solicited the emperor to recall him, which he accordingly did: but Ferdinand, far from blaming his conduct, rewarded it with the bishopric of Chonat, and soon after gave him that of five churches. This prince dying 1564, Dudith was sent by Maximilian II. into Poland, whither he nad been sent before by Ferdinand, and privately married lleyna Strazzi, maid of honour to the queen, resigning his bishopric. Rome cited him, excommunicated him, and even condemned him to the flames as an heretic, yet he despised her threats, and remained in security. After the death of his first wife, by whomhehadthreechildren, he married in 1579, a lady descended from an illustrious Polish family, widow of count John Zarnow, and sister of the famous Sborowits, by whom also he had children. Dudith, at length, openly professed the reformed religion, and even became a Socinian, according to most authors, particularly of the modern school^ who seem proud of their convert; but the fact is denied by the writer of his life, who, on the contrary, asserts, he disputed strongly against Socinus. He then settled at Breslaw in Silesia, where he died February 23, 1589, aged 56. Dudith, according to the representations both of his friends and enemies, was a handsome well-made man, of a peaceable disposition; civil, affable, regular in his conduct, very charitable to the poor, and benevolent towards all mankind. He had a taste for the classics, and so great a veneration for Cicero, that he wrote all that orator’s works, three times over, with his own hand. He likewise understood several languages, and was well acquainted with history, philosophy, mathematics, physic, law, and divinity. He left a great number of works: the principal are, “Dissertationes de Cometis,” Utrecht, 1665, 4to; two discourses, delivered at the council of Trent; an apology for the emperor Maximilian II. &c. published with other tracts, and his Life by Reuter, 1610, 4to. He published also, the Life of cardinal Pole, translated from the Italian of Beccatelli. Several of Dudith’s letters and poems occur in the collections.

, a celebrated lawyer and statesman, in the reign of Henry VII. was born in 1462. Some have said, that he was the son of a mechanic: but this notion probably took its rise from prejudices conceived against him for his mal-administrations in power; for he was of the ancient family of the Dudleys, and his father was sir John Dudley, second son of John Dudley, baron of Dudley, and knight of the garter. About the age of sixteen he was sent to Oxford, where he spent some time and afterwards removed to Gray’s-inn in London, in order to prosecute the study of the law. This he did with great diligence, and came at length to be considered as so able a person in his profession, as to induce Henry VII. to take him very early into his service. It is said that for his singular prudence and fidelity he was sworn of the king’s privy-council in his 23d year, which some think too early a period: it is, however, asserted by Polydore Vergil, who was then in England. In 1492 we find him one of those great men in the king’s army near Boiogne, who were chiefly instrumental in making a peace with France; and that two years after he obtained the wardship and marriage of Elizabeth, daughter of Edward Grey, viscount L‘lsle, sister and coheiress of John viscount L’lsle, her brother. In 1499 he was one of those who signed the ratification of the peace just mentioned, by the authority of parliament; which shows that he was, if not in great credit with his country, at least in high favour with his prince, whom he particularly served in helping to fill his coffers, under the colour of law, though with very little regard to equity and justice. All our general histories have handled this matter so in the gross, that it is very difficult to learn from them wherein the crimes of Empson and Dudley consisted: but Bacon, who understood it well, relates every circumstance freely and fully in the following manner: “As kings do more easily find instruments for their will and humour, than for their service and honour, he had gotten for his purpose, or beyond his purpose, two instruments, Empson and Dudley, bold men, and careless of fame, and that took toll for their master’s grist. Dudley was of a good family, eloquent, and one that could put hateful business into good language; but Empson, that was the son of a sievemaker, triumphed always in the deed done, putting off all other respects whatsoever. These two persons, being lawyers in science, and privy-counsellors in authority, turned law and justice into wormwood and rapine. For, first, their manner was to cause divers subjects to be indicted for sundry crimes, and so far forth to proceed in form of law; but, when the bills were found, then presently to commit them: and, nevertheless, not to produce them in any reasonable time to their answer, but to suffer them to languish long in prison, and, by sundry artificial devices and terrors, to extort from them great fines and ransoms, which they termed compositions and mitigations. Neither did they, towards the end, observe so much as the half face of justice in proceeding by indictment, but sent forth their precepts to attach men, and convent them before themselves and some others, at their private houses, in a court of commission; and there used to shuffle up a summary proceeding by examination, without trial of jury, assuming to themselves there, to deal both in pleas of the crown and controversies civil. Then did they also use to enthral and charge the subjects’ lands with tenures in capite, by finding false offices, and thereby to work upon them by wardships, liveries, premier seisins, and alienations, being the fruits of those tenures, refusing, upon divers pretexts and delays, to admit men to traverse those false offices according to the law. Nay, the king’s wards, after they had accomplished their full age, could not be suffered to have livery of their lands, without paying excessive fines, far exceeding all reasonable rates. They did also vex men with informations of intrusion, upon scarce colourable titles. When men were outlawed in personal actions, they would not permit them to purchase their charters of pardon, except they paid great and intolerable sums, standing upon the strict point of law, which, upon outlawries, giveth forfeiture of goods: nay, contrary to all law and colour, they maintained the king ought to have the half of men’s lands and rents, during the space of full two years, for a pain, in case of outlawry. They would also ruffle with jurors, and enforce them to find as they would direct and, if they did not, convent them, imprison them, and fine them.”

In the parliament held in 1504, Dudley was speaker of the house of commons; and in consideration, as it may be presumed, of his great services to his master in this high station, we find that two years after he obtained a grant of the stewardship of the rape of Hastings, in the county of Sussex. This was one of the last favours he received from his master who, at the close of his life, is said to have been so much troubled at the oppressions and extortions of these ministers, that he was desirous to make restitution to such as had been injured, and directed the same by his will. Some writers have taken occasion from hence to free that monarch from blame, throwing it all upon Empson and Dudley: but others, and Bacon among them, have very plainly proved, that they did not lead or deceive him in this affair, but only acted under him as instruments. The king died at Richmond the 2 1st of April, 1509, and was scarcely in his grave, when Dudley was sent to the Tower; the clamour of the people being so great, that this step was absolutely necessary to quiet them though Stow seems to think that both he and Empson were decoyed into the Tower, or they had not been so easily taken. At the same time, numbers of their subordinate instruments were seized, imprisoned, tried, and punished. July the same year, Dudley was arraigned, and found guilty of high treason before commissioners assembled in Guildhall. The king, taking a journey afterwards into the country, found himself so much incommoded by the general outcry of his people, that he caused Empson to be carried into Northamptonshire where, October following, he was also tried and convicted, and then remanded back to the Tower. In the parliament of January 1510, Dudley and Empson were both attainted of high treason; but the king was unwilling to execute them; and Stow informs us, that a rumour prevailed, that queen Catharine had interposed, and procured Dudley’s pardon. The clamours of the people continually increasing, being rather heightened than softened by seeing numbers of mean fellows, whom they had employed as informers and witnesses, convicted and punished, while themselves were spared, the king was at last obliged to order them for execution and accordingly they both lost their heads upon Tower-hill, Aug. 18, 1510.

Dudley, to give some employment to his thoughts during his tedious imprisonment in the Tower, and perhaps with a view of extricating himself from his misfortunes, composed a very extraordinary piece, which he addressed to the king, entitled “The Tree of the Commonwealth, by Edmund Dudley, esq. late counsellor to king Henry VII. the same Edmund being, at the compiling thereof, prisoner in the Tower, in 1 Hen. VIII.” The contents of this treatise are, in the author’s osvn words, as follow: “The effect of this treatise,” says he, “consisteth in three especial points. First, remembrance of God, and the faithful of his holy church, in the which every Christian prince had need to begin. Secondly, of some conditions and demeanors necessary in every prince, both for his honour and assurety of his continuance. Thirdly, of the Tree of the Commonwealth, which toucheth people of every degree, of the conditions and demeanors they should be of.” This book never reached the king’s hands, and so could not contribute to save the head of its author; nor, though seen and perused by many, and thence made often the subject of conversation, was it ever published. Several copies of it are still extant in ms.

, son of the preceding, baron of Maipas, viscount L‘Isle, earl of Warwick, and duke of Northumberland, was born in 1502, and afterwards became one of the most powerful subjects this kingdom ever saw. At the time his father was beheaded, he was about eight years old; and it being known that the severity exercised in that act was rather to satisfy popular clamour than justice, his friends found no great difficulty in obtaining from the parliament, that his father’s attainder might be reversed, and himself restored in blood; for which purpose a special act was passed in 1511. After an education suitable to his quality, he was introduced at court in 15-23, where, having a line person, and great accomplishments, he soon became admired. He attended the king’s favourite, Charles Brandon, duke of Suffolk, in his expedition to France; and distinguished himself so much by his gallant behaviour, that he obtained the honour of knighthood. He attached himself to cardinal Wolsey, whom he accompanied in his embassy to France; and he was also in great confidence with the next prime minister, lord Cromwell. The fall of these eminent statesmen one after another, did not at all affect the favour or fortune of sir John Dudley, who had great dexterity in preserving their good graces, without embarking too far in their designs; preserving always a proper regard for the sentiments of his sovereign, which kept him in full credit at court, in the midst of many changes, as well of men as measures. In 1542, he was raised to the dignity of viscount L’Isle, and at the next festival of St. George, was elected knight of the garter. This was soon after followed by a much higher instance both of kindness and trust; for the king, considering his uncommon abilities and courage, and the occasion he had then for them, made him lord high admiral of England for life; and in this important post he did many singular services. He owed all his honours and fortune to Henry VII L and received from him, towards the close of his reign, very large grants of church lands, which, however, created him many enemies. He was also named by king Henry in his will, to be one of his sixteen executors; and received from him a legacy of 500l. which was the highest he bestowed on any of them.

After the death of Henry, which happened January 31, 1547, the earl of Hertford, afterwards duke of Somerset, who was the young king’s uncle, without having any regard to Henry’s will, procured himself to be declared protector of the kingdom, and set on foot many projects. Among the first, one was to get his brother, sir Thomas Seymour, made high-admiral, in whose favour the lord viscount L'Isle was obliged to resign; but in lieu thereof, was created earl of Warwick, and made great chamberlain of England; favours which he undoubtedly did not think a recompense for the loss he sustained; and his aversion to the protector probably may be dated from this period. Afterwards troubles came on, and insurrections broke out in several parts of the kingdom. In Devonshire the insurgents were so strong that they besieged the city of Exeter; and before they could be reduced by the lord Russel, a new rebellion broke out in Norfolk, under the command of one Robert Ket, a tanner, who was very soon at the head of ten thousand men. The earl of Warwick, whose reputation was very high in military matters, was ordered to march against the latter. He defeated them, and killed about a thousand of them: but they, collecting their scattered parties, offered him battle a second time. The earl marched directly towards them; but when he was on the point of engaging, he sent them a message, that “he was sorry to see so much courage expressed in so bad a cause; but that, notwithstanding what was past, they might depend on the king-'s pardon, on delivering up their leaders.” To which they answered, that “he was a nobleman of so much worth and generosity, that if they might have this assurance from his own mouth, they were willing to submit.” The earl accordingly went among them; upon which they threw down their arms, delivered up Robert Ket, and his brother William, with the rest of their chiefs, who were hanged, and the other rebels were dispersed.

At the end of 1549, sir Thomas Seymour having been attainted and executed for practices against his brother, and the protector now in the Tower, the earl of Warwick was again made lord high admiral, with very extensive powers. He stood at this time so high in the king’s favour, and had so firm a friendship with the rest of the lords of the council, that nothing was done but by his advice anil consent; to which therefore we most attribute the release of the duke of Somerset out of the Tower, and the restoring of him to some share of power and favour at court. The king was much pleased with this; and, in order to establish a realj and lasting friendship between these two great men, had a marriage proposed between the earl of Warwick’s eldest son, and the duke of Somerset’s daughter; which at length was brought to bear, and the 3d of June, 1550, solemnized in the king’s presence. In April 1551, the earl of Warwick was constituted earl marshal of England; soon after lord warden of the northern marches; and in October, advanced to the dignity of duke of Northumberland. A few days after, the conspiracy of the duke of Somerset breaking out, the duke, his duchess, and-several other persons, were sent prisoners to the Tower; and the king being persuaded that he had really formed a design to murder the duke of Northumberland, resolved to leave him to the law. He was tried, condemned, and, February 22, 1552, executed; the duke of Northumberland succeeding him as chancellor of Cambridge.

This great politician had now raised himself as high as it was possible in point of dignity and power: the ascendancy he had gained over the young king was so great, that he directed him entirely at his pleasure; and he had with such dexterity wrought most of the great nobility into his interests, and had so humbled and depressed all who shewed any dislike to him, that he seemed to have every thing to hope, and little to fear. And such indeed was the case, while that king lived; but when he discerned his majesty’s health to decline apace, it was very natural for him to consider how he might secure himself and his family. This appears plainly from the hurry with which the marriage was concluded with the lady Jane Grey, eldest daughter nf the duke of Suffolk, and his fourth son, lord Guildford Dudley; which was celebrated in May, 1553, not above two months before the kin^ died. He had been some time contriving that plan for the disposal of the kingdom, which. he carried afterwards into execution, in the parliament held a little before the king’s death, he procured a considerable supply to be granted; and, in the preamble of that act, caused to be inserted a direct censure of the duke of Somerset’s administration. Then, dissolving thai parliament, he applied himself to the king, and shewed him the necessity of setting the lady Mary aside, from the danger the protestant religion would be in, if she should succeed him; in which, from the piety of that young prince, he found no great difficulty. Burnet says, he did not well understand how the king was prevailed on to pass by his sister Elizabeth, who had been always much in his favour; yet, when this was done, there was another difficulty in the way. The duchess of Suffolk was next heir, who might have sons; and therefore, to bar these in favour of lady Jane Dudley seemed to be unnatural, as well as illegal. But the duchess herself contributed, as far as in her lay, to remove this obstacle, by devolving her right upon her daughter, even if she had male issue; and this satisfied the king. The king’s consent being obtained, the next point was to procure a proper instrument to be drawn by the judges; in doing which, the duke of Northumberland made use of threats as well as promises; and, when done at last, it was in such a manner as plainly shewed it to be illegal in their own opinions.

Edward died the 6th of July, 1553. It is said that the duke of Northumberland was very desirous of concealing his death for some time; but this being found impossible, he carried his daughter-in-law, the lady Jane, from Durham-house to the Tower, for the greater security, and on the 10th of July proclaimed her queen. The council also wrote to lady Mary, requiring her submission; but they were soon informed that she was retired into Norfolk, where many of the nobility and multitudes of people resorted to her. It was then resolved to send forces against her, under the command of the duke of Suffolk; but queen Jane, as she was then styled, would by no means part with her father; and the council earnestly pressed the duke of Northumberland to go in person, to which he was little inclined, as doubting their fidelity. However, on the 14th of July he went, accompanied by some others; but, as they marched through Bishopsgate with two thousand horse and six thousand foot, he could not forbear saying to lord Grey, “The people press to see us, but not one says, God speed us.” His activity and courage, for which he had been so famous, seem from this time to have deserted him; for, though he advanced to St. Edmund’sbury, in Suffolk, yet, finding his troops diminish, the people little affected to him, and no supplies coming from London, though he had written to the lords in the most pressing terms, he retired back to Cambridge. The council in the mean time having escaped from the Tower, had queen Mary proclaimed. The duke of Northumberland, having immediate advice of this, caused her to be proclaimed at Cambridge, throwing up his cap, and crying, “God save queen Mary!” but all this affected loyalty stood him in no stead; for he was soon after arrested, arraigned, tried, and condemned. August the 2 1st was the day fixed for his execution; when a vast concourse of people assembled upon Tower-hill, all the usual preparations being made, and the executioner ready; but, after waiting some hours, the people were ordered to depart. This delay was to afford time for his making an open show of the change of his- religion since that very day, in the presence of the mayor and aldermen of London, as well as some of the privy-council, he heard mass in the Tower. The next day he was executed, after making a very long speech to the people, of which there remains nothing but what relates to his religion; which he not only professed to be then that of the church of Rome, but to have been always so. Fox affirms that he had a promise of pardon^ even if his head was upon the block, if he would recant and hear mass; and some have believed that he entertained such a hope to the last. Whatever truth there may be in this, it is allowed that he behaved with proper courage and composure.

Such was the end of this potent nobleman, who, with the title of a duke, exercised for some time a power little inferior to that of a king; of whom it may be said, that though he had many great and good qualities, yet they were much overbalanced by his vices. He had a numerousissue, eight sons and five daughters; of whom some went before him to the grave; others survived, and lived to see a great change in their fortunes. John earl of Warwick was condemned with his father, but reprieved and released out of the Tower; and, going to his brother’s house at Penshurst, in Kent, died there two days after. Ambrose and Robert were both very remarkable men, of whom we shall give some account; Guiklford, who married lady Jane Grey in May, 1553, lost his life, as well as his unfortunate lady, upon the scaffold, the 12th of Feb. following. (See Grey). The others, Henry and Charles, died unmarried, as did the daughters Margaret, Temperance, and Cathesine but Mary was married to sir Henry Sidney, K. G. and another Catherine to Henry Hastings, earl of Huntingdon. The duke’s widow, after being turned out of doors, and encountering many hardships, obtained some relief from the court, on which she subsisted until her death, at Chelsea, Jan. 22, 1555.

, son of John duke of Northumberland, afterwards baron L‘Isle, and earl of Warwick, was born about 1530, and carefully educated in his father’s family. He attended his father into Norfolk against the rebels in 1549, and, for his distinguished courage, obtained, as is probable, the honour of knighthood. He was always very high in king Edward’s favour: afterwards, being concerned in the cause of lady Jane, he was attainted, received sentence of death, and remained a prisoner till Oct. the 18th, 1554; when he was discharged, and pardoned for life. In 1557, in company with both his brothers, Robert and Henry, he engaged in an expedition to the Low Countries, and joined the Spanish army that lay then before St. Q.uintin’s. He had his share in the famous victory over the French, who came to the relief of that place; but had the misfortune to lose there his youngest brother Henry, who was a person of great hopes, and had been a singular favourite with king Edward. This matter was so represented to queen Mary, that, in consideration oftheir faithful services, she restored the whole family in blood and accordingly an act passed this year for that purpose. On the accession of queen Elizabeth, he became immediately one of the most distinguished persons at her court; and was called, as in the days of her brother, lord Ambrose Dudley. He was afterwards created first baron L’Isle, and then earl of Warwick. He was advanced to several high places, and distinguished by numerous honours; and we find him in all the great and public services during this active and busy reign; but, what is greatly to his credit, never in any of the intrigues with which it was blemished: for he was a man of great sweetness of temper, and of an unexceptionable character; so that he was beloved by all parties, and hated by none. In the last years of his life he endured great pain and misery from a wound received in his leg, when he defended New Haven against the French in 1562; and this bringing him very low, he at last submitted to an amputation, of which he died in Feb. 1589. He was thrice married, but had no issue. He was generally called “The good earl of Warwick.”

, baron of Denbigh, and earl of Leicester, son to John duke of Northumberland, and brother to Ambrose earl of Warwick, before mentioned, was born about 1532, and coming early into the service and favour of king Edward, was knighted in his youth. June 1550 he espoused Amy, daughter of sir John Robsart, at Sheen in Surrey, the king honouring their nuptials with his presence; and was immediately advanced to considerable offices at court. In the first year of Mary he fell into the same misfortunes with the rest of his family; was imprisoned, tried, and condemned; but pardoned for life, and set at liberty in October 1554. He was afterwards restored in blood, as we have observed in the former article. On the accession of Elizabeth, he was immediately entertained at court as a principal favourite: he was made master of the horse, installed knight of the garter, and sworn of the privy-council in a very short time. He obtained moreover prodigious grants, one after another, from the crown: and all things gave way to his ambition, influence, and policy. In his attendance upon the queen to Cambridge, the highest reverence was paid him: he was lodged in Trinity college, consulted in all things, requests made to the queen through him; and, on August 10, 1564, he on his knees entreated the queen to speak to the iruversity in Latin, which she accordingly did, and was probably prepared to grant the request. At court, however, Thomas earl of Sussex shewed himself averse to his counsels, and strongly promoted the overture of a marriage between the queen and the archduke Charles of Austria; as much more worthy of such a princess than any subject of her own, let his qualities be what they would. This was resented by Dudley, who insinuated that foreign alliances were always fatal; that her sister Mary never knew an easy minute after her marriage with Philip; that her majesty ought to consider, she was herself descended of such a marriage as by those lofty notions was decried: so that she could not contemn an alliance with the nobility of England, but must at the same time reflect on her father’s choice, and her mother’s family. This dispute occasioned a violent rupture between the two lords, which the queen took into her hands, and composed; but without the least diminution of Dudley’s ascendancy, who still continued to solicit and obtain new grants and offices for himself and his dependants, who were so numerous, and made so great a figure, that he was styled by the common people “The Heart of the Court.”

To give some colour to these marks of royal indulgence, the queen proposed him as a suitor to Mary queen of Scots; promising to that princess all the advantages she could expect or desire, either for herself or her subjects, in case she consented to the match. The sincerity of this was suspected at the time, when the deepest politicians believed that, if the queen of Scotland had complied, it would have served only to countenance the preferring him to his sovereign’s bed. The queen of Scots rejected the proposal in a manner that, some have thought, proved as fatal to her as it had done to his own lady, who was supposed to be sacrificed to his ambition of marrying a queen. The death of this unfortunate person happened September 8, 1560, at a very unlucky juncture for his reputation; because the world at that time conceived it might be much for his conveniency to be without a wife, this island having then two queens, young, and without husbands. The manner too of this poor lady’s death, which, Camden says, was by a fall from a high place, filled the world with the rumour of a lamentable tragedy . In Sept. 1564, the queen created him baron of Denbigh,­and, the day after, earl of Leicester, with great pomp and ceremony; and, before the close of the year, he was made chancellor of Oxford, as he had been some time before high-steward of Cambridge. His great influence in the court of England was not only known at home, but abroad, which induced the French king, Charles IX. to send him the order of St. Michael, then the most honourable in France; and he was installed with great solemnity in 1565. About 1572 it is supposed that the earl married Douglas, baroness dowager of Sheffield: which, however, was managed with such privacy, that it did not come to the queen’s ears, though a great deal of secret history was published, even in those days, concerning the adventures of this unfortunate lady, whom, though the earl had actually married her, and there were legal proofs of it, yet he never would own as his wife. The earl, in order to stifle this affair, proposed every thing he could think of to lady Douglas Sheffield, to make her desist from her pretensions but, finding her obstinate, and resolved not to comply with his proposals, he attempted to take her off by poison “For it is certain,” says Dugdale, “that she had some ill potions given her, so that, with the loss of her hair and nails, she hardly escaped death.” It is, however, beyond all doubt, that the earl had by her a son (sir Robert Dudley, of whom we shall speak hereafter, and to whom, by the name of his Base Son, he left the bulk of his fortune), and also a daughter.

In July 1575, as the queen was upon her progress, she made the earl a visit at his castle of Kenilworth in Warwickshire. This manor and castle had formerly belonged to the crown; but lord Leicester having obtained it from the queen, spared no expence in enlarging and adorning it: and Dugdale says, that he laid out no less than 60,000l. upon it. Here, due preparation being made, he entertained the queen and her court for seventeen days with a magnificence, of which, being characteristic of the times, the following account from Dugdale may be not unamusing. That historian tells us (Antiquities of Warwickshire, p. 249), that the queen at her entrance was surprised with the sight of a floating island on the large pool there, bright blazing with torches; on which were clad in silks the lady of the lake, and two nymphs waiting on her, who made a speech to the queen in metre, of the antiquity and owners of that castle, which was closed with cornets and other music. Within the base-court was erected a stately bridge, twenty feet wide, and seventy feet long, over which the queen was to pass: and on each side stood columns, with presents upon them to her majesty from the gods. Sylvanus offered a cage of wild fowl, and Pomona divers sorts of fruits Ceres gave corn, and Bacchus wine Neptune presented sea- fish Mars the hahiliments of war; and Phcebus all kinds of musical instruments. During her stay, variety of shows and sports were daily exhibited. In the chace, there was a savage man with satyrs; there were bear-baiting and fire-works, Italian tumblers, and a country bride-ale, running at the quintin, and morrice-dancing. And, that nothing might be wanting which those parts could afford, the Coventry men came and acted the ancient play, called Hock’s Thursday, representing the destruction of the Danes in the reign of king Ethelred; which pleased the queen so much, that she gave them a brace of bucks, and five marks in money, to bear the charges of a feast. There were, besides, on the pool, a triton riding on a mermaid eighteen feet long, as also Anon on a dolphin, with excellent music. The expences and costs of these entertainments may be guessed at by the quantity of beer then drunk, which amounted to 320 hogsheads of the ordinary sort: and, for the greater honour and grace thereof, sir Thomas Cecil, son to the treasurer Burleigh, and three more gentlemen, were then knighted; and, the next ensuing year, the earl obtained a grant of the queen fora weekly market at Kenihvorth, with a fair yearly on Midsummer-day. So far Dugdale. There is also in. Strype’s Annals, p. 341, a long and circumstantial narrative of all that passed at this royal visit, by one who was present; which strongly illustrates the temper of the queen, and the manners of those times.

In 1576 happened the death of Walter, earl of Essex, which drew upon lord Leicester many suspicions, after his marriage with the countess of Essex took place, which, however, was not until two years after. In 1578, when the duke of Anjou pressed the match that had been proposed between himself and the queen, his agent, believing lord Leicester to be the greatest bar to the duke’s pretensions, informed the queen of his marriage with lady Essex; upon which her majesty was so enraged, that, as Camden relates, she commanded him not to stir from the castle of Greenwich, and would have committed him to the Tower, if she had not been dissuaded from it by the earl of Sussex. Lord Leicester being now in the very height of power and influence, many attempts were made upon his character, in order to take him down: and in 1584 came out a most virulent book against him, commonly called “Leicester’s Commonwealth,” the purpose of which was to shew, that the English constitution was subverted, and a new form imperceptibly introduced, to which no name could be so properly given, as that of a “Leicestrian Commonwealth.” In proof of this, the earl was represented as an atheist in point of religion, a secret traitor to the queen, an oppressor of her people 1 an inveterate enemy to the nobility, a complete monster with regard to ambition, cruelty, and Just; and not only so, but as having thrown all offices of trust into the hands of his creatures, and usurped all the power of the kingdom. The queen, however, did not fail to countenance and protect her favourite; and to remove as much as possible the impression this performance made upon the vulgar, caused letters to be issued from the privycouncil, in which all the facts contained therein were declared to he absolutely false, not only to the knowledge of those who signed them, but also of the queen herself. Nevertheless, this book was universally read, and the contents of it generally received for true: and the great secrecy with which it was written, printed, and published, induced a suspicion, that some very able heads were concerned either in drawing it up, or at least in furnishing the materials. It is not well known what the original title of it was, but supposed to be “A Dialogue between a scholar, a gentleman, and a lawyer;” though it was afterwards called “Leicester’s Commonwealth.” It has been several times reprinted, particularly in 1600, 8vo; in 1631, 8vo, the running-title being “A letter of state to a scholar of Cambridge;” in 1641, 4to, and 8vo, with the addition of “Leicester’s Ghost;” and again in 1706, 8vo, under the title of “Secret Memoirs of Robert Dudley earl of Leicester,” with a preface by Dr. Drake, (see Drake) who pretended it to be printed from an old manuscript. The design of reprinting it in 1641, was, to give a bad impression of the government of Charles I.; and the same was supposed to be the design of Dr. Drake in his publication. In Dec. 1585, lord Leicester embarked for the protestant Low Countries, whither he arrived in quality of governor. At this time the affairs of those countries were in a perplexed situation; and the States thought that nothing could contribute so much to their recovery, as prevailing upon queen Elizabeth to send over some person of great distinction, whom they might set at the head of their concerns civil and military: which proposition, says Camden, so much flattered the ambition of this potent earl, that he willingly consented to pass the seas upon this occasion, as being well assured of most ample powers. Before his departure, the queen admonished him to have a special regard to her honour, and to attempt nothing inconsistent with the great employment to which he was advanced: yet, she was so displeased with some proceedings of his and the States, that the year after she sent over very severe letters to them, which drew explanations from the former, and deep submissions from the latter. The purport of the queen’s letter was, to reprimand the States “for having conferred the absolute government of the confederate provinces upon Leicester, her subject, though she had refused it herself;” and Leicester, for having presumed to take it upon him. He returned to England Nov. 1585; and, notwithstanding what was past, was well received by the queen. What contributed to make her majesty forget his offence in the Low Countries, was the pleasure of having him near her, at a time when she very much wanted his counsel: for now the affair of Mary queen of Scots was upon the carpet, and the point was, how to have her taken off with the least discredit to the queen. The earl according to report, which we could wish to be able to contradict, thought it best to have her poisoned; but that scheme was not found practicable, so that they were obliged to have recourse to violence. The earl set out for the Low Countries in June 1587; but, great discontents arising on all sides, he was recalled in November. Camden relates, that on his return, finding an accusation preparing against him for mal-administration there, and that he w^as summoned to appear before the council, he privately implored the queen’s protection, and besought her “not to receive him with disgrace upon his return, whom at his first departure she had sent out with honour; nor bring down alive to the grave, whom her former goodness had raised from the dust.” Which expressions of humility and sorrow wrought so far upon her, that he was admitted into her former grace and favour.

In 1588, when the nation was alarmed with the apprehensions of the Spanish armada, lord Leicester was made lieutenant-general, under the queen, of the army assembled at Tilbury. This army the queen went to review in person, and there made this short and memorable speech “I myself will be your general, judge, and rewarder of every one of your virtues in the field. I know already for your forwardness you have deserved rewards and crowns: and we do assure you, on the word of a prince, they shall be duly paid you. In the mean time my lieutenant-general shall be in my stead, than whom never prince commanded a more noble or worthy subject; not doubting but, by your obedience to my general, by your concord in the camp, and your valour in the field, we shall shortly have a famous victory over those enemies of my God, of my kingdom, and of my people.” In such high favour did this noble personage stand to the last: for he died this year, Sept. 4, at his house at Cornbury in Oxfordshire, while he was upon the road to Kenilworth. His corpse was removed to Warwick, and buried there in a magnificent manner. He is said to have inherited the parts of his father. His ambition was great, but his abilities seem to have been greater. He was a finished courtier in every respect; and managed his affairs so nicely, that his influence and power became almost incredible. He differed with archbishop Grindal, who, though much in confidence of the queen, was by him brought first into discredit with her, and then into disgrace; nay, to such a degree was this persecution carried, that the poor prelate desired to lay down his archiepiscopal dignity, and actually caused the instrument of his resignation to be drawn: but his enemies, believing he was near his end, did not press the perfecting of it, and so he died, with his mitre on his head, of a broken heart. This shews the power the earl had in the church, and how little able the first subject of the queen was to bear up against his displeasure, though conceived upon none of the justest motives .

In his private life he affected a wonderful regularity, and carried his pretences to piety very high: though, to gratify his passions, there were no crimes, however enormous, which he would not commit. Poisoning was very common with him; and he is said to have been wonderfully skilled in it. He was very circumspect in his speeches, many of which are preserved in the Cabala, Strype’s Annals, and Peck’s Desiderata Curiosa; and wrote as well as any man of his time. He had a competent knowledge of the Latin tongue, and was thoroughly versed in the French and Italian. This family of Dudley, in three descents, furnished men of such capacities as are scarcely to be equalled in history: the grandfather, the father, and the son, were all great men; but the last the greatest and most fortunate of the three, if any man can be so reputed whom flattery itself would be ashamed to style good. Yet, notwithstanding his good fortune, he had probably shared the same fate, and come to the same untimely end with them, if death had not conveniently carried him off before his royal mistress and protectress. It has been justly remarked, that notwithstanding the elaborate article, written by Dr. Campbell in the Biographia Britannica, and the farther information that may be derived concerning Leicester from subsequent writers, there still hangs a cloud on some parts of his conduct, which is probably now for ever incapable of being removed. This is particularly the case with regard to the murders ascribed to him, which rather rest upon the grounds of strong and reasonable suspicion, than the basis of direct and positive evidence. Perhaps, likewise, too indiscriminate a credit has been given to the tract, entitled, “Leicester’s Commonwealth.” On the whole, however, he must stand upon record as having been a very wicked man; and it is a poor compensation for this character, to be able to say, that, upon inquiry, his abilities appear to have been of a higher nature than has commonly been apprehended.

was son of Robert earl of Leicester by the lady Douglas Sheffield, and born at Sheen in Surrey, in 1573. His birth, it is said, was carefully concealed, as well to prevent the queen’s knowledge of the earl’s engagements with his mother, as to hide it from the countess of Essex, to whom he was then contracted, if not married; but this latter assertion is surely doubtful, as the countess of Essex was not a widow until 1576 (See Devereux, Walter.) Sir Robert, however, was considered and treated as his lawful son till the earl’s marriage with the lady Essex, which was about 1578: and then he was declared to be only his natural issue by lady Douglas. Out of her hands the earl was very desirous to get him, in order to put him under the care of sir Edward Horsey, governor of the Isle of Wight; which some have imagined to have been, not with any view to the child’s disadvantage, for he always loved him tenderly, but with a thought of bringing him upon the stage at some proper time, as his natural son by another lady. He was not able to get him for some time: but at last effecting it, he sent him to school at Offingham in Sussex, in 1583, and four years after to Christ Church in Oxford. In 1588 his father died, and left him, after the decease of his uncle Ambrose, his castle of Kenilworth, the lordships of Denbigh and Chirk, and the bulk of his estate, which before he was of age he in a great measure enjoyed, notwithstanding the enmity borne him by the countess dowager of Leicester. He was now reckoned one of the finest gentlemen in England, in his person tall, well-­shaped, having a fresh and fine complexion, but red-haired; learned beyond his age, more especially in the mathematics; and of parts equal if not superior to any of his family. Add to all this, that he was very expert in his exercises, and particularly in riding the great horse, in which he was allowed to excel any man of his time.

His genius prompting him to great exploits, and having a particular turn to navigation and discoveries, he projected a voyage into the South-seas, in hopes of acquiring the same fame thereby, as his friend the famous Thomas Cavendish of Trimley, esq. whose sister he had married: but, after much pains taken, and money spent, the government thought it not safe for him to proceed. Afterwards, however, he performed a voyage, setting out Nov. 1594, and returning May 1595; an account of which, written by himseh, is published in Hackluyt’s collection of voyages. At the end of Elizabeth’s reign, having buried his wife, he married Alice, the daughter of sir Thomas Leigh. He then began to entertain hopes of reviving the honours of his family; and in 1605 commenced a suit, with a view of proving the legitimacy of his birth. But no sooner had the countess dowager notice of this, than she procured au information to be filed against him and some others for a conspiracy; which was such a blow to all his hopes, that, obtaining a licence to travel for three years, which was easily granted him, he quitted the kingdom: leaving behind him lady Alice Dudley his wife, and four daughters. He had not been long abroad, before he was commanded back, for assuming in foreign countries the title of earl of Warwick; but refusing to obey that summons, his estate was seized, and vested in the crown, during his natural life, upon the statute of fugitives. The place which sir Robert Dudley chose for his retreat abroad, was Florence; where he was very kindly received by Cosmo II. great duke of Tuscany; and, in process of time, made great chamberlain to his serene highness’s consort, the archduchess Magdalen of Austria, sister to the emperor Ferdinand II. with whom he was a great favourite. He discovered in that court those great abilities for which he had been so much admired in England: he contrived several methods of improving shipping, introduced new manufactures, excited the merchants to extend their foreign commerce; and, by other services of still greater importance, obtained so high a reputation, that, at the desire of the archduchess, the emperor, by letters-patent dated at Vienna March 9, 1620, created him a duke of the holy Roman empire. Upon this, he assumed his grandfather’s title of Northumberland; and, ten years after, got himself enrolled by pope Urban VIII. among the Roman nobility. Under the reign of the grand duke Ferdinand II. he became still more famous, on account of that great project which he formed, of draining a vast tract of morass between Pisa and the sea: for by this he raised Leghorn, from a mean and pitiful place into a large and beautiful town; and having engaged his serene highness to declare it a free port, he, by his influence, drew many English merchants to settle and set up houses there. In consideration of his services, and for the support of his dignity, the grand duke bestowed upon him a handsome pension; which, however, went but a little way in his expences: for he affected magnificence in all things, built a noble palace for himself and his family at Florence, and much adorned the castle of Carbello, three miles from that capital, which the grand duke gave him for a country retreat, and where he died Sept. 1639.

Sir Robert Dudley was not only admired by princes, but also by the learned; among whom he held a very high rank, as well on account of his skill in philosophy, chemistry, and physic, as his perfect acquaintance with all the branches of the mathematics, and the means of applying them for the service and benefit of mankind. He wrote several things. We have mentioned the account of his voyage. His principal work is, “Del arcano del mare,” &c. Fiorenze, 1630, 1646, fol. There is a copy in the British Museum, dated 1661, and called the second edition. This work has been always so scarce, as seldom to have found a place even in the catalogues that have been published of rare books. It is full of schemes, charts, plans, and other marks of its author’s mathematical learning; but is chiefly valuable for the projects contained therein, for the improvement of navigation and the extending of commerce. Wood tells us, that he wrote also a medical treatise, entitled “Catholicon,” which was well esteemed by the faculty. There is still another piece, the title of which, as it stands in Rushworth’s Collections, runs thus: “A proposition for his majesty’s service, to bridle the impertinency of parliaments. Afterwards questioned in the Star-chamber.” After he had lived some time in exile, he still cherished hopes of returning to England: to facilitate which, and to ingratiate himself with king James, he drew up “a proposition, as he calls it, in two parts: the one to secure the state, and to bridle the impertinency of parliaments; the other, to increase his majesty’s revenue much more than it is.” This scheme, falling into the hands of some persons of great distinction, and being some years after by them made public, was considered as of so pernicious a nature, as to occasion their imprisonment: but they were released upon the discovery of the true author. (See Cotton, Sir Robert). It was written about 1613, and sent to king James, to teach him how most effectually to enslave his subjects: for, in that light, it is certainly as singular and as dangerous a paper as ever fell from the pen of man. It was turned to the prejudice of James I. and Charles I.; for though neither they, nor their ministers, made use of it, or intended to make use of it, yet occasion was taken from thence to excite the people to a hatred of statesmen who were capable of contriving such destructive projects. Lastly, he was the author of a famous powder, called “Pulvis comitis Warwicensis,” or the earl of Warwick’s powder, which is thus made: “Take of scammony, prepared with the fumes of sulphur, two ounces; of diaphoretic antimony, an ounce; of the crystals of tartar, half an ounce; mix them all together into a powder.”

When he went abroad, he left his wife and four daughters at home, and prevailed upon a young lady, at that time esteemed one of the finest women in England, to bear him company in the habit of a page. This lady was Mrs. Elizabeth Southwell, the daughter of sir Robert Southwell, of Woodrising in Norfolk whom he afterwards married bv virtue of a dispensation from the pope. In excuse for this gross immorality, we are told that the lady’s conduct was afterwards without exception; that she lived in honour and esteem, and had all the respect paid her that her title of a duchess could demand, and that sir Robert loved her most tenderly to the last, and caused a noble monument to be erected to her memory in the church of St. Pancrace at Florence, where her body lies buried, and he by her. He had by this lady a son Charles, who assumed the title of earl of Warwick, and four daughters, all honourably married in that country. It is very probable, that this marriage might prove a great bar to his return to England; and might be also a motive to the passing so extraordinary a law as that was, by which lady Alice Dudley was enabled to dispose of her jointure during his life.

, an eminent school-master and learned man, was the son of Henry Dugard, a clergyman, and born at Bromsgrove in Worcestershire, Jan. 9, 1605. He was instructed in classical learning at a school in Worcester; and from thence sent, in 162'J, to Sidney college, Cambridge. In 1626 he took the degree of B. A. and that of M. A. in 1630. Soon after he was appointed master of Stamford school in Lincolnshire; from whence, in 1637, he was elected master of the free-school in Colchester. He resigned the care of this school Jan. 1642-3, in consequence of the ill-treatment he received at the hands of a party in that town, to which, us well as to the school, he had been of great service; and May 1644 was chosen head master of Merchant Taylors’ school in London. This school flourished exceedingly under his influence and management but for shewing, as was thought, too great an affection to the royal cause, and especially for printing Salmasius’s defence of Charles I. at a press in his own house, he was deprived of it February 1650, and imprisoned in Newgate his wife and six children turned out of doors and a printing-office, which he valued at a thousand pounds, seized . Being soon released from this confinement, he opened, April 1650, a private school on Peter’s Hill, London; but, in September was restored to his former station, by means of the same council of state who had caused him to be removed, and who, with Milton, took advantage of his distresses to force him into their service, and among other things to print Milton’s answer to Sahaasius. There, however, he continued with great success and credit, till about 1662, when he was dismissed for breaking some orders of the merchant tailors, though he had been publicly warned and admonished of it before. He presented a remonstrance to them upon that occasion, but to no purpose: on. which he opened a private school in Coleman-street, July 1661, and, by March following, had gathered a hundred and ninety-three scholars: so great was his reputation, and the fame of his abilities. He lived a very little while after, dying in 1662. He gave by will several books to Sion college library. He published some few pieces for the use of his schools as, 1. “Lexicon Grajci Testament! alphabetieum; una cum explicaiione gramimitica vocum singularum, in usum tironum. Necnon Concordantiil singulis dictionibus apposita, in usurn theologian candidatorum,” 1660. 2. “Rhetorices compendium,” Hvo. 3. “Luciani SamosatenMS dialogorum seiectorum libri duo, cum interpretatione Latina, multis in locis emendata, et ad calcem adjecta,” 8vo. 4. “A Greek grammar.”

, an eminent English antiquary and historian, was the only son of John Dngdale, of Shustoke, near Coleshill, in Warwickshire, gent, and born there Sept. 12, 1605. He was placed at the freeschool in Coventry, where he continued till he was fifteen; and then returning home to his father, who had been edueatrd in St. John’s college, Oxford, and had applied himself particularly to civil law and history, was instructed by him in those branches of literature. At the desire of his father, he married, March 1623, a daughter of Mr. Huntbach, of Seawall, in Staffordshire, and boarded with his wife’s father till the death of his own, which happened July 1624 but soon after went and kept house at Fillongley, in Warwickshire, where he had an estate formerly purchased by his father. In 1625 he bought the manor of Blythe, in Shvstoke, above-mentioned; and the year following, selling his estate at Fillongley, he came and resided at Blythehall. His natimil inclination leading him to the study of antiquities, he soon became acquainted with all the noted antiquaries with Burton particularly, whose “Description of Leicestershire” he had read, and who lived but eight miles from him, at Lindley, in that county. In 1638 he went to London, and was introduced to sir Christopher Hatton, and to sir Henry Spelman by whose interest he was created a pursuivant at arms extraordinary, by the name of Blanch Lyon, having obtained the king’s warrant for that purpose. Afterwards he was made RougeCroix-pursuivant in ordinary, by virtue of the king’s letters patent, dated March 18, 1640; by which means having a lodging in the Heralds’ office, and convenient opportunities, he spent that and part of the year following, in augmenting his collections out of the records in the Tower and other places. In 1641, through sir Christopher Hatton’s encouragement, he employed himself in raking exact draughts of all the monuments in Westminster-abbey, St. Paul’s cathedral, and in many other cathedral and parochial churches of England particularly those at Peterborough, Ely, Norwich, Lincoln, Newarkupon-Trent, Beverley, Southwell, York, Chester, Lichfield, Tamworth, Warwick, &c. The draughts were taken by Mr. Sedgwick, a skilful arms-painter, then servant to sir Christopher Hatton; but the inscriptions were probably copied by Dugdale. They were deposited in sir Christopher’s library, to the end that the memory of them might be preserved from the destruction that then appeared imminent, for future and better times. June 1642 he was ordered by the king to repair to York; and in July was commanded to attend the earl of Northampton, who was marching into Worcestershire, and the places adjacent, in order to oppose the forces raised by lord Brook for the service of the parliament He waited upon the king at the battle of Edge-hill, and afterwards at Oxford, where he continued with his majesty till the surrender of that garrison to the parliament June 22, 1646. He was created M. A. October 25, 1642, and April 16, 1644, Chester-heraid. During his long residence at Oxford, he applied himself to the search of such antiquities, in the Bodleian and other libraries, as he thought might conduce towards the furtherance of the “Monp.sticon,” then designed by Roger Dodsworth and himself; as also whatever might relate to the history of the ancient nobility of this realm, of which he made much use in his Baronage.

After the surrender of Oxford upon articles, Dugdale, having the benefit of them, and having compounded for his estate, repaired to London; where he and Dodsworth proceeded vigorously in completing their collections out of the Tower records and Cottonian library. He suffered a short avocation in 1648, when he attended lord and lady Hatton to Paris; but, returning to England in two months, he pursued with his coadjutor the work he had undertaken. When they were ready, the booksellers not caring to venture upon so large and hazardous a work, they printed at their own charge the first volume, which was published in 1655, in folio, under the title of “Monasticon Anglicanum,” adorned with the prospects of abbies, churches, &c. The second volume was published in folio, in 1661. These two volumes were collected and totally written by Dodsworth: but Dugdale took great pains in methodizing and disposing the materials, in making several indexes to them, and in correcting them at the press for Dodsworth died in 1654, before the tenth part of the first volume was printed otF. (See Dodsworth). A third volume was published in 1673. These three volumes contain chiefly the foundation-charters of the monasteries at their first erection, the donation-charters in after-times being purposely omitted; but the publication of them was productive of many law-suits, by the revival of old writings and the puritans were highly offended at it, as they looked upon it as a large step towards introducing popery. The Monasticon being almost the only one of our books which finds a ready admittance into the libraries of monks, it has on that account become scarce.

The general preface to the “Monasticon” was drawn up by the learned sir John Marsham, and is followed by a short view of the first institution of the monastic life. Great part of the impression of the third volume was accidentally burnt, and that is now of course the scarcest. The variations in the price of these volumes have been singular. Whiston informs us that in 1728, they sold for 18l., and in 1764 for only seven but of late they have risen to 50l. The first volume was reprinted with large additions, in 1682; and the whole was abridged in 1695, by James Wright, author of the “History of Rutlandshire.” Another epitome, by an anonymous writer, was published in 1718. Great additions were made to the Monasticon itself in “The History of the ancient Abbeys, Monasteries, Hospitals, Cathedral and Collegiate Churches,” by John Stephens, gent. This work, which contains in folio, two additional volumes to sir William Dugdale’s Monasticon, appeared in 1722 and 1723. Mr. Peck promised a fourth volume of the Monasticon, and in 1735, told the world that it was in great forwardness. He left behind him on this subject, some curious manuscript volumes, in 4to, now in the British Museum, some particulars concerning which may be seen in the Anecdotes of Mr. Bowyer, vol. I. p. 518, and a full enumeration of their contents in Ayscough’s Catalogue, vol. I. p. 55 67. We have, however, at length the prospect of a much improved edition, which has been undertaken by the rev. Bulkeley Bandinell, F. S. A. principal librarian of the Bodleian; and which, if we may judge from the part delivered in July (1813) to the subscubers, may be justly praised for the accuracy, splendour, and spirit of the learned editor and proprietors. In the mean time he printed at his own charge, and published in 1656, “The Antiquities of Warwickshire iilustr ted; from records, leiger-books, manuscripts, charters, evidences, tombs, and arms; beautified with maps, prospects, and portraitures,” folio. The author tells us in his preface, that he spent the greatest part of his lime, for more than twenty years, in accomplishing this work which indeed is reckoned his master- piece, and is allowed to be one of the best methodized and most accurate accounts that ever was written of this nature. A second edition was published in 1730, “in two volumes, printed from a copy corrected by the author himself, and with the original copper-plates. The whole revised, augmented, and continued down to this present time, by William Thomas, D. D. some time rector of Exhall, in the same county.” While this work was printing, which was for near a year and a half, Dugdale continued in London, for the sake of correcting the press; during which time he had an opportunity of collecting materials for another work, which he published in 1658. “The History of St. Paul’s Cathedral, in London,” folio. A second edition of this curious work, corrected and enlarged by the author’s own hand, was published in 1716, in folio, by Edward Maynard, D. D. rector of Boddington, in Northamptonshire; to which is prefixed his life written by himself, from which these memorials of him are chiefly extracted. Five of the original plates being lost, five new ones were engraved for this second edition; to which are great additions in several places, and particularly a new introduction. Besides these there is an account of the new building of St. P.nil’s to 1685; with a catalogue of the several benefactors, and the sums they gave towards it; and, “An historical Account of the Cathedral and. collegiate Churches of York, Hippon, Southwell, Beverly, Durham, and Carlisle;” of which, however, the first four appear to have been by sir Thomas Herbert, and the two last are probably not by Dugdale.

Upon the restoration of Charles II. Dugdale was, through chancellor Hyde’s recommendation, advanced to the office of Norroy king at arms; and in 1662 he published “The History of Imbanking and Draining of divers Fens and Marshes, both in foreign parts and in this kingdom, and of the improvement thereby. Extracted from records, manuscripts, and other authentic testimonies. Adorned with sundry maps, &c.” This work was written at the request of the lord Gorges, sir John Marsham, and others, who were adventurers in draining the Great Level, which extends itself into a considerable part of the counties of Cambridge, Huntingdon, Northampton, Norfolk, and Suffolk. About the same time he completed the second volume of sir Henry Spelman’s Councils, and published it in If64, under this title “Concilia, decreta, leges, constitutiones in re ecclesiarum orbis Britannici, &c. ah introitu Normannorum, A.D. 1066, ad exutum papam A. D. 1531. Accesserunt etiam alia ad rem ecclesiasricam spectantia,” &c. Archbishop Sheldon and lord Clarendon had been the chief promoters of this work, and employed Dugdale upon it; and what share he had in it will appear from hence, that out of 2 “4 articles, of which that volume consists, 191 are of his collecting; being those marked (*) in the list of the contents at the beginning of the volume. The same great personages employed him also to publish the second part of that learned knight’s” Glossary.“The first part was published in 1626, folio, and afterwards considerably augmented and corrected by sir Henry. He did not live to finish the second, but left much of it loosely written; with observations, and sundry bits of paper pinned thereto. These Dugdale took the pains to dispose into proper order, transcribing many of those papers;, and, having revised the first part, caused both to be printed together in 1664, under the title of” Glossariuin archaiologicum, continens Latino-barbara, peregrina, obsoleta, & novse significationis vocabula.“The second part, digested by Dugdale, began at the letter M; but Wood observes, that” it comes far short of the first." There was another edition of this work in 1687.

In 1666, he published in folio, “Origines Juridiciales; or, historical memoirs of the English laws, courts of justice, forms of trial, punishment in cases criminal, law-writers, law-books, grants and settlements of estates, degree of serjeants, inns of court and chancery, &c.” This book is adorned with the heads of sir John Clench, sir Edward Coke, sir Randolph Crew, bir Robert Heath, Edward earl of Clarendon-, to whom it is dedicated, sir Orlando Bridgman, sir John Vaughan, and Mr. Selden. There are also plates of the arms in the windows of the Temple-hall, and other inns of court. A second edition was published in 1671, and a third in 1680. Nicolson recommends this book as a proper introduction to the history of the laws of this kingdom. His next work was, “The Baronage of England,” of which the first volume appeared in 1675, and the second and third in 1676, folio. Though the collecting of materials for this work cost him, as he tells us, a great part of thirty years’ labour, yet there are many faults in it; so many, that the gentlemen at the Heralds’ office said they could not depend entirely upon its authority. Wood informs us, that Dugdale sent to him copies of all the volumes of this work, with an earnest desire that he would peruse, correct, and add to them, what he could obtain from records and other authorities; whereupon, spending a whole long vacation upon it, he drew up at least sixteen sheets of corrections, but more additions; which being sent to the author, he remitted a good part of them into the margin of a copy of his Baronage on large paper (which copy, we believe, still exists). With all its faults, however, the work was so acceptable, that the year following its publication, there were very few copies unsold.

In May 1677, our antiquary was solemnly created Garter principal king at arms, and the day after received from his majesty the honour of knighthood, much against his will, on account of the smallness of his estate. In 1681 he published “A short View of the late Troubles in England; briefly setting forth their rise, growth, and tragical conclusion, &c.” folio. This is perhaps the least valued of all his works, or rather the only one which is not very much valued. He published also at the same time, “The ancient usage in bearing of such ensigns of honour as are co'i.monly called Arms, &,c.” 8vo a second edition of which was published in the beginning of the year following, with large additions. The last work he published, was, “A perfect copy of all summons of the nobility to the great councils and parliaments of this realm, from the 49th of king Henry III. until these present times, &e.” 1685, folio. He wrote some other pieces relating to the same subjects, which were never published; and was likewise the chief promoter of the Saxon Dictionary by Mr. William Somner, printed at Oxford in 1659. His collections of materials for the Antiquities of Warwickshire, and Baronage of England, all written with his own hand, contained in 27 vols, in folio, he gave by will to the university of Oxford; together with sixteen other volumes, some of his own hand-writing; which are now preserved in Ashmole’s Museum. He gave likewise several books to the Heralds’ office, in London, and procured many more for their library.

At length, this very industrious man, contracting a great cold at Blythe-hall, died of it in his chair, Feb. 10, 1686, in his eighty-first year and was interred at Shustoke, in a little vault which he had caused to be made in the church there. Over that vault he had erected in his life-time an altar-tomb of free-stone, and had caused to be fixed in the wall about it a tablet of white marble, with an epitaph of his own writing, in which he tells us of his ascending gradually through all the places in the office of heralds, till he was made Garter principal king of arms.

His wife died Dec. 18, 1681, aged seventy-five, after they had been married fifty-nine years. He had several children by her, sons and daughters. One of his daughters was married to Elias Ashmole, esq. All his sons died young, except John, who was created M. A. at Oxford, in 1661, and was at that time chief gentleman of the chamber to Edward earl of Clarendon, lord chancellor of England. In Oct. 1675, he was appointed Windsor-herald, upon the resignation of his brother-in-law, Elias Ashmole, esq and Norroy king of arms in March 1686, about which time he was also knighted by James II. He published “A Catalogue of the Nobility of England, &c.” printed at London, a large broadside, in 1685, and again, with additions, in 1690. This sir John Dugdale died in 1700, leaving two sons, William and John, who both died single, the latter in 1749; and four daughters, the third of whom, Jane, married Richard Geast, esq. by whom she had a son named Richard, who took the name and arms of Dugdale only. This gentleman died in 1806, leaving a son, Dugdale Stratford Dugdale, esq. the present member of parliament for the county of Warwick.

, a learned priest of the oratory, was born December 9, 1649, at Montbrison, the son of Claude Duguet, king’s advocate in the presidial of that city. Having entered the congregation of the oratory at Paris, in 1667, he taught philosophy at Troyes, and was afterwards recalled to St. Magloir, at Paris, where he gained great reputation, as professor of divinity, by his “Ecclesiastical Conferences.” Ill health obliged him to resign all his employments in 1680, and in 1685 he quitted the oratory, and retired to M. Arnauld, at Brussels; but returned to Paris afterwards, where he lived in a very retired manner, at the house of M. the president de Menars, 1690, where he continued till the death of that magistrate and his wife. He was afterwards frequently forced to change his dwelling and country, in consequence of his opposition to the Constitution Unigenitus. He was successively in Holland, at Troyes, Paris, &c. and died in the last-named city October 25, 1733, aged eighty-four. His works are numerous, and well written in French. The principal are, 1. “Lettres de Piete et de Morale,” 9 vols, 12mo; 2. “La Conduite d'une Dame Chretienne,” 12mo; 3. “Traite de la Priere publique, et des Saints Mysteres,” 12mo; 4. “Traite dogmatique sur l‘Eucharistie, sur les Exorcismes, et sur l’Usure.” The three last are much admired by Catholics, and are printed together, 1727; 12mo; 5. “Commentaires sur l'Ouvrage des 6 jours.” 12mo; 6. “Sur Job,” 3 tom, in 4 vols. 12mo; 7. “Sur la Genese,” 6 vols. 12mo; 8. “Explication sur les Pseaumes,” 5 tom. in 8 vols. 12mo; 9. “Explication des Rois, Esdras, et Nehemias,” 6 tom. in 7 vols. 12mo; 10. “Explication du Cantique des Cantiques, et de la Sagesse,” 2vols. 12mo; 11. “Explication sur Isaïe, Jonas, et Habacuc,” 6 tom. in 7 vols. 12mo; 12. “Regles pour l‘Intelligence de l’Ecriture Sainte,” 12mo. The preface to this work is by M. d'Asfeld. 13. “Explication du Mystere de la Passion de N. S. J. C.” 9 tom. in 14 vols. 12mo; 14. “Les Characters de la Charité,” 12mo; 15. “Traité des Principes de la Foi Chretienne,” 3 vols. 12mo; 16. “De l‘Education d’un Prince,” 4to, or in 4 vols. 12mo; 17. “Conferences Ecclesiastiques,” 2 vols. 4to; 18. “Je sus crucifié,” 1 vol. or 2 vols. 12mo; and some other pieces, which procured him considerable reputation while works of piety remained popular in France. The history, and an analysis of his work on the education of a prince, may be seen in our third authority.

, the author of a Prussian Chronicle, flourished in the beginning of the fourteenth century, as appears by the dedication of that work. He was probably born at Duisbourg, in the duchy of Cleves, and took his name from the pla iativity. His

“Chronicle of Prussia” contains the history of that kingdom from 1226 to 1325, is written in Latin, und tinued by an anonymous hand, to 1426. Hartknock, a learned German, published an edition of it in 4to, in 1679, with nineteen dissertations, which throw considerable light on the early history of Prussia. About 1340, Nicolas Jeroschin, a chaplain of the Teutonic order, translated this Chronicle into German verse, which was continued in the same by Wigand of Marpur^, as far as 1394. Duisbourg himself was a priest of the Teutonic order in Prussia, but we have no farther account of his life.

, was a divine and a poet, the effusions of whose muse have been honoured with a place in Dr. Johnson’s collection, but of whose early history little is known, nor do we know who his parents were, or where he was born. His grammatical education he received under the famous Dr. Busby, at Westminster-school, into wnich he was admitted in 1670, and from which he was elected in 1675, to Trinity- college, Cambridge. In 1673 he took the degree of B. A. and that of M. A. in 1682. He became likewise a fellow of the college, and it is related that he was for some time tutor to the duke of Richmond. Having entered into holy orders, he was presented to the rectory of Blaby, in Leicestershire, in 1687-8, made a prebendary of Gloucester, and in 1688 chosen a procior in convocation for that church, and was chaplain to queen Anne. In 1710 he was presented by sir Jonathan Trelawny, bishop of Winchester, to the wealthy living of Witney, in Oxfordshire, which, however, he enjoyed but a few months; for, on the 10th of February, 1710-11, having returned from an entertainment, he was found dead the next morning. When Mr. Duke left the university, being conscious of his powers, he enlisted himself among the wits of the age. He was in particular the familiar friend of Otway, and was engaged, among other popular names, in the translations of Ovid and Juvenal. From his writings he appears not to have been ill-qualified for poetical composition. “In his Review,” says Dr. Johnson, “though unfinished, are some vigorous lines. His poems are not below mediocrity; nor have I found in them much to be praised.” With the wit, Mr. Duke seems to have shared the dissoluteness of the times for some of his compositions are such as he must have reviewed with detestation in his later days. This was especially the case with regard to two of his poems; the translation of one of the elegies of Ovid, and the first of the three songs. “Perhaps,” observes Dr. Johnson, “like >ome other foolish young men, he rather talked than lived viciously, in an age when he that would be thought a wit was afraid to say his prayers; and whatever might have been bad in the first part of his life was surely condemned and reformed by his better judgment;” and this, it is hoped, was the case.

Mr. Duke, in his character as a divine, published three sermons in his life-time. The first was on the imitation of Christ, preached before the queen in 1703, from 1 John, ii. 6. The second was from Psalm xxv. 14, and was likewise preached before the queen in 1704. The third was an assize sermon, on Christ’s kingdom, from John xviii. 36, and published in the same year. In 1714, fifteen of his sermons on several occasions, were printed in one vol. 8vo, which were held in good reputation, and are spoken of in strong terms of commendation by Dr. Henry Felton, who, in his Dissertation on reading the Classics, says, “Mr. Duke may be mentioned under the double capacity of a poet and a divine. He is a bright example in the several parts of writing, whether we consider the originals, his translations, paraphrases, or imitations. But here I can only mention him as a divine, with this peculiar commendation, that in his sermons, besides liveliness of wit, purity and correctness of style, and justness of argument, we see many fine allusions to the ancients, several beautiful passages handsomely incorporated in the train of his own thoughts; and, to say all in a word, classic learning and a Christian spirit.”

, an eminent classical editor, was born in 1670, at Unna, in Westphalia, and after receiving the elements of education at home, was sent to a school at Ham, and afterwards, about 1690, to the university of Franeker, where he studied under Perizonius, to whom he used to attribute the proficiency he was afterwards enabled to make, and the fame he acquired by his critical knowledge of Greek and Latin. In 1701- he came to the Hague, and was afterwards appointed professor of ancient history at Utrecht, where he acquired vast reputation for his general erudition, and particularly his philological knowledge. He died at Meyderick, near Duisbourg, in Nov. 1752. His first work was entitled “Sylloge opusculornm variorum de Latinitate Jurisconsultorum veterum,” Leyden, 1711, 8vo, containing some curious and rare pieces. In the same year he delivered at Utrecht his “Oratio de difficultatibus quibusdam interpretationis Grammatics veterum Scriptorum Graecorum et Latinorurn,” which was published there in 1716, 4to. This was followed, l.by his “.Tlorus,” Leaden, 1722, 2 vols. 8vo, of which all bibliographers have spoken with great praise. 2. “Thucydides,” Amst. 1731, 2 vols. fol. which he undertook at the express wish of the publishers, the Wetsteins and Smith. This has long been considered as the best edition, as it is the most valuable in price. He contributed also notes and remarks to Drakenborch’s Livy, Petit’s “Leges Attica;,” Ouclendorp’s Suetonius, &c.

, a leader of a religious sect, was a native of Novara, in the duchy of Milan. The sect sometimes denominated Dulcinists, and sometimes the “sect of the apostles,” was founded by Gerard Sagarelli, who was burnt alive for his opinions, at Parma, in 1300. According to Mosheim, the Dulcinists aimed at introducing among Christians the simplicity of the primitive time:-;, especially the manner of life that was observed by the apostles, as nearly as could be collected from their writings. On the death of the founder, Dulcinus boldly headed the st:t, and avowed his faith in the predictions of Sagarelli, viz. that the church of Rome would speedily be destroyed, and that a pure system of religion would be built on its ruins, and that these predictions might be fulfilled, the Dulcinists for two years, by force of arms, maintained their ground against the supporters of the papal interests; which terminated, however, in the capture and death of their leader.

, a learned French lady, was born at Paris, and instructed from her earliest infancy in the belles lettres. She was married very young; but scarcely had she attained the age of seventeen, when her husband was killed in Germany at the head of a company he commanded. She took advantage of the liberty her widowhood gave her, to apply her mind to study, particularly that of astronomy, and published, in 1680, at Paris, a quarto volume, under the title of “Discourses of Copernicus touching the Mobility of the Earth, by Mad. Jeanne Dtimee of Paris.” She explains with clearness the three motions attributed to the enrth and exhibits the arguments that establish or militate against the system of Corpernicus with impartiality.

, baron of Carlscroon, historiographer to the emperor, who was forced to fly to Holland on account of religion, after having served without much benefit in France, is known by several writings, although we know little of his personal history. The chief of them are 1. “Des Memoires Politiques, pour servir a Pintelhgence de la paix de Ilyswic,” Hague, 1699, 4 vols. 12mo, the authorities of which are comprised also in 4 vols. 1705, 12mo. This instructive and interesting performance contains an abstract of every thing of moment that passed from the peace of Minister to the end of the year 1676. 2. “Voyages en France, en Italie, en Aiiemagne, aMalte, et en Turkic,” 1699, 4 vols. 12mo. 3. “Corps univers^lle diplomatique du droit des gens;” containing the treaties of alliance, of peace, and of commerce, from the peace of Munster to 1709, Amsterdam, 1726, 8 vols. folio. This work is not exempt from fanlts, but neither is it without utility. With the addition of the treaties made before the Christian n>ra, published by Barbeyrac, Rousset, and Saint-Priest, and those of Munster and Osnaburg, they together form a collection of 19 volumes in folio. 4. “Hist, militaire du prince Eugene de Savoie, du prince et due de Marlborough, &c.” Hague, 1729 1747, 3 vols, folio. 5. “Lettres Historiques,” from January 1652 to 1710. Another person, of less ability than Dumont, has continued them. 6. Other collections, tolerably numerous. This author wrote in a languid and incorrect manner; but there is a great deal of industrious inquiry in all he has left us. He died about the year 1726, in an advanced age.

, an eminent Scotch poet, was born about the year 1465, and, as it is generally supposed, although without much foundation, at Salton, a village on the delightful coast of the Forth in East Lothian. This is collected from what Kennedy, a contemporary poet, says in one of his satires; who mentions likewise his own wealth, and Dunbar’s poverty. If we are to credit the same author, Dunbar was related to the earls of March; but of this there is no satisfactory evidence. In his youth he seems to have been a travelling noviciate of the Franciscan order; but this mode of life not being agreeable to his inclination, he resigned it, and returned to Scotland, as is supposed, about 1490, when he might be 25 years of age. In his “Thistle and Rose,” which was certainly written in 1503, he speaks of himself as a poet that had already made many songs: and that poem is the composition rather of an experienced writer, than of a novice in the art. It is indeed probable that his tales, “The twa marrit wemen and the wedo;” and, “The freirs of Bervvik,” (if the last be his) were written before his “Thistle and Rose.” However tin’s may have been, Dunbar, after being the author of “The gold in Terge,” a poem rich in description, and of many small pieces of the highest merit, died in old age about 1530. In his younger years, our poet seems to have had great expectations that his abilities would have recommended him to an ecclesiastical benetice; and in his smaller poems he frequently addresses the king lor that purpose: but there is no reason to believe that he was successful, although it may be thought that the “Thistle and Rose,” which was occasioned by the marriage of James IV. king of Scotland, with Margaret Tudor, eldest daughter of Henry VII. king of England, deserved better treatment at the hands of the young royal pair. Mr. Pinkerton, in his list of Scottish poets, tells us, he has looked in vain over many calendars of the characters, &c. of this period, to find Dunbar’s name; but suspects that it was never written by a lawyer. Mr. Warton, in characterising the Scottish poets of this time, observes that the writers of that nation have adorned the period with a degree of sentiment and spirit, a command of phraseology, and a fertility of imagination, not to be found in any English poet since Chaucer and Lydgate. “He might safely have added,” says Mr. Pinkerton, “not even in Chaucer or Lydgate.” Concerning Dunbar, Mr. Warton says, that the natural complexion of his genius is of the moral and didactic cast. This remark, however, Mr. Pinkerton thinks, must not be taken too strictly. “The goldin Terge,” he adds, “is moral; and so are many of his small pieces: but humour, description, allegory, great poetical genius, and a vast wealth of words, all unite to form the complexion of Dunbar’s poetry. He unites, in himself, and generally surpasses the qualities of the chief old English poets; the morals and satire of Langland; Chaucer’s humour, poetry, and knowledge of life; the allegory of Gower; the description of Lydgate.” This is a very high character, but surely the morality of his poems may be questioned. Several of his compositions contain expressions which appear to us grossly profane and indecent; and one of his addresses to the queen would not now be addressed to a modern courtezan. Even the most sacred observances of the church are converted into topics of ridicule; and its litanies are burlesqued in a parody, the profaneness of which is almost unparalleled. The notes added to the collection published by sir David Daly rm pie in 1770 are peculiarly valuable; for they not only explain and illustrate the particular expressions and phrases of the pieces in question, but contain several curious anecdotes, and throw considerable light on the manners of the times.

, an illustrious naval officer, the second son of Alexander Duncan, esq. of Lundie, in the county of Angus, in Scotland, by Helen Haldone, daughter of Mr. Haldone, of Gleneagles in Perthshire, was born in the month of July 1731, and received the first rudiments of education at Dundee, and, appears to have been early intended for the naval service, as his elder brother Alexander was for that of the army, of which he died lieutenant-colonel in 1771. About 1746, Adam was put under the command of capt. Robert Haldane, who was then commander of the Shoreham frigate, with whom he continued two or three years. In 174y he was entered as a midshipman on board the Centurion of 50 guns, which then bore the broad pendant of commodore Keppel, who was appointed commander in chief on the Mediterranean station, for the customary period of three years. In Jan. 1755, he was promoted to the rank of lieutenant, by the recommendation of commodore Keppel, who knew his merits; and was appointed to the Norwich, a fourth rate, commanded by captain Barrington, and intended as one of the squadron which was to accompany Mr. Keppel to America, with transports and land forces under the command of general Braddock. After the arrival of this armament in Virginia, Mr. Duncan was removed into the Centurion, in which he continued until that ship returned to England, and captain Keppel, after having for a short time commanded the Swiftsure, being appointed to the Torbay of 74 guns, procured his much esteemed eleve to be appointed second lieutenant of that ship. After remaining on the home station for the space of three years, he proceeded on the expedition sent against the French settlement of Goree, on the coast of Africa. He was slightly wounded here at the attack of the fort; and soon afterwards rose to the rank of the first lieutenant of the Torbay, in which capacity he returned to England.

On the 21st of September, subsequent to his arrival, 1759, he was advanced to the rank of commander, and in February 1761 was advanced to that of post captain, and being appointed to the Valiant of 74 guns, he became again materially connected, in respect to service, with his original friend and patron Mr. Keppel, who was appointed to command the naval part of an expedition against the French island of Belleisle, and on this occasion hoisted his broad pendant on board the Valiant. Thence captain Duncan repaired with Mr. Keppel, and in the same ship, to the attack of the Havannah. Keppel, who was appointed to command a division of the fleet, was ordered to cover the disembarkation of the troops; and, as the post of honour belongs on such occasions, as of right, to the captain of the admiral, or commodore, captain Duncan was accordingly invested with the command of the boats; he was afterwards very actively employed, and highly distinguished himself during the siege. When the town itself surrendered, he was dispatched with a proper force to take possession of the Spanish ships which had fallen on that occasion into the hands of the victors, consisting of five ships of 70 guns, and four of 60. After the surrender of the Havannah, he accompanied Mr. Keppel, who was appointed to the command on the Jamaica station, in the same capacity he had before held, and continued with him there till the conclusion of the war, when he returned to England.

On the re-commencement of the war with France in 1778, he was appointed to the Suffolk of 74 guns, but before the end of that year removed into the Monarch of the same rate, which, during the summer of 1779, was uninterruptedly employed in the main or channel fleet, commanded by sir Charles Hardy, who was obliged to continue all this time on the defensive, as the French and Spanish fleets, now united, were double in number of ships to what he commanded. At the conclusion of the same year, the Monarch was one of the ships put under the command of sir George Bridges Rodney, who was instructed to force his way to Gibraltar through all impediments, and relieve that fortress, which was then closely blockaded by a Spanish army on the land side, and a flotilla by sea, sufficiently strong to oppose the entrance of any trivial succour. On Jan. 16, 1780, the British fleet being then off Cape St. Vincent, fell in with a Spanish squadron, commanded by don Juan de Langara, who was purposely stationed there to intercept sir George, who, according to mis-information received by the court of Spain, was supposed to have only a squadron of four ships of the line. On this memorable occasion, although the Monarch had not the advantage which many other ships in the same armament enjoyed, of being sheathed with copper, and was rather foul, and at best by no means a swift sailer, capt. Duncan was fortunate enough to get into action before any other ship of the fleet; and the St. Augustine of 70 guns struck to him, but was so much disabled, that the conqueror was obliged to abandon her, after taking out the few British officers and seamen who had been put on board. In this action, of eleven Spanish ships of the line and two frigates, four were taken and remained in possession of the English; one was blown up; three surrendered, but afterwards got away much damaged; one was reduced almost to a wreck; and two others, together with the frigates, fled at the first outset, almost without attempting to make any resistance. Such a victory obtained by nineteen British ships of the line over eleven Spanish, is scarcely a matter of exultation, although an advantage, from the loss sustained by the enemy.

Captain Duncan quitted the Monarch not long after his arrival in England, and did not receive any other commission until the beginning of 1782, when he was appointed to the Blenheim of 90 guns, a ship newly come out of dock, after having undergone a complete repair. He continued in the same command during near the whole of the remainder of the war, constantly employed with the channel fleet, commanded, during the greater part of the time, by the late earl Howe. Having accompanied his lordship in the month of September to Gibraltar, he was stationed to lead the larboard division of the centre, or commander-in-chief 's squadron, and was very distinguish* edly engaged in the encounter with the combined fleets of France and Spain, which took place off" the entrance of the Straits. The fleet of the enemy was more than one fourth superior to that of Britain; and yet, had not the former enjoyed the advantage of the weather-gage, it was >vas very evident from the event of the skirmish which did take place, that if the encounter had been more serious, the victory would, in all probability, have been completely decisive against them. Soon after the fleet arrived in England, capt. Duncan removed into the Foudroyant, of 84 guns, one of the most favourite ships of the British navy at that time, which had, during the whole preceding part of the war, been commanded by sir John Jervis, now earl St. Vincent. On the peace, which took place in the ensuing spring, he removed into the Edgar of 74 guns, one of the guard-ships stationed at Portsmouth, and continued, as is customary in time of peace, in that command during the three succeeding years; and this was the last commission he ever held as a private captain. On Sept. 14, 1789, he was promoted to be rear-admiral of the blue, and to the same rank in the white squadron on Sept. 22, 1790. He was raised to be vice-admiral of the blue, Feb. 1, 1793; of the white, April 12, 1794; to be admiral of the blue, June 1, 1795; and lastly, admiral of the white, Feb. 14, 1799. During all these periods, except the two last, singular as it may appear, the high merit of admiral Duncan continued either unknown, or unregarded. Frequently did he solicit a command, and as often did his request pass uncomplied with. It has even been reported, we know not on what foundation, that this brave man had it once in contemplation to retire altogether from the service, on a very honourable civil appointment connected with the navy.

At length, however, his merit burst through the cloud which had so long obscured it from public view. In February 1795, he received an appointment constituting him commander in chief in what is called the North Seas, the limits of his power extending from the North Foreland, even to the Ultima Thule of the ancients, or as far beyond as the operations of the enemy he was sent to encounter should render necessary. He accordingly hoisted his flag on board the Prince George, of 98 guns, at Chatham: but that ship being considered too large for the particular quarter in which the admiral was destined to act, he removed soon afterwards into the Venerable of 74 guns, and proceeded to carry into execution the very important trust which was confided in him.

Nothing material took place beyond the ordinary routine of such a service for more than two years. The occurrences were confined to those small occasional captures, which must frequently occur in the course of such extensive commands; and although the largest of the prizes was of no very considerable force, yet the number of them very sufficiently proves the vigilance of the commander-inchief, and those acting under his orders. The Dutch trade was almost annihilated; their merchant-vessels captured in sight of their own ports; and the whole coast so completely blockaded, that few vessels could venture to sea and escape the vigilance of the British fleet, or its outcruisers. The fleet belonging to the United Provinces, though consisting of fifteen ships of the line, six frigates, and five sloops of war, was also obliged to content itself with remaining quietly in port, or in taking short inoffensive cruises, at times when the want of water or provisions compelled the British ships to repair for a few days to their own coasts. In the month of June 1797, they even patiently suffered themselves to be blocked up by admiral Duncan, though his force was for several days far inferior to theirs, owing to the unhappy and disgraceful spirit of mutiny which at that time appeared throughout almost the whole British navy.

At this most alarming and unprecedented crisis, the conduct of admiral Duncan must not be forgotten, although we have no inclination to revive the memory of that unnatural rebellion by a particular narrative. When the mutiny raged in his squadron in a most awful manner, and when left only with three ships, he still remained firm in his station off the Texel, and succeeded in keeping the Dutch navy from proceeding to sea; a circumstance, in all probability, of as high consequence to the nation as his subsequent victory. His behaviour at the time of the mutiny will be best seen from the speech which he made to the crew of his own ship, on the 3d of June, 1797, and which, as a piece of artless and affecting oratory, cannot but be admired by the most fastidious taste. His men being assembled, the admiral thus addressed them from the quarter-deck: “My lads I once more call you together with a sorrowful heart, from what I have lately seen of the disaffection of the fleets; I call it disaffection, for the crews have no grievances. To be deserted by my fleet, in the face of an enemy, is a disgrace which I believe never before happened to a British admiral; nor could I have supposed it. My greatest comfort, under God, is, that I have been supported by the officers, seamen, and marines of this ship; for which, with a heart overflowing with gratitude, I request you to accept my sincere thanks. I flatter myself much good may result from your example, by bringing those deluded people to a sense of the duty which they owe, not only to their king and country, but to themselves. The British navy has ever been the support of that liberty which has been handed down to us by our ancestors, and which, I trust, we shall maintain to the latest posterity and that can only be done by unanimity and obedience. The ship’s company, and others who have distinguished themselves by their loyalty and good order, deserve to be, and doubtless:,v'// be, the favourites of a grateful country; they will also have, from their individual feelings, a comfort which must be lasting, and not like the fleeting and false confidence of those who have swerved from their duty. It has often been my pride with you to look into the Texel, and see a foe which dreaded coming out to meet us. My pride is now humble indeed! My feelings are not easily to be expressed! Our cup has overflowed, and made us wanton. The all-wise Providence has given us this check as a warning, and I hope we shall improve by it. On Him, then, let us trust, where our only security can be found. I find there are many good men among us; for my own part, I have had full confidence of all in this ship; and once more beg to express my approbation of your conduct. May God, who has thus so far conducted you, continue to do so! and may the British navy, the glory and support of our country, be restored to its wonted splendour, and be not only the bulwark of Britain, but the terror of the world But this can only be effected by a strict adherence to our duty and obedience and let us pray that the Almighty God may keep us in the right way of thinking. God bless you all!” The crew of the Venerable were so affected by this impressive address, that, on retiring, there was not a dry eye among them. On the suppression of the mutiny, the admiral resumed his station with his whole fleet off the coast of Holland, either to keep the Dutch squadron in the Texel, or to attack them if they should attempt to come out. It has since been discovered, that the object of the Batavian republic, in conjunction with France, was to invade Ireland, where, doubtless, they would have been cordially welcomed by numerous bodies of the disaffected. Hence it will be seen that the object of watching and checking the motions of the Dutch admiral was of the Utmost consequence. After a long and very vigilant attention to the important trust reposed in him, the English admiral was necessitated to repair to Yarmouth Roads to refit. The Batavian commander seized this favourable interval, and proceeded to sea. That active officer, captain sir H. Trollope, however, was upon the look-out, and, having discovered the enemy, dispatched a vessel with the glad intelligence to admiral Duncan, who lost not an instant of time, but pushed out at once, and in the morning of the 11th of October fell in with captain Trollope’s squadron of observation, with a signal flying for an enemy to the leeward. By a masterly manoeuvre the admiral placed himself between them and the Texel, so as to prevent them from re-entering without risking an engagement. An action accordingly took place between Camperdown and Egmont, in nine fathoms water, and within five miles of the coast. The admiral’s own ship, in pursuance of a plan of naval evolution which he had long before determined to carry into effect, broke the enemy’s line, and closely engaged the Dutch admiral De Winter, who, after a most gallant defence, was obliged to strike. Eight ships were taken, two of which carried flags! All circumstances considered the time of the year, the force of the enemy, and the nearness to a dangerous shore this action will be pronounced, by every judge of nautical affairs, to be one of the most brilliant that graces our annals. The nation was fully sensible of the merit and consequence of this glorious victory; politicians beheld in it the annihilation of the designs of our combined enemies; naval men admired the address and skill which were displayed by the English commander in his approaches to the attack; and the people at large were transported with admiration, joy, and gratitude. The honours which were instantly conferred upon the venerable admiral received the approbation of all parties. October 21, 1797, he was created lord viscount Duncan, of Camperdown, and baron Duncan, of Lnndie, in the shire of Perth. On his being introduced into the house of peers, on Nov. 8, the lord chancellor communicated to him the thanks of the house, and in his speech said, “He congratulated his lordship upon his accession to the honour of a distinguished seat in that place, to which his very meritorious and unparalleled professional conduct had deservedly raised him that conduct (the chancellor added) was such as not only merited the thanks of their lordships’ house, but the gratitude and applause of the oountry at large; it had been instrumental, under the auspices of Providence, in establishing the security of his majesty’s dominions, and frustrating the ambitious and destructive designs of the enemy.” A pension of 2000l. per annum was also granted his lordship, for himself and the two next heirs of the peerage.

After the above glorious victory, his lordship continued to retain the same command till the commencement of 1800, after which, now advanced in years, he passed some time in retirement, and died at his seat -in Scotland, August 4, 1804. He married on June 6, 1777, Henrietta, daughter of the late right hon. Robert Dundas, lord president of the court of session in Scotland (elder brother of lord viscount Melville), by whom he had a large family: and was succeeded in his titles and estate by Robert, his second son.

In person, lord Duncan was of a manly, athletic form, six feet four inches high, erect and graceful, with a countenance that indicated great intelligence and benevolence. It would, perhaps, be difficult to find in modern history another man, in whom, with so much meekness, modesty, and unaffected dignity of mind, were united so much genuine spirit, so much of the skill and fire of professional genius; such vigorous, active wisdom such alacrity and ability for great achievements, with such entire indifference for their success, except so far as it might contribute to the good of his country. His private character was that of a most affectionate relative, and a steady friend; and, what crowns the whole with a lustre superior to all other qualities or distinctions, a man of great and unaffected piety. The latter virtue may excite, in some persons, a smile of contempt: but the liberal-minded will be pleased to read that lord Duncan felt it an honour to be a Christian. He encouraged religion by his own practice; and the public observance of it has always been kept up wherever he held the command. When the victory was decided, which has immortalized his name, his lordship ordered the crew of his ship to be called together; and, at their head, upon his bended knees, in the presence of the Dutch admiral (who was greatly affected with the scene), he solemnly and pathetically offered up praise to the God of battles. Let it be added here, that his demeanour, when all eyes were upon him, in the cathedral of St. Paul’s on the day of general thanksgiving, in December following, was so humble, modest, and devout, as greatly to increase that admiration which his services had gained him. In short, lord Duncan was one more instance of the truth of the assertion, that piety and courage ought to be inseparably allied; and that the latter, without the former, loses its principal virtue.

, an eminent physician, born at Montauban in Lano-uedoc in 1649, was the son of Dr. Peter Duncan, professor of physic in that city, and grandson to William Duncan, an English gentleman, of Scottish original, who removed from London to the south of France about the beginning of the last century. Having lost both his parents while yet in his cradle, he was indebted, for the care of his infancy and education, to the guardianship of his mother’s brother, Mr. Daniel Paul, a leading counsellor of the parliament of Toulouse, though a firm and professed protestant. Mr. Duncan received the first elements of grammar, polite literature, and philosophy, at Puy Laurens, whither the magistracy of Montauban had transferred their university for a time, to put an end to some disputes between the students and the citizens. The masters newly established there, finding their credit much raised by his uncommon proficiency, redoubled their attention to him; so that he went from that academy with a distinguished character to Montpellier, when removed thither by his guardian, with a view to qualify him for a profession which had been for three generations hereditary in his family . His ingenuity and application recommended him to the esteem and friendship of his principal instructor there, the celebrated Dr. Charles Barbeyrac (uncle to John Barbeyrac the famous civilian), whose medical lectures and practice were in high reputation. Having taken his favourite pupil into his own house, the professor impressed and turned to use his public and private instruction by an efficacious method, admitting him, at every visit he paid to his patients, to consult and reason with him, upon ocular inspection, concerning the effect of his prescriptions. When he had studied eight years under the friendly care of so excellent a master, and had just attained the age of twenty-four, he was admitted to the degree of M. D. in that university. From Montpellier he went to Paris, where he resided nearly seven years. Here he published his first work, upon the principle of motion in the constituent parts of animal bodies, entitled: “Explication nouvelle & mechanique des actions an i males, Paris, 1678.” It was in the year following that he went for the first time to London, to dispose of some houses there, which had descended to him from his ancestors. He had, besides, some other motives to the journey; and among the rest, to get information relative to the effects of the plague in London in 1665. Having dispatched his other business, he printed in London a Latin edition of his “Theory of the principle of motion in animal bodies.” His stay in London, at this time, was little more than two years; and he was much disposed to settle there entirely. But in 1681 he was recalled to Paris to attend a consultation on the health of his patron Colbert, which was then beginning to decline. Soon after his return he produced the first part of a new work, entitled, “La chymie naturelle, ou explication chymique & mechanique de la Tiourriture de Tanimal,” which was much read, but rather raised than satisfied the curiosity of the learned; to answer which he added afterwards two other parts, which were received with a general applause. A second edition of the whole was published at Paris in 1687. In that year likewise came out his “Histoire de l'animal, ou la connoissance du corps animé par la méchanique & par la chymie.” He left Paris in 1683, upon the much-lamented death of Colbert, the kind effect of whose esteem he gratefully acknowledged, though in a much smaller degree than he might have enjoyed, if he had been less bold in avowing his zeal for protestantism, and his abhorrence of popery. He had some property in land adjoining to the city of Montauban, with a handsome house upon it, pleasantly situated near the skirts of the town. It was with the purpose of selling these, and settling finally in England, that he went thither from Paris. But the honourable and friendly reception he met with there determined his stay some years in his native city. In 1690, the persecution which began to rage with great fury against protestants made him suddenly relinquish all thoughts of a longer abode in France. Having disposed of his house and land for less than half their value, he retired first to Geneva, intending to return to England through Germany; an intention generally kept in petto, but for many years unexpectedly thwarted by a variety of events. Great numbers of his persuasion, encouraged by his liberality in defraying their expences on the road to Geneva, had followed him thither. Unwilling to abandon them in distress, he spent several months in that city and Berne, whither great numbers had likewise taken refuge, in doing them all the service in his power. The harsh and gloomy aspect which reformation at that time wore in Geneva, ill agreeing with a temper naturally mild and cheerful, and the sullen treatment he met with from those of his profession, whose ignorance and selfishness his conduct and method of practice tended to bring into disrepute, occasioned his stay there to be very short. He listened therefore with pleasure to the persuasion of a chief magistrate of Berne, who invited him to a residence more suited to his mind. He passed about 8 or 9 years at Berne, where to his constant practice of physic was added the charge of a professorship of anatomy and chemistry. In 1699, Philip landgave of Hesse sent for him to Cassel. The princess, who lay dangerously ill, was restored to life, but recovered strength very slowly. Dr. Duncan was entertained for three years with great respect, in the palace of the landgrave, as his domestic physician. During his stay at that court, he wrote his treatise upon the abuse of hot liquors. The use of tea, which had not long been introduced into Germany, and in the houses of only the most opulent, was already at the landgrave’s become improper and immoderate, as well as that of coffee and chocolate. The princess of Hesse, with a weak habit of body inclining to a consumption, had been accustomed to drink these liquors to excess, and extremely hot. He thought fit, therefore, to write something against the abuse of them, especially the most common one last mentioned. Their prudent use, to persons chiefly of a phlegmatic constitution, he allowed. He even recommended them, in that case, by his own example, to be taken moderately warm early in the morning, and soon after dinner; but never late in the evening, their natural tendency not agreeing with the posture of a body at rest. He wrote this treatise in a popular style, as intended for the benefit of all ranks of people; the abuse he condemned growing daily more and more epidemical. Though he deemed it too superficial for publication, he permitted it to be much circulated in manuscript. It was not till five years after that he was persuaded by his friend Dr. Boerhaave to print it, first in French, under the title of “Avis salutaire a tout le monde, contre Tabus cles liqueurs chaudes, & particulierement du caffe, du chocolat, & du the.” Rotterdam, J 705. He printed it the year following in English.

The persecution of protestants in France continuing to drive great numbers of them from all its provinces into Germany, he defrayed occasionally the expences of some small bodies of these poor emigrants, who passed through Cassel in 1702, in their way to Brandenburg, where encouraging offers of a comfortable maintenance were held out by Frederic, the newly created king of Prussia, to industrious manufacturers of every sort. The praises these people spread of Dr. Duncan’s liberality, when they arrived at Berlin, procured him a flattering invitation to that court. Here he was well received by the reigning prince; who appointed him distributor of his prudent munificence to some thousands of these poor artificers, and superintendant of the execution of a plan formed for their establishment. This office he discharged with great credit and internal satisfaction; but with no other advantage to himself. Though appointed professor of physic with a decent salary, and physician to the royal household, he found his abode at Berlin likely to prove injurious to his health and fortune. His expences there were excessive, and increasing without bounds by the daily applications made to him as distributor of the royal bounty, which fell short of their wants. Besides, the intemperate mode of living at that court was not according to his taste, and this last reason induced him. in 1703, to remove to the Hague. In this most agreeable residence he settled about twelve years, a short excursion to London excepted in 1706, for the purpose of investing all his monied property in the English funds. He kept at this time a frequent correspondence with Dr. Boerhaave, at whose persuasion he published a Latin edition of uis Natural Chemistn with some improvements and additional illustrations. He commenced about the same time a correspondence upon similar subjects with Dr. Richard Mead, From the time of his leavijig London in 1681. it appears that Dr. Duncan constantly entertained thoughts of fixing there his final abode. He however did not effect this purpose till about the end of 1714. He expressed an intention to quit the Hague some months sooner; but unhappilv just then he was suddenly seized with a stroke of the palsy, which greatly alarmed his friends. Yet, when he had overcome the first shock, he found no other inconvenience from it himself till his death twenty-one years after, except a slight convulsive motion of the head, which seized him commonly in speaking, but never interrupted the constant cheerfulness of his address. To a patient likely to do well he would say, “It is not for your case that I shake my head, but my own. You will soon shake me off, I warrant you.” He dedicated the last sixteen years of his life to the gratuitous service of those who sought his advice. To the rich who consulted him, from whom he as peremptorily refused to take a fee, he was wont to say, with a smile, ' The poor are my only paymasters now; they are the best I ever had; their payments are placed in a government-fund that can never fail; my security is the only King who can do no wrong.“This alluded to the loss he had sustained, in 1721, of a third part of his property by the South Sea scheme, which, however, produced not the least alteration in his purpose, nor any retrenchment of his general beneficence to the poor. He left behind him a great number of manuscripts, chiefly on physical subjects. The writers of the” Bibliotheque Britannique“for June 1735, whence the substance of this account is taken, close the article relating to him with this short sketch of his character” His conversation was easy, cheerful, and interesting, pure from all taint of partyscandal or idle raillery. This made his company desired by all who had a capacity to know its value; and he afforded a striking instance that religion must naturally gain strength from the successful study of nature.“He died at London, April 30, 1735, aged 86. He left behind him an only son, the reverend doctor Daniel Duncan, author of some religious tracts; among the rest,” Collects upon the principal Articles of the Christian Faith, according to the order of the Catechism of the Church of England.“Printed lor S. Birt, 1754. This was originally intended for an appendix to a larger work, completed for the press, but never published, entitled,” The Family Catechism, being a free and comprehensive Exposition of the Catechism of the Church of England.“He corresponded with the writers of the” Candid Disquisitions,“c. in which work he was from that circumstance supposed to have had some share. He died in June, 1761, leaving behind him two sons, both clergymen, the younger of whom, John Duncan, D. D. rector of South Warmborough, Hants, died at Bath Dec. 28, 1808. He was born in 1720, and educated at St. John’s college, Oxford, where he took his degrees of M. A. in 1746, B. D. 1752, and D. D. by decree of convocation in 1757. Jn 1745 and 1746 he was chaplain to the king’s own regiment, and was present at every battle in Scotland in which that regiment was engaged. He afterwards accompanied the regiment to Minorca, and was present at the memorable siege of St. Philip’s, which was followed by the execution of admiral Byng. In 1763 he was presented to the college living of South Warmborough, which he held for forty-five years. Besides many fugitive pieces in the periodical journals, Dr. Duncan published an” Essay on Happiness,“a poem, in four- books; an” Address to the rational advocates of the Church of England;“the” Religious View of the present crisis“” The Evidence of Reason, in proof of the Immortality of the Soul,“collected from Mr. Baxter’s Mss. with an introductory letter by the editor, addressed to Dr. Priestley; and some other tracts and occasional sermons. He contributed to the” Biographia Britannica,“the life of his grandfather, and an account of the family of Duncans and what the editor of that work said of him in his life-time may be justly repeated now,” that he sustained the honour of his family, in the respectability of his character, in the liberality of his mind, and in his ingenious and valuable publications."

, an ancestor of the preceding Dr. Daniel Duncan, and also a physician, was of Scotch origin, but born in London. He appears to have gone early in life to Franct and during a residence at Saumur, acquired the patronage of the celebrated Du Plessis Mornay, then governor of that city, who procured him the professorship of philosophy in the university. This situation he filled with great reputation, and published several learned works, among the rest, a Latin system of Logic, much commended by Burgersdicius, in the preface to his “Jnstitutiones Logicæ,” which he frankly confesses to have formed entirely upon that model. By the interest of the governor, his generous protector, to whom his Logic is dedicated, he became afterwards regent [principal] of the university of Saumur. Among his works is a book against the possession of the Ursuline nuns of Loudun. This piece made so much noise, that Li ubardemont, commissary for the examination of the demoniacal possession of these young women, would have made it a serious affair for him, but for the interposition of the marshal de Breze, to whom he was physician. At Saumur he married a gentlewoman of a good family, and gained so much reputation in his art, that James I. king of Britain sent for him, with an offer of making him his physician in ordinary and for this purpose he sent him the patent of it (as a security of what he was promised) before he crossed the sea but, as his wife was extremely desirous not to leave her native country, her relations, and acquaintance, he refused to accept of an employment that was so honourable and advantageous to his family, and spent the rest of his life at iSanmur, where he died in 1640, to the universal regret of every one, whether high or low, papist or protestant. He was admirably well skilled in philosophy, divinity, and mathematics, besides physic, which he practised with great honour; and was a man of the greatest probity, and of a most exemplary life.

He had a son, Mark Duncan, who is mentioned by biographers under the name of Cerisantes. Bayle gives a long desultory account of him. His life appears to have been strangely checquered, through a spirit impatient of rest, with a variety of literary, civil, and military pursuits. Moreri has inserted in his dictionary, from the fictitious memoirs said to be written by the duke of Guise, some calumnies against Cerisantes, which are refuted in a satisfactory manner by Bayle. Several detached pieces of Cerisantes’s poetry are to be seen in printed miscellaneous collections. Among these is a remarkable one, inscribed, “Carmen gratulatorinm in nuptias Caroli It. Aug. cum Henrietta Maria rilia Henrici IV. R. Fr.” The visionary blessings that were to arise from this union to all the world, particularly to his native country, and that of his progenitor, (by their becoming the joint arbiters of that perpetual peace in Europe, which it was the project of Henry to establish, and which he has beautifully painted in the most lively colouring), only shew that a good poet may be a bad prophet. He is said to have died in 1648.

, professor of philosophy in the marischal college, Aberdeen, and a learned writer, was born in that city in the month of July 1717. His father, William Duncan, was a respectable tradesman in the same place, and his mother, Euphemia Kirkwood, was the daughter of a wealthy farmer in East Lothian, the first district in Scotland where agriculture was much improved. Young Duncan received his grammatical education partly in the public grammar-school of Aberdeen, and partly at Foveran, about fifteen miles distant, where there was a boardingschool, which at that time was greatly frequented, on account of the reputation of Mr. George Forbes, the master. In November 1733, Mr. Duncan entered the marischal college of Aberdeen, and applied himself particularly to the study of the Greek language, under the celebrated professor Dr. Thomas Blackwell. After going through the ordinary course of philosophy and mathematics, which continues for three years, he took the degree of M. A. This was in April 1737, and he never took any other degree. Mr. Duncan appears to have been designed for the ministry, and in this view he attended the theological lectures of the professors at Aberdeen for two winters. Not, however, finding in himself any inclination to the clerical profession, he quitted his native place, and removed to London in 1739, where he became an author by profession. In this capacity various works were published by him without his name; the exact nature and number of which it is not in our power to ascertain. It is in general understood that he translated several books from the French, and that he engaged in different undertakings which were proposed to him by the booksellers. There is reason to believe that he had a very considerable share in the translation of Horace which goes under the name of Watson. Without, however, anxiously inquiring after every translation, and every compilation in which Mr. Duncan might be concerned, we shall content ourselves with taking notice of the three principal productions upon which his literary reputation is founded. The first, in point of time, was his translation of several select orations of Cicero. It has gone through several impressions, and was much used as a schoolbook, the Latin being printed on one side, and the English on the other. A new edition in this form appeared in 1792. Sir Charles Whitworth, in 1777, published Mr. Duncan’s version in English only, for the benefit of such young persons of both sexes, as have not had the benefit of a liberal education. The publication is in 2 vols. 8vo. In his preface, sir Charles speaks highly, and we believe justly, of Mr. Duncan’s merit as a translator, and ranks him with a Leland, a Hampton, and a Melmoth. Mr. Duncan accompanied his translation with short but judicious explanatory notes.

In 1748, Mr. Robert Dodsley published that work so well adapted to the education of youth, entitled “The Preceptor;” and that it might be executed in the best manner, called in the assistance of some of the ablest men of the age, among whom may be reckoned the names of David Fordyce, Dr. John Campbell, and Dr. Samuel Johnson. The part of logic was assigned to Mr. Duncan, and he discharged the task with an ability that excited general approbation. He has treated logic like one who was a thorough master of it. Disdaining to copy servilely after those who had gone before him, he struck out a plan of his own, and managed it with so much perspicuity and judgment, gave so clear and distinct a view of the furniture of our minds for the discovery of truth, and laid down such excellent rules for the attainment of it, that his work was reckoned one of the best introductions to the study of philosophy and the mathematics in our own, or perhaps any other language. Mr. Duncan’s last production was a translation of Ciesar’s Coaimentaries, which appeared in the latter end of 1752, in one vol. folio. This work had a double title to a favourable reception from the public, being recommended both by its external and internal merit. It is beautifully printed, and richly adorned with a variety of fine cuts; and as to the translation, it is acknowledged to be the best that has been given in our tongue of the Commentaries of Caesar. Mr. Duncan has in a great measure caught the spirit of the original author, and has preserved his turn of phrase and expression as far as the nature of our language would permit. Previously to our author’s publication of this work, he had been appointed professor of philosophy in the Alarischal college, Aberdeen. The royal presentation, which conferred this office upon him, was signed by the king at Hanover, May 18, 1752. Mr. Duncan, however, remained in London till the summer of 1753, and was not admitted to his professorship of natural and experimental philosophy till Aug. 21, of the same year. While Mr. Duncan resided in the metropolis, he was in the habits of intimacy with several of the learned men who flourished at that time; and among others, George Lewis Scot, and Dr. Armstrong, were his particular friends. Indeed he was held in general esteem on account of his private, as well as his literary character. The sedentary life he had led before he came into the college at Aberdeen, had a good deal affected his constitution, and particularly his nerves; in consequence of which he was subject to an occasional depression of spirits. By this he was unfitted for great exertions, but not for his ordinary employment, or for enjoying the company of his friends. He died a bachelor. May 1, 1760, in the fortythird year of his age. Mr. Duncan cannot so much be said to have possessed genius, as good sense and taste; and his parts were rather solid than shining. His temper was social, his manners easy and agreeable, and his conversation entertaining and often lively. In his instructions as a professor he was diligent and very accurate. His conduct was irreproachable, and he was regular in his attendance on the various institutions of public worship. Soon after his settlement in the Marischal college, he was admitted an elder of the consistory or church session of Aberdeen, and continued to officiate as such till his death.

, an ingenious poetical and miscellaneous writer, youngest son of John Buncombe, esq. of Stocks, in the parish of Ahibury, Hertfordshire, and Hannah his wife, was born at his father’s house in Hatton-garden, London, Jan. 9, 1689-90, and owed his Christian name to the revolution principles of his father and family. On the same principles, his father in 1693 put his life into the tontine, or annuities increasing by survivorship, subscribing 100l. on it, for which \Ql. per annum was paid immediately, and from which, in the course of his long life, our author received some thousands. He was educated in two private seminaries, viz. at Cheney, in Bucks, and afterwards at Pinner, near Harrow-on-the- Hill, Middlesex, under the tuition of Mr. Thomas Goodwin. In December 1706, Mr. Buncombe was entered as a clerk in the navy-office, and was advanced to a higher salary in January 1707-8. So early as 1715, we find a translation by him of the twenty-ninth ode of the first book of Horace, in the collection commonly known by the name of “The Wit’s Horace.” About this time, being acquainted with Mr. Jabefc Hughes, Mr. Buncombe was introduced to his brother John, author of the “Siege of Damascus,” and also to his sister (afterwards Mrs. Buncombe), who was a woman of excellent sense and temper. Our author’s translation of the Carmen Seculare of Horace was printed in folio in 1721, and was collected in 1731, in Concanen’s Miscellany, entitled “The Flower-piece.” This was followed in 1722, by a translation of the tragedy of “Athaliah” by Racine, which was published by subscription, and has gone through three editions. Having contracted an intimacy at the Navy-office with Mr. Henry Needier, a gentleman endued with a like taste, our author, by supplying him with proper books, enabled him to gratify his ardent thirst for knowledge; and, on his early death in 1718, hastened by his intense application, discharged the debt of friendship by collecting and publishing his “Original Poems, Translations, Essays, and Letters,” in 1724, one vol. 8vo, of which there have been also three editions. On Becember 3, 1725, Mr. Buncombe quitted his place at the Navy-office, and spent the remainder of a long and happy life, among his friends and his books, in literary 7 leisure;­Having a share in the “Whitehall Evening Post,” several of his fugitive pieces appeared occasionally in that paper; in particular, a translation of Buchanan’s “Verses on Valentine’s Day;” “Verses to Euryalus (Mr. John Carleton) on his coming of age;” “The Choice of Hercules,” fr.,;u Xenophon, (for which there was such a demand, that the paper was in a few days ont of print); and a “Defence of some passages in Paradise Lost,” from the hyper-criticism of M. de Voltaire. About the same time, numberless errors in a new edition of Chillingworth were pointed out by him, and translations of the “Letters between Archbishop Fenelon and M. de la Motte,” since republished in the appendix to archbishop Herring’s Letters, and of the “Adventures of Melesickton,” and other fables from Fenelon, were published in the London Journal. In the lottery of 1725, a ticket which Mr. Duncombe had in partnership with miss Elizabeth Hughes, sister of John Hughes, esq. author of “The Siege of Damascus,” was drawn a pnze of 1000l. a circumstance which probably hastened his m image with that amiable lady, which took place Sept 1, 1726, on which he removed to her mother’s house in Red-lion-street, Holborn.

In 1728, a letter by Mr. Duncombe, signed Philopropos, was printed in the London Journal of March 30, containing some animadversions on the “Beggar’s Opera,” then exhibiting with great applause at Lincoln’s-i-intheatre, shewing its pernicious consequences to the practice of morality and Christian virtue. And the same popular entertainment having been soon after most seasonably condemned in a sermon preached at Lincoln’s-inn chapel by Dr. Herring (afterwards archbishop of Canterbury), of whom Mr. Duncombe was a constant auditor, in a subsequent letter on the same subject in the London Journal of April 20, subscribed Benevolus, he paid a just compliment to the “clear reasoning, good sense, and manly rhetoric, the judicious criticism, as well as the Christian oratory,” there displayed. This introduced him to the acquaintance and friendship of that excellent divine, which continued without interruption till his grace’s death, in March 1757; this favour being gratefully acknowledged by him “as one of the most generous and disinterested offers of friendship which he ever received from any one since he was acquainted with the world.” In August of the same year, our author published a pamphlet (without a name) entitled “Remarks on M.Tindal’s Translation of M. de Rapin Thoyras’s History of England, in a letter to S. T. [Sigismund Trafford,] esq.” criticising Tindal’s style, which is certainly none of the best.

In the summer of 1732, Mr. Buncombe’s tragedy of “Lucius Junius Brutus” was read and approved by“the author’s friend, Mr. Mills senior, and by him introduced to the theatrical triumvirate, Booth, Gibber, and Wilks, who also approved it, and promised it should be performed. Booth regretted he could not act in it; and Wilks undertook the part of Titus; unfortunately he died in September following; and the revolt of the players, with the confusion that ensued, prevented its being brought on the stage till two years after, when Mr. Duncombe, unadvisedly, consented to Mr. Fleetwood’s proposal of bringing it on at Drury-lane in November, when the town was empty, the parliament not sitting, and Farinelli, the singer, highly popular at the Hay-market. The consequence was natural and obvious.” The quavering Italian eunuch (to use our author’s own words) proved too powerful for the rigid Roman consul.“Yet it was acted six nights with applause, and repeated in February following, and at the same time was printed in 8vo, with a dedication to lord chief justice Hardwicke. A second edition, in 12mo, with a translation of M. de Voltaire’s” Essay on Tragedy“prefixed, was published in 1747. In April 1735, Mr. Duncombe published, by subscription, in two volumes 12rno, the” Poems,“&c. of his deceased brother-in-law, John Hughes, esq. which were received by his friends and the public with the esteem due to Hughes’s merit. In January, 1735-6, our author’s domestic happiness received a severe shock by the death of his wife, which happened at Spring Grove, in Middlesex, the seat of his first cousin, Mrs. Ofley. In 1737 he collected and published, in one volume 8vo, the” Miscellanies in verse and prose“of Mr. Jabez Hughes, for the benefit of his widow, but the dedication (in her name) to the duchess of Bedford, was drawn up by the rev. Mr. Copping, dean of Clogher. In 1743, on the death of his learned friend, Mr. Samuel Say, a dissenting minister in Westminster, Mr. Duncombe undertook, for the benefit of his widow and daughter, to revise and prepare for the press some of his poems, and two prose essays, which were accordingly published in one volume 4to, in 1745. In 1744, the” Siege of Damascus,“and some other moral plays, having been acted by several persons of distinction for their amusement, Mr. Duncombe was induced to publish” An Oration on the usefulness of Dramatic Interludes in the education of youth,“translated from the Latin of M. Werenfels, by whom it was spoken before the masters and scholars of the university of Basil. On the breaking-out of the rebellion in 1745, our author endeavoured to second his honoured friend, the archbishop of York, by reprinting” A Sermon“(now known to have been written by Dr. Arbuthnot), supposed to be” preached to the people at the Mercat- cross of Edinburgh, on the subject of the union in 1706,“and to the sermon prefixed a preface, without his name, setting forth the advantages which have accrued to the kingdom of Scotland by its union with England. About the same time he also printed, with a preface, a tract, entitled,” The complicated Guilt of the Rebellion,“which had been written by Mr. Hughes in 1716, but was then suppressed, as the insurrection it related to was soon after quelled: this tract was judged by Mr. Duncombe to be equally applicable to the transactions of 1740. In the summer of 1749, being with his relation, Mr. Brooke, at York, Mr. Duncombe was accidentally instrumental to the detection of Archibald Bower, by transmitting to archbishop Herring an account of that adventurer’s escape from the inquisition, taken by memory from his own mouth, which being published the year following by Mr. Barron, a dissenting minister, was disavowed by Bower; though, when called upon, the mistakes which he was able to specify, were found to be few and trifling. This was the first impeachment of his integrity, and exposed him to the attacks of Dr. Douglas, who had before detected Lauder. To the periodical publication called” The World,“Mr. Duncombe contributed one paper, No. 84,” Prosperity and Adversity, an allegory." la

1753, he commenced an acquaintance, which soon ripened into a friendship, with John earl of Orrery (soon after earl of Corke): this connexion was productive of much pleasure and emolument to them both, and in some degree also to the public, his lordship’s “Letters to Mr. Duncombe from Italy” having since appeared in print. In

1754, Mr. Duncombe drew up “Remarks on lord Bolingbroke’s Notion of a God,” with some occasional notes; to which he annexed a translation, from Cicero, “De Natura Deorum,” of the arguments of Q Lucilius Balbus, the stoic, in proof of the being, and of the wisdom, power, and goodness, of God. These were read and approved by the archbishop, and others of the author’s friends, but were not published till 1763, when he allowed the late Dr. Dodd to insert them in the “Christian’s Magazine.” They have since been collected in the Appendix to archbishop Herring’s letters. Horace having always been Mr. Duncombe’s favourite author, he had amused himself for more than thirty years, at different times, with translating several of his odes, but without any intention of publishing them, or of giving a version of the whole to the world, till his son offered his assistance for completing the work; and undertook some of the odes and satires, all the epodes, and the first book of epistles, and added several imitations from Sanadon, Dacier, &c. Mr. Duncombe compiled notes to the whole, and published one volume 8vo, in 1757, and the second in 1759. Another edition, in four volumes, 12mo, with several additional imitations, appeared in 1764. On the death of his excellent friend, archbishop Herring, our author, as a token of his gratitude and affection, collected, in one volume 8vo, the “Seven Sermons on public occasions,” which his grace had separately printed in his life-time, and prefixed to them some memoirs of his life. This was his last publication. With a constitution naturally weak and tender, by constant regularity, and an habitual sweetness and evenness of temper, his life was prolonged to the advanced age of seventy-nine; when, without any previous painful illness, he died February 13, 1769, esteemed, beloved, and regretted, by all who knew him. He was interred near the remains of his wife, in, the burying-place of his family, in Aldbury church, Hertfordshire, and left one son, the subject of the next article.

, was born 1730, and when a child, was of an amiable disposition, had an uncommon capacity for learning, and discovered, very early, a genius for poetry. After some years passed at a school at Romford, in Essex, under the care of his relation, the rev. Philip Fletcher, afterwards dean of Kildare, and younger brother to the bishop of that see, he was removed to a more eminent one at Felsted, in the same county. At this school he was stimulated by emulation to an exertion of his talents; and, by a close application, he became the first scholar, as well as captain of the school, and gained the highest reputation; and by the sweetness of his temper and manners, and by a disposition to friendship, he acquired and preserved the love of all his companions, and the esteem of his master and family. He has, on some particular occasions, been heard modestly to declare, that he was never punished, during hib whole residence at either school, for negligence in his lessons or exercise, or for any other misdemeanor. He was very early qualified for the university, and constantly improved himself, when at home, by his private studies, and the assistance or his father, happy in the companionship of such a son, who was always dutiful and affectionate to him; and the first literary characters of that time associated with a father and son, whose polished taste and amiable manners rendered them universally acceptable. He was entered, at the age of sixteen, at Bene‘t-college, Cambridge, where Mr. Castle, afterwards dean of Hereford, was then master: and he was recommended to that college by archbishop Herring, whom we have mentioned as his father’s particular friend. The archbishop baptised his son, and promised to patronize him, if educated for the church, and therefore sent him to the college where he had completed his own education. At the university he continued to rise in reputation as a scholar and a poet, and was always irreproachable in his moral character: he had the happiness of forming some connections there with men of genius an ’< virtue, which lasted through life; but the first and strongest attachment, in which he most delighted, end which reflected honour on his own merit, was the uninterrupted friendship, and constant correspondence, which com.uued to the last, with Mr. Greene, a very respectable clergyman of the diocese of Norwich, a man whose character for learning and abilities, goodness and virtue, justly gained him the esteem and love of all who had the happiness of his acquaintance, whose testimony is real praise, who acknowledged the worth of his valuable friend, “and loved his amiable and benevolent spirit.”

He was, in 1750, with full reputation, chosen fellow of Bene't-college; was, in 1753, ordained at Kew chapel, by Dr. Thomas, bishop of Peterborough, and appointed, by the recommendation of archbishop Herring, to the curacy of Sundridge in Kent; after which he became assistant preacher at St. Anne’s, Soho, where his father resided, and Dr. Squire, afterwards bishop of St. David’s, was rector, with whom he lived in particular intimacy, and who gave him a chaplainship, and intended to patronize him; but in that instance, and several others, he experienced the loss of friends and patrons before they had been able to gratify their own intention, or bestow on him any thing considerable. His elegant discourses acquired him, as a preacher, great reputation; his language was always correct, his expression forcible, and his doctrine so pathetically delivered, as to impress his hearers with reverence and awaken their attention. His voice was harmonious; and rather by the distinct articulation, than from strength, he was better heard, in many large churches, and particularly in the choir of Canterbury cathedral, than some louder tones, having cultivated the art of speaking in the pulpit; and his sermons always recommended that moderation, truly Christian temper, and universal charity and philanthropy, which formed the distinguished mark of his character in every part of life; and he was totally free from all affectation, as well in the pulpit as in common conversation. He was a popular and admired preacher; but he had no vanity on that account, and was equally satisfied to fulfil his duty in a country parish, and an obscure village, as in a crowded cathedral, or populous church in the metropolis. But his merit was not much regarded by the attention of the great. He was, however, esteemed, honoured, and beloved, in the very respectable neighbourhood where he constantly resided; and the dignities and affluence he might reasonably have expected from his family connections, and early patronage, could only have displayed, in a wider sphere, that benevolence, and those viriues, which are equally beneficial to the possessor, in whatever station he may be placed, when exercised to the utmost of his ability.

After the death of bishop Squire, he was nominated chaplain to lord Corke, with whom he and his father had the honour of a particular friendship, as appears by that nobleman’s “Letters from Italy.” He was presented, in 1757, by archbishop Herring, to the united livings of St. Andrew and St. Mary Bredman, in Canterbury. This benefice was bestowed in the most friendly manner by his patron, who called it only something to begin with: but the archbishop lived not above two months afterwards; and with his life the prospect of future advancement seemed to disappear. However, no complaint against the slow preferment from his respected friend and patron, no murmur against the daily dispositions of benefices, to which he must be conscious his merit often gave him equal claim, ever was suffered to escape in conversation.

This living enabled him to fulfil a long engagement, or rather to obey the impulse of a long attachment, to miss Highmore, daughter of Mr. Highmore, who was known to the world, not only by his pencil, but by his other extensive knowledge, and literary pursuits. He was married at St. Anne’s church, 20th April 1763, by Dr. Squire, bishop of St. David’s. A similarity of taste and love of literature had early endeared their companionship; and a mutual affection was the natural consequence, which ensured to them twenty years happiness, rather increased than diminished by the hand of time! He settled at Canterbury; and, in 1766, archbishop Seeker appointed him one of the six preachers in that cathedral. In 1773, archbishop Cornwall is gave him the living of Herne, about six miles from Canterbury, which afforded him a pleasant recess in the summer months. His grace also granted him a chaplainship; and he had, previous to the last living, been entrusted with the mastership of Harbledown and St. John’s hospitals, places of trust only, not emolument: so that he had, in fact, three favours, though not any of them considerable, in succession, from three archbishops.

He examin.ed into the state of the hospitals, and endeavoured to do his duty in the office he had undertaken, with an attention and assiduity that accompanied his indefatigable desire of being serviceable to all, and particularly to the lowest of his fellow-creatures, wherever he had opportunity; which was his principal inducement for becoming an acting magistrate, the duty of which office he performed several years, with great application to observe the laws of his country, to do justice, preserve equity, and always remember mercy; for no one in that department was more open to the poor and friendless, having the temper and inclination to propose and to act, for the service and relief of the distressed; with steadiness to persevere with judgment, where truth and right preponderated.

He was suddenly taken ill in the night, June 2!, 1785. A suffocation was rapidly coming on; but a surgeon being called, he was almost instantly relieved by bleeding a good sleep ensued, but he waked in the morning almost speechless; a paralytic stroke on the organs of articulation only, seemed to have taken place; medical assistance was applied; he partly recovered articulation; but great debility was perceivable, and he could no longer write as usual: however, by slow degrees he regained strength, beyond the expectation of iiis distressed friends; and appeared after the summer passed at Herne, to be quite restored to health and spirits, and pursued every avocation as before the stroke, and with the same power of mind; but those who were most constantly with him, and watched with the tender eye of affection, never lost the alarm, never rested without apprehension, and perceived, by some suaden starts, and nervous complaints, that all was not sound within. In January following he coughed much, two or three days, but without any dangerous symptom, till, on the night of the 18th, a suffocation as before came on; assistance was immediately procured, but not with the former success; the disorder increased, and loss of life ensued. His gentle spirit, as he had lived, departed, easy to himself in his exit; distressful alone to all that knew him, to those most who knew him best. His family, his friends, the servants, and the poor, all by their affliction spoke his real worth. He left one daughter. His temper never changed by any deprivation of the world’s enjoyments, nor by any bodily suffering; no peevishness, no complaints escaped; though it is observed that a great alteration often attends such disorders, and warps the temper naturally good. But he silently used his piety to the laudable purpose of regulating not only his actions, but his words; yet this was discovered rather from observation than from his own profession, as he was remarkably modest and humble on religious topics; and, for fear of ostentation on that subject, might rather err on the opposite side, from an awful timidity, which might not always give a just idea of his unaffected zeal and real faith. His friendship, where professed, was ardent; and he had a spirit in a friend’s cause that rarely appeared on other occasions. He was amiable, affectionate, and tender, as a husband and father; kind and indulgent as a master; and a protector and advocate of the poor; benevolent to all, as far as his fortune could afford.

As he had many leisure hours, he passed much time in literary employments, though many were very cheeriully given to society. Among his published productions maybe mentioned, the “Feminead,” 1754, which passed through two editions, and has been reprinted both in tlu Poetical Calendar, and in Pearch’s Collection. Four Odes appeared in 1753, viz. “The Prophecy of Neptune;” “On the Death of the Prince of Wales;” “*Ode presented to the Duke of Newcastle” and one “*To the hon. James Yorke,” first bishop of St. David’s, and afterwards bishop of Ely. Between 1753 and 1756 came out separatelv, “*An Evening Contemplation in a College,” being a parody on Gray’s Elegy“reprinted in” The Repository.“Other detached poems of Mr. Duncombe’s are,” *Verses to the Author of Clarissa,“published in that work;” *Verses on the Campaign, 1759,“(addressed to Sylvanus Urban, and originally printed in the volume for that year);” *To Colonel Clive, on his arrival in England;“” *On the Loss of the Ramilies, Captain Taylor, 1760;“” Surrey Triumphant, or the Kentish Men’s Defeat, 1773,“4to; a parody on Chevy ­Chace; which, for its genuine strokes of humour, elegant poetry, and happy imitation, acquired the author much applause. This has been translated into” Nichols’s Select Collection of Poems, 1782,“where may be found, also, a poem of his on Stocks House; a translation of an elegant epitaph, by bishop Lowth; and an elegiac *' Epitaph at the Grave of Mr. Highmore.” Those pieces marked with a starare in the Poetical Calendar, vol. VII. together with a Prologue spoken at the Charter-house, 1752 a Poem on Mr. Garrick and translations from Voltaire. And in vol. X. “The Middlesex Garden” “Kensington Gardens” “Farevvel to Hope” “On a Lady’s sending the Author a Ribbon for his Watch” “On Captain Cornwallis’s Monument” “Prologue to Amalasont” “Epigrams.” He published three Sermons; one “On the Thanksgiving, Nov. 29, 1759,” preached at St. Anne’s, Westminster, and published at the request of the pa- 4 rishioners another, “preached at the Consecration of the parish-church of St. Andrew, Canterbury,” July 4, 1774; and one, “On a General Fast, Feb. 27, 1778,” also preached at St. Andrew’s, Canterbury; and so well approved, that by the particular desire of the parish, it appeared in print under the title of “The Civil War between the Israelites and Benjamites illustrated and applied.” He published with his father, in 1766, a translation of Horace, in 8vo; and in 1767, another edition, with many enlargements and corrections, in 4 vols. 12mo. He trans* lated the “Huetiana,” in the Gentleman’s Magazine for 1771. In 1774, he translated Batteley’s “Antiquitates Rutupinte.” He wrote “The Historical Account of Dr. Dodd’s Life,” 1777*, 8vo; and was the translator of“Sherlock’s Letters of an English Traveller,” 1st edition, 4to. The 2d edition, 8vo, was translated by Mr. Sherlock himself. In 1778 he published *' An Elegy written in Canterbury Cathedral;“and in 1784,” Select Works of the Emperor Julian,“2 vols. 8vo. In 1784 he was principally the author of” The History and Antiquities of Keculver and Heme,“which forms the eighteenth number of the Bibliotheca Topographica Britannica to which work he also contributed in 1785, the thirtieth number, containing,” The History and Antiquities of the Three Archiepiscopal Hospitals in and near Canterbury,“which he dedicated to archbishop Moore. He was the editor of several other works; all of which were elucidated by his critical knowledge and explanatory notes; viz. 1.” Letters from several eminent persons, deceased, including the correspondence of John Hughes, esq. and several of his friends; published from the originals, with notes. Of these there have been two editions; the last in 3 vols. 2. “Letters from Italy; by the late right-hon. John earl of Corke and Orrery, with notes,” 1773. These have gone through two editions. 3. “Letters from the late archbishop Herring, to William Buncombe, esq. deceased; from 1728 to 1757, with notes, and an appendix,” 1777. He was also the author of a Letter signed “Rusncus,” in “The World,” vol. I. No. 36 of several Letters in “The Connoisseur,” being the “Gentleman of Cambridge, A. B.” mentioned in the last number. And in the Gentleman’s Magazine, his communications in biography, poetry, and criticism, during the last twenty years of his life, were frequent and valuable. Many of them are without a name; but his miscellaneous contributions were usually distinguished by the signature of Crito.

* With this publication we are un- good authority yet, if the work was acquainted but if a Life of Dodd be really Mr. Buncombe’s, the report meant, which is entitled “Historical which gives it to Mr. Reed may be ac-” Memoirs of the Life and Writings of“counted for from the latter having conDr. Dodd, we have in our account of veyed it to the press by Mr. Dunthat unhappy man, attributed it to Mr. combe’s desire, with whom he wa> Isaac Reed, on what we consider as tiuiate. the” Adventurer," and some small contributions to the Poetical Calendar, and Mr. Nichols’s Poems.

, of Arniston, lord-president of the court of session, was the second son of Robert Dundas, esq. an eminent Scotch lawyer, and was born Dec. 9, 1685. Though in no period of his life distinguished for laborious application to study, he had in his earlier years improved his mind by an acquaintance with general literature; and he gained by practice, aided by uncommon acuteness of talents, a profound knowledge of the law. He had been but eight years at the bar, when his reputation pointed him out as the fittest person to hold the office of solicitor general, to which he was appointed by king George I. in 1717, and which was preparatory to that of lord advocate for Scotland, to which he was appointed in 1720. In 1722 he was elected member of parliament for the county of Edinburgh; and in that situation, he distinguished himself by a most vigilant attention to all public measures, in which the welfare of his country was concerned, and by a steady and patriotic regard for its interests. On the change of ministry, which took place in 1725, when sir Robert Walpole and the Argyle party came into power, Mr. Dundas was removed from his office of king’s advocate, and resumed his station without the bar, distinguished only by the honourable title of dean of the faculty of advocates, till he was raised to the bench, in 1737. For nine years he filled the seat of an ordinary judge of the court of session, by the title of lord Arniston, till 1748, when, on the death of Mr. Duncan Forbes, of Culloden, he was appointed to succeed him in the honourable and important office of president of the court.

While a barrister, he shone equally as a powerful pleader and an ingenious reasoner. To the quickest apprehension he joined an uncommon solidity of judgment; and embracing in his mind all the possible arguments which were applicable to his cause, he could even in his unpremeditated pleadings discover at once and instantly attach himself to some strong principle of law on which he built the whole of his reasoning. His eloquence, though as various as the nature of the case required, was constantly subservient to his judgment; and though master of all the powers of expression, he rarely indulged himself in what is properly termed declamation. A fine specimen of his argumentative powers is to be found in his defence of Carnegie of Finhaven. This gentleman was in 1728, tried before the court of justiciary in Scotland, for the murder of Charles earl of Strathmore. At a meeting in the country, where the company had drank to intoxication, Carnegie, having received the most abusive language from Lyon of Bridgeton, drew his sword, and staggering forward to make a pass at this Lyon, killed the earl of Strathmore, a person for whom he had the highest regard and esteem, and who unfortunately came between him and his antagonist, apparently in the view of separating them. In this memorable trial, Mr. Dundas had not only the merit of saving the life of the prisoner, but of establishing a point of the utmost consequence to the security of life and liberty, the power of a jury, which at that time was questioned in Scotland, of returning a general verdict on the guilt or innocence of the person accused.

In Scotland, though general verdicts appear to have been authorised by the most ancient practice of the criminal court, it had long been customary to consider jurymen as tied down to determine simply, whether the facts in the indictment were proved or not proved. This change from the ancient practice is supposed, with much reason, to have been introduced in the latter part of the reign of Charles II. at a time when we find the king’s advocate (Mackenzie) strenuously contending in his “System of Criminal Law,” for the entire abolition of juries. The latter was too strong a measure, and would have been found of difficult accomplishment; the former was of easier attainment, and answered nearly the same end. The accused person, to satisfy appearances, and for the show of justice, was still to be tried by his peers; but his guilt or innocence was rarely within their cognizance; that was decided by the laws, or by their interpreters, the judges; and the jury, tied down to determine solely on the proof of facts, was compelled to surrender into the hands of these judges, and thus often to sacrifice the life of a fellow citizen, though convinced of his innocence, and earnestly desirous of his acquittal. Thus matters stood till the trial of Carnegie, who, had the powers of a Scotch jury remained thus circumscribed, must have suffered the punishment due to the foulest malefactor; the court had found the facts in the indictment “relevant to infer the pains of law” and the proof of these facts was as clear as noon-day. There remained no hope for the prisoner, unless the jury should be roused to assert a right which they had long relinquished, and vindicate the privilege of deciding on the guilt or innocence of the accused; and this great point was gained by the powerful eloquence of the prisoner’s counsel. The jury found the prisoner not guilty; and from that time, the right of a Scotch jury to return a general verdict, is acknowledged to be of the very essence of that institution.

, of Arniston, son of the preceding, was born July 18, 1713. He received the earlier parts of his education under a domestic tutor, and afterwards pursued the usual course of academical studies in the university of Edinburgh. In the end of the year 1733, he went to Utrecht, where the lectures on the Roman law were at that time in considerable reputation. He remained abroad for four years; and during the recess of study at the university, he spent a considerable time at Paris, and in visiting several of the principal towns of France and the Low Countries. Returning to Scotland in 1737, he was called to the bar in the beginning of the following year and, in his earliest public appearances, gave ample proof of his inheriting, in their utmost extent, the abilities and genius of his family. His eloquence was copious and animated; in argument he displayed a wonderful fertility of invention, tempered by a discriminating judgment, which gave, even to his unpremeditated harangues, a methodical arrangement; in consultation, he possessed a quickness of apprehension beyond all example; and his memory, which was most singularly tenacious, enabled him to treasure up, and to produce instantaneously, every case or precedent which was applicable to the matter before him.

Thus liberally endowed by nature with every requisite to eminence in his profession, he had the honour of being appointed solicitor-general for Scotland in September 1742, at the early age of twenty-nine. This important office he held only for four years. He had obtained it through the favour of the Carteret administration, which was then in power; but, on the change of ministry, which took place in 1746, when the Pelham party regained its influence in the cabinet, he, together with the other friends of the former ministry, resigned their offices. But the high consideration in which he then stood with his brethren at the bar, was not diminished by the loss of an office dependent on ministerial favour. In the same year, 1746, he was elected dean of the faculty of advocates, and continued to preside over that respectable body till his elevation to the bench in 1760.

In the beginning of 1754, Mr. Dundas was elected member of parliament for the county of Edinburgh; and in the following snmmer he was appointed his majesty’s advocate for Scotland. In parliament, the share which Mr. Dundas took in public business, and his appearances on many interesting subjects of discussion, which occurred in that important period during which he sat in the house of commons, were such as fully to justify the character he had already attained for talents and ability. Such was the complexion of the times, and so high the tide of party, that it was perhaps impossible for human wisdom to have pointed out a line of political conduct which could entirely exempt from censure. The lord advocate shared with the rest of his party in the censure of those who followed an pposite plan of politics but of him it may certainly with truth be affirmed, that in no instance was he ever known to swerve from his principles, or to act a part in which he had not the countenance of many of the firmest friends to the interest of their country. He was chiefly censured for the opposition which he gave to the establishment of a militia in Scotland, by a great party in that country, who warmly supported that measure. But when the question is dispassionately viewed, it will appear to be one of those doubtful points, on which the wisest men and the best patriots may entertain opposite opinions.

On June 14, 1760, Mr. Dundas was appointed president of the court of session. This was the aera of the splendour of his public character. Invested with one of the most important trusts that can be committed to a subject, he acquitted himself of that trust, during the twentyseven years in which he held it, with such consummate ability, wisdom, and rectitude, as must found a reputation durable as the national annals, and transmit his memory with honour to all future times. At his first entry upon office, the public, though well assured of his abilities, was doubtful whether he possessed that power of application and measure of assiduity, which is the first duty of the station that he now filled. Fond of social intercourse, and of late engaged in a sphere of life where natural talents are the chief requisite to eminence, he had hitherto submitted but reluctantly to the habits of professional industry. But it was soon seen, that accidental circumstances alone had prevented the developement of one great feature of his character, a capacity of profound application to business. He had no sooner taken his seat as president of the session, than he devoted himself to the duties of his office with an ardour of which that court, even under the ablest of his predecessors, had seen no example, and a perseverance of attention which suffered no remission to the latest hour of his life. He maintained, with great strictness, all the forms of the court in the conduct of business. These he wisely considered as essential, both to the equal administration of justice, and as the outworks which guard the law against those too common, but most unworthy artifices which are employed to prostitute and abuse it. To the bar he conducted himself with uniform attention and rQspect. He listened with patience to the reasonings of the counsel. He never anticipated the arguments of the pleader, nor interrupted him with questions to shew his own acuteness; but left every man to state his cause his own way: nor did he ever interfere, unless to restrain what was either manifestly foreign to the subject, or what wounded, in his apprehension, the dignity of the court. In this last respect he was most laudably punctilious. He never suffered an improper word to escape, either fromthe tongue or pen of a counsel, without the severest animadversion; and so acute was that feeling which he was know n to possess, of the respect that was due to the bench, that there were but few occasions when it became necessary for him to express it.

There were indeed other occasions, on which his feelings were most keenly awakened, and on which he gave vent to a becoming spirit of indignation. He treated with the greatest severity every instance, either of malversation in the officers of the law, or of chicanery in the inferior practitioners of the court. No calumnious or iniquitous prosecution, no attempt to pervert the forms of law to the purposes of oppression, ever eluded his penetration, or escaped his just resentment. Thus, perpetually watchful, and earnestly solicitous to maintain both the dignity and the rectitude of that sup'reme tribunal over which he presided, the influence of these endeavours extended itself to every inferior court of judicature as the motion of the heart is felt in the remotest artery. In reviewing the sentences ui inferior judges, he constantly expressed his desire of supporting the just authority of every rank and order of magistrates; but these were taught at the same time to walk with circumspection, to guard their conduct with the most scrupulous exactness, and to dread the slightest deviation from the narrow path of their duty. With these endowments of mind, and high sense of the duties of his office, it is not surprising, that amidst all the differences of sentiment which the jarring interests of individuals, or the more powerful influence of political faction, give rise to, thete should be but one opinion of the character of this eminent man, which is, that from the period of the institution of that court over which he presided, however conspicuous in particular departments might have been the merit of some of his predecessors, no man ever occupied the president’s chair, who combined in himself so many of the essential requisites for the discharge of that important office. But while we allow the merits of this great man in possessing, in their utmost extent, the most essential requisites for the station which he filled, it is but a small derogation from the confessed eminence of his character when we acknowledge a deficiency in some subordinate qualities. Of these, what was chiefly to be regretted, and was alone wanting to the perfection of his mental accomplishments, was, that he appeared to give too little weight or value to those studies which are properly termed literary. This was the more remarkable in him, that, in the early period of his life, he had prosecuted himself those studies with advantage and success. In his youth he had made great proficiency in classical learning; and his memory retaining faithfully whatever he had once acquired, it was not unusual with him, even in his speeches on the bench, to cite, and to apply with much propriety, the most striking passages of the ancient authors. But for these studies, though qualified to succeed in them, it does not appear that he ever possessed a strong bent or inclination. If he ever felt it, the weightier duties of active life, which he was early called to exercise, precluded the opportunity of frequently indulging it; and perhaps even a knowledge of the fascinating power of those pursuits, in alienating the mind from the severer but more necessary occupations, might have inclined him at last to disrelish from habit, what it had taught him at first to resist from principle. That this principle was erroneous, it is unnecessary to consume time in proving. It is sufficient to say, that as jurisprudence can never hope for any material advancement as a science, if separated from the spirit of philosophy, so that spirit cannot exist, independent of the cultivation of literature. That the studies of polite literature, and an acquaintance with the principles of general erudition, while they improve the science, add lustre and dignity to the profession of the law, cannot be denied. So thought all the greatest lawyers of antiquity. So thought, among the moderns, that able judge and most accomplished man, of whose character we have traced some imperfect features, lord Arniston, the father of the late lord president; of which his inaugural oration, as it stands upon the records of the faculty of advocates, bears ample testimony. His son, it is true, afforded a strong proof, that the force of natural talents alone may conduct to eminence and celebrity. He was rich in native genius, and therefore felt not the want of acquired endowments. But in this he left an example to be admired, not imitated. Few inherit from nature equal powers with his; and even of himself it must be allowed, that if he was a great man without the aids of general literature, or of cultivated taste, be must have been still a greater, had he availed himself of those lights which they furnish, and that improvement which they bestow. His useful and valuable life was terminated on the 13th of December 1787. His last illness, which, though of short continuance, was violent in its nature, he bore with the greatest magnanimity. He died in the seventy-fifth year of his age, in the perfect enjoyment of all his faculties; at a time when his long services might have justly entitled him to ease and repose, but which the strong sense of his duty would not permit him to seek while his power of usefulness continued; at that period, in short, when a wise man would wish to finish his course; too soon indeed for the public good, but not too late for his own reputation.

, Lord Viscount Melville, brother to the preceding, by a different mother, was born about 1741, and was educated at the high school and university of Edinburgh. Having studied the law, he was, in 1763, admitted a member of the faculty of advocates, and soon rose to a considerable degree of eminence, and very extensive practice. In 1773 he was appointed solicitorgeneral, and in 1775, lord advocate of Scotland, which office he retained till 1783. In March 1777, he was appointed joint keeper of the signet for Scotland. His office as lord advocate necessarily requiring a seat in parliament, he was elected for the county of Mid- Lothian, and soon distinguished himself as a supporter of administration in all the measures which were pursued in the conduct of the war with America, and from this time appears to have abandoned all thoughts of rising in his profession as a lawyer. In his new pursuit as a statesman, he was highly favoured by natural sense and talents, which were indeed so powerful as to form a balance to his defects in elocution, which were striking. He had taken no

pains to conquer his native pronunciation, which, as it frequently provoked a smile from his hearers, would have proved of the greatest disadvantage in the heat and acrimony of debate, had he not evinced by the fluency and acuteness of his arguments that he was deserving of serious attention, and was an opponent not to be despised. For declamatory speaking, and addresses to the passions, he had neither taste nor talent; his mind was intent on the practical part of every measure, and in every debate that concerned what maybe termed business, he had few equals, and his speeches were perhaps the more attended to, as he made it a point to reserve them for such occasions. During lord North’s administration he was introduced to no ostensible station; but when that nobleman and his colleagues were obliged to retire in 1782, and a few months after, by the death of the marquis of Rockingham, their successors were obliged to resign, Mr. Dundas joined the young minister, Mr. Pitt, and was sworn into the privy council, and appointed treasurer of the navy. During Mr. Pitt’s first administration the general peace was concluded, which, however necessary, did not add much popularity to the ministry, and lord North and Mr. Fox, with their respective friends, or the greater part of them, having formed what was termed the coalition, Mr. Pitt’s administration was obliged to give way to a host of opponents, which was considered as invincible. On this occasion, in 1783, Mr. Dundas was deprived of his offices as treasurer of the navy, and lord advocate for Scotland.

The coalition-administration lasted a very few months. The formation of it had deprived them of all popularity, and their first great measure precipitated their downfall. This was the memorable East India Bill, in opposition to which Mr. Dundas made a most conspicuous figure, and discovered a knowledge of the affairs of the East-India Company and government, which had evidently been the result of much study and investigation, and in which at that time he appeared to have no superior. But although Mr. Fox’s bill, by the strong influence which he and his colleague still possessed, was passed in the house of commons, it was lost in that of the lords; and the commons still adhering to the ministers, the business of government for some time stood still, until his majesty, by a dissolution of parliament, took the sense of the people, which was decidedly against the coalition-administration. Mr. Pitt

and his friends were then seated in power, supported by a majority in both houses, and Mr. Dundas resumed his office as treasurer of the navy; but, by his recommendation, the office of lord advocate of Scotland was given to ]VIr. Hay Campbell, afterwards lord president of the court of session. The first measure of the new administration was a bill for the better regulation of the affairs of the East India Qompany, which, although in the opinion of many, not very different from that of Mr. Fox, as far as regarded the controul to be established over the affairs of the company, was less unpopular in other respects. Among its other provisions was the creation of a board of controul, of which Mr. Dundas was appointed president.

In 1791, Mr. Dundas became a member of the cabinet, as secretary of state for the home department, an office which he filled with peculiar energy and vigour, when it became necessary to adopt measures for the internal defence of the country against a portion of revolutionary spirit derived from the temporary successes of the French in what they called reforming the vices of their government. To Mr. Dundas has also been ascribed the origin of the volunteer system, which has unquestionably served to display the loyalty and energies of the nation in a manner which its greatest enemy has felt severely. In 1794, when the duke of Portland, with a large proportion of the whig party, joined the administration, Mr. Dundas resigned his office of secretary for the home department to his grace, and was made secretary of the war department. The whole of his transactions in this, as well, indeed, as in his former office, belong so strictly to history, that we know not how to separate them, and even if our limits permitted, the leading events of that most eventful period are too recent to admit of any detail superior in authority to the annals of the day. A man so long in possession of uncommon power must necessarily have excited much envy and malice; and few had more of it than Mr. Dundas. They who disapprove of the political system pursued by Mr. Pitt, will of course be equally unfriendly to his coadjutor, and, in many measures, certainly his adviser; but, on the other hand, a large number of comprehensive minds will consider him a powerful and efficient statesman, who, if he was sometimes excessive in his profusion, and too careless in his means and instruments, lost nothing by a cold, narrow, and unwise œconomy, which, for the sake of small savings, sacrifices mighty and productive ends; which is entangled by the minute formalities of office; and wrapping itself up in forbidding ceremonies, and hanging fearfully over the precedents of the file, is unable to look abroad, when the storm is out, and the banks and mounds are thrown down. The candid biographer from whom we have borrowed these remarks adds, with great justice, that until it shall he proved, that the evils, which even this country has suffered from the French revolution, would not have been a thousand times worse by Battering and yielding to it, surely nothing is proved against the wisdom of Mr. Pitt’s administration.

Mr. Dundas continued in his several offices (with the addition of keeper of the privy seal in Scotland, conferred upon him in 1800,) until 1801, when he resigned along with Mr. Pitt, and in 1802 was elevated to the peerage by the title of Viscount Melville, of Melville in the county of Edinburgh, and Baron Dunira in the county of Perth. On Mr. Pitt’s return to office in May 1804, lord Melville succeeded lord St. Vincent as first lord of the admiralty, and continued so until the memorable occurrence of his impeachment. He had, while treasurer of the navy, rendered jnuch essential advantage to the service, and had been instrumental in promoting the comfort of the seamen by the bills he introduced for enabling them, during their absence, to allot certain portions of their pay to their wives and near relatives; and he also brought forward a bill for regulating the office of treasurer of the navy, and preventing an improper use being made of the money passing through his hands, and directing the same from time to time to be paid into the Bank; but by the tenth report of the commissioners for naval inquiry, instituted under the auspices of the earl ofSt. Vincent, it appeared that large sums of the public money in the hands of the treasurer had been employed directly contrary to the act. The matter was taken up very warmly by the house of commons, and after keen debates, certain resolutions moved by Mr. Whi thread for an impeachment against the noble lord, were carried on the 8th of April, 1805. On casting up the votes on the division, the numbers were found equal, 216 for, and 216 against; but the motion was carried by the casting vote of the right hon. Charles Abbot, the speaker. On the 10th, lord Melville resigned his office of first lord of the admiralty, and on the 6th of May he was struck from the list of privy counsellors by his majesty. On the 26th of June, Mr. Whitbread appeared at the bar of the house of lords, accompanied by several other members, and solemnly impeached lord Melville of high crimes and misdemeanours; and on the 9th of July presented at the bar of the house of lords the articles of impeachment. The trial afterwards proceeded in Westminster-hall, and in the end lord Melville was acquitted of all the articles hy his peers. That lord Melville acted contrary to his own law, in its letter, there can be no doubt; but on the other hand it does not appear that he was actuated by motives of personal corruption, or, in fact, that he enjoyed any peculiar advantage from the misapplication of the monies. Those under him, and whom his prosecutors, the better to get at him, secured by a bill of indemnity, employed the public money to their own use and emolument; nor does it appear that lord Melville ever had the use of any part of it, except one or two comparatively small sums for a short period. The impropriety of his conduct, therefore, was not personally offending against the act, but suffering it to be done by the paymaster and others under him; and, after all, no money was lost to the public by the malversations.

Lord Melville was afterwards restored to his seat in the privy council, but did not return to office. Sometimes he spoke in the house of lords, but passed the greatest part of his time in Scotland, where he died suddenly, at the house of his nephew, the right honourable Robert Dundas, lord chief baron of the exchequer in Scotland, May 27, 1811. His lordship married first, Elizabeth, daughter of David Rennie, esq. of Melville Castle by whom he had a son (the present lord Melville) and three daughters; and secondly, in 1793, he married lady Jane Hope, sister to James earl of Hopetown, by whom he had no issue.

Lord Melville possessed all the natural talents of his relatives and ancestors, but like them was deficient in literary taste or acquirements. He was completely a man of business; in office regular and systematic, and to applicants affable and attentive; he made no parade of professions, and those who sought admittance on business, or courted his patronage, were never deluded by false hopes. With many brilliant examples before him of men who had become great by popularity, or were admired for the refinements of courtesy, he had no ambition to emulate them. His acquisitions from keeping the best company were so few, that he knew little of the language, and nothing of the eloquence of the country in which he was destined to flourish; and although he acquired an unprecedented share of power and patronage, it would be difficult to say whom he courted or pleased. The arts of what is termed popularity, he neither practised, nor understood. He never was at any period of his life, a popular minister, yet few men had more friends, for he could rank among that number many of his public opponents, who, amidst all the bitterness of party spirit, paid homage to the friendly, liberal, and we may add, convivial tenor of his private life; and to his open and undisguised avowal of sentiments and principles to which he adhered without a single breach of consistency. The extent of his patronage was perhaps his misfortune, for while it brought upon him the envy of those who would have had no scruple to share it, it also rendered him liable to more serious censure. A minister who is pestered by solicitations from those whom, he wishes not to refuse, soon loses the power of discrimination; and lord Melville was peculiarly unfortunate in some of the objects of his bounty, whose faults were placed to his account, and whom his friendship led him to screen after they had forfeited their character with the public. Upon the whole, whatever may be thought of his character during the present generation of parties, it cannot, even now, be denied that his great talents for business, both in parliament and in council, his indefatigable industry, and his benevolent and social temper, justly rank him among the most eminent of our political leaders, and will secure for him a large portion of the approbation of future historians.

, a writer of the ninth century, better known by his works than his personal history, is supposed to have been a native of Ireland, who emigrated to France, and there probably died. Cave and Dupin call him deacon, but Dungal himself assumes no other title than that of subject to the French kings, and their orator. In his youth he studied sacred and profane literature with success, and taught the former, and had many scholars, but at last determined to retire from the world. The influence which Valclon or Valton, the abbot of St. Denis near Paris, had over him, with some other circumstances, afford reason to think that if he was not a monk of that abbey, he had retired somewhere in its neighbourhood, or perhaps resided in the house itself. During this seclusion he did not forsake his studies, but cultivated the knowledge of philosophy, and particularly of astronomy, which was much the taste of that age. The fame he acquired as an astronomer induced Charlemagne to consult him in the year 811, on the subject of two eclipses of the sun, which took place the year before, and Dungal answered his queries in a long letter which is printed in D'Acheri’s Spicilegium, vol. III. of the folio, and vol. X. of the 4to edition, with the opinion of Ismael Bouillaud upon it. Sixteen years after, in the year 827, Dungal took up his pen in defence of images against Claude, bishop of Turin, and composed a treatise which had merit enough to be printed, first separately, in 1608, 8vo, and was afterwards inserted in the “Bibliotheca Patrum.” It would appear also that he wrote some poetical pieces, one of which is in a collection published in 1729 by Martene and Durand. The time of his death is unknown, but it is supposed he was living in the year 834.

was born at Glasgow, where his father was principal of the university, 1692. In 1712 he took the degree of A. M. and afterwards spent two years in the university of Utrecht, having at that time some thoughts of applying himself to the study of the law; but he was diverted from that resolution by the persuasions of Mr. Wishart, then principal of the college of Edinburgh, by whose interest he was promoted to be regius professor of divinity and church history, 1716. In the discharge of his duty, Mr. Dunlop procured great honour: but his labours were not confined to the professional chair; he preached frequently in the parish churches in Edinburgh, and his sermons were delivered with such elegance and justness of thought, that multitudes flocked after him. Increasing daily in promoting useful knowledge, and acquiring the approbation of the virtuous of every denomination, he adorned his profession by the most exalted piety, and lived equal to the doctrines he taught. In the arduous discharge of these important duties, he contracted a disorder which brought on a dropsy; and after a lingering illness, he died at Edinburgh 1720, aged twenty -eight. His works are: Sermons in 2 vols. 12mo, and an “Essay on Confessions of Faith.” He was an ornament to learning, and esteemed as a man of great piety and worth.

was brother to the above, and born in America, where his father was a voluntary exile, 1684, and at the revolution came over to Glasgow, where he had his education, and made great progress in the study of the Greek language. In 172O he was appointed professor of Greek in the university of Glasgow, and was much followed for the art of teaching that language in a manner superior to any of his contemporaries. In 1736 he published a Greek grammar, which has gone through several editions, and is still very much esteemed, and is the one chiefly used in the Scottish universities. He died at Glasgow, 1742, aged fifty-eight.

, Lord Ashburton, an eminent lawyer, was the second son of Mr. John Dunning, of Ashburton, Co. Devon, attorney at law, by Agnes, daughter of Henry Judsham, of Old Port, in the parish of Modbury, in the same county. He was born at Ashburton, Oct. 18, 1731. At the age of seven he was sent to the free grammar-school of his native place, where, during five years, he made an astonishing progress in the classic languages. A book in Homer, or in the Æneid of Virgil, he would get by heart in the course of two hours, and on the top of the school-room, which was wainscotted, he drew out the diagrams of the first book of Euclid, and solved them at the age of ten. He has often been heard to say that he owed all his future fortune to Euclid and sir Isaac Newton. When he left school he was taken into his father’s office, where he remained until his attaining the age of nineteen, at which time sir Thomas Clarke, master of the rolls, (to whom his father had been many years steward) took him under his protection, and sent him to the Temple.

Here he is said to have been admitted an attorney in the court of King’s-bench, but remained for some time in obscurity, until the consciousness of his own powers, as it may be presumed, prompted him to consider his sphere of action as too confined for his genius, and occasioned him to study with a view of being called to the bar. His application to this pursuit was singular and unremitting. He had chambers up two pair of stairs, in Pump-court, Middle-temple, where it was his custom, both then, and some years after he was called to the bar, to read from an early hour in the morning till late in the evening, without ever going out of his chambers, or permitting any visits from his fellow students. He then dined, (or rather made his dinner and supper together,) either at the Grecian or at George’s coffee-house. In this way he accumulated a vast stock of knowledge, which, however, for a considerable time he had no opportunity of displaying. When admitted to the bar, he travelled the western circuit, but had not a single brief; and the historian of Devonshire says, had Lavater been at Exeter in 1759, he must have sent counsellor Dunning to the hospital of idiots. Not a feature marked him for the son of wisdom. Practice came in so slowly, that he was three years at the bar before he received one hundred guineas; but at length he was enabled to emerge from this state of obscurity, and commence that career which led to fame, opulence, and honours.

In 1759, the authority of the French in the East Indies was entirely overthrown by the English victories in that part of the globe. The great accession of power which was thus thrown into the successful scale, excited the jealousy of the Dutch, who, after some disputes in the country, transmitted their complaints home in form against the servants of the English East India company, as violators of the neutrality, and interrupters of the Dutch commerce. These complaints were delivered to sir Joseph Yorke, the English ambassador at the Hague, in 1761, and soon afterwards were communicated to the public in a pamphlet entitled “An authentic Account of the Proceedings of their High Mightinesses the States of Holland and West Friezeland, on the Complaint laid before them by his excellency sir Joseph Yorke, his Britannic Majesty’s Ambassador at the Hague, concerning hostilities committed in the river of Bengal, &c.” 4to. As the defence of the English company against these charges was absolutely necessary, it became requisite to select some person to whom the task of their vindication might be committed. One account says that Mr. Dunning was at that time known to the late Laurence Sullivan, esq. (long a Director, and many times chairman and deputychairman of the East India Company), as a barrister of rising talents in his profession, and of a very acute and logical understanding. Another account says, that he was introduced to Mr. Sullivan, in this character, by Mr. Hussey, one of the king’s counsel; but in either way, it was by Mr. Sullivan’s means that he was employed in drawing. up the defence, which was published under the title of “A Defence of the United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies, and their Servants (particularly those at Bengal), against the Complaints of the Dutch East India Company; being a Memorial from the English Company to his Majesty on that subject,” 1762, 4to. This memorial, which produced a conciliating answer and proper redress from the Dutch government, was esteemed a master-piece of language and reasoning, and was so perfectly satisfactory both to government and the East India Company, that it is said the latter presented him with a bank-note of 500l.: but he derived his highest reward from the fame it procured him; and as he now became known to the public for high talents, his profession afforded him a constant security for having those talents well employed.

In 1763 an opportunity occurred of signalizing himself in an affair which could not fail to make him popular. Wilkes had now begun to make a figure in the political world, and by the injudicious conduct of the administration, was rendered a man of that consequence which neither his character nor abilities could have otherwise made him. His papers being illegally seized by a general warrant, he commenced actions against the then secretaries of state, and Mr. Dunning being retained counsel in all the causes, distinguished himself in a manner which procured him the character of a sound constitutional lawyer; and the name of Dunning was frequently and distinctly heard in the popular cry of “Wilkes and Liberty.” His business from this time gradually increased, and in 1776 was nearly equal to the sum of 10,000l. per annum.

Previous to this, however, in 1766, he was chosen recorder of the city of Bristol, a place that scarcely pays the expences of the half-yearly visitation, but which has always been considered as an honourable preferment. On Dec. S3, 1767, he was appointed solicitor-general in the room of Edward Willes, esq. then promoted to the King’s-bench. In this office he continued until May 1770, when he resigned it, along with his friend and patron lord Shelburne, afterwards marquis of Lansdowne, and returned to his original situation at the bar, without any distinction from the rest of his brethren but what he was entitled to from the time of his admission into the profession. In 1771, he was presented with the freedom of the city of London, a favour which he acknowledged in a letter written with elegance, yet caution. From the period of his resignation he was considered as adhering to the party in opposition to the administration which conducted the American war, and distinguished himself by many able speeches in parliament, of which he was first chosen member for Calne in 1768, and continued to represent the same borough until he was called to the peerage.

On the change of administration in 1782, which he had laboured to promote, he was appointed through the interest of his friend lord Shelburne, chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster, one of the places against which he and his friends had often objected as useless and burthensome to the public; and was about the same time advanced to the peerage by the title of lord Ashburton, of Ashburton, co. Devon. This honour, however, he did not long survive. His constitution, not perhaps originally good, was now worn down by indefatigable labour in his profession, and he died on a visit to Exmouth, August 18, 1783. His lordship married in 17SO, Elizabeth, daughter of John Baring, of Larkbear, co. Devon, esq. sister to John Baring, esq. M. P. for the city of Exeter at that time, and to the late sir Francis Baring, bart. By this lady he had two sons, John, who died in infancy, and Richard Barre, the present lord Ashburton.

Few men, in a career requiring the gifts of voice, person, and manner, had ever more difficulties to struggle with than the late lord Ashburton. He was a thick, short, compact man, with a sallow countenance, turned-up nose, a constant shake of the head, with a hectic cough which so frequently interrupted the stream of his eloquence, that to any other man this single defect would be a material impediment in his profession; and yet, with all these personal drawbacks, he no sooner opened a cause which required any exertion of talent, than his mind, like the sun, broke forth in the full meridian of its brightness. His elocution was at once fluent, elegant, and substantial, and partook more of the knowledge of constitutional law than that derived from the old books and reporters; not that he wasdeficient in all the depths of his profession, when an absolute necessity called him out (his praise being that of the best common lawyer as well as the best orator of his time); but his general eloquence partook more of the spirit than the letter of laws. His diction was of the purest and most. classical kind not borrowed from any living model of his time, either in the senate or at the bar it was his own particular formation and if it had any shade, it was perhaps its not being familiar enough, at times, to the common ear: he was, however, master of various kind of styles, and possessed abundance of wit and humour, which often not only '; set the court in a roar," but drew smiles from the gravity of the bench. His more finished speeches in the house of commons, and as a pleader before the bar of the house of lords, were many of them fine models of eloquence: he possessed the copia verbprum so fully that he seldom wanted a word; and when he did, he had great Jinesse in concealing it from his auditory, by repeating some parts of his last sentences by way of illustration: nobody had this management better, as by it he recovered the proper arrangement of his ideas, without any visible interruption in his discourse.

Though in the meridian of this celebrated lawyer’s fame he was far from being deficient in confident boldness, he originally had a very considerable degree of diffidence. Practice, however, and intimacy with the manner of the bar, enabled him to overcome this, as far as it was a hindrance, and perhaps a little farther, for often, in the latitude of cross-examination, he indulged himself in sarcasms on the names and professions of individuals, on provincial characters, &c. together with those of whole nations; all of which were much below his learning, his taste, and general manners: nor can we any other way account for it, than from that contagion which is sometimes caught from mixing with narrow men in the profession, who have no other way of shewing their own importance, than by endeavouring to raise it on the diffidence, the weakness, or modesty, of others. He did not, however, always escape unhurt in these sallies; and one of the poets of that day rallied him on this unmanly practice. He got another rub from his friend counsellor Lee (better known by the name of honest Jack Lee) on this account: he was telling Lee that he had that morning purchased some manors in Devonshire. “I wish,” said the other, “you could bring them to Westminster-hall.”

No lawyer of his time understood the English constitution better than Dunning. He knew it in spirit as well as in law; and it was this profound knowledge that kept him from countenancing the many theoretical systems of reform that were started at that time, and by several of his friends. When he was shewn the copy of the duke of Richmond’s bill for an annual parliament, and a free right of voting allowed to all over the age of twenty-one (women and lunatics excepted), he observed in his dry way, “The best thing about the bill was its impracticability.'” Though so great an adept in jurisprudence, he was very little inclined to enter into a lawsuit himself (a caution we have observed peculiar to all great lawyers): one night, on his return to his house at Fulham, his steward came in to tell him that a neighbouring farmer had just cut down two great trees on his premises. “Well,” says he, “and what did you say to him?” “Say to him! Why I told him we should trounce him severely with a lawsuit.” “Did you so? then you must carry it on yourself; for I sha‘n’t trouble my head about it.”

He preserved the dignity of a barrister very much in court, and frequently kept even the judges in check. When lord Mansfield, who had great quickness in discovering the jut of a cause, used to take up a newspaper by way of amusing himself, whilst Dunning was speaking, the latter would make a dead stop. This would rouse his lordship to say, “Pray go on, Mr. Dunning.” “No, my lord, not till your lordship has finished.” His reputation was as high with his fellow-barristers as with the public; he lived very much with the former, and had their affection and esteem. When lord Thurlow gave his first dinner as lord chancellor, he called Dunning to his right hand at table, in preference to all the great law otBcers; and when he hesitated to take the place, the other called out in his blunt way, “Why will you keep the dinner cooling in this manner?” He had that integrity in his practice, that on the opening of any cause, which he found by the evidence partook of any notorious fraud or chicanery, he would throw his brief over the bar with great contempt, and resort to his bag for a fresh paper. Whilst he was in the height of his practice, his father came to the treasurer’s office in the Middle Temple, to be one of the joint securities for a student performing his terms, <kc. Wh<-n he signed the bond, the clerk, seeing the name, asked him with some eagerness, whether he was any relation to the great Dunning? The old man felt the praise of his son with great sensibility, and modestly replied, “I am John Dunning’s father, Sir.” Few lawyers, without any considerable paternal estate at starting, and dying so young as lord Ashburton did, ever left such a fortune behind him; the whole amounting to no less than one hundred and eighty thousand pounds! Nor was this the hoard of a miser, for he always lived like a gentleman in the most liberal sense of the word, though, from his immense practice, he had no time to indulge in the arrangements of a regular establishment. During his illness, as a last resource he was advised to try his native air, and in going down to Devonshire accidentally met, at the same inn, his old colleague Wallace, lately attorneygeneral, coming to town on the same melancholy errand, to be near the best medical assistance. It was the lot of both to be either legal or political antagonists through the whole course of their lives, in which much keenness, and much dexterity of argument, were used on both sides: here, however, they met as friends, hastening to that goal, where the race of toil, contention, and ambition, was soon to have a final close. They supped together with as much conviviality as the nature of their conditions would admit, and in the morning parted wiih mutual promises of visiting each other early in the winter. These promises, however, were never performed: Dunning died in August, and Wallace in November.

, a brave French officer, count of Orleans and of Longueville, and the natural son of Louis duke of Orleans, who was assassinated by the duke of Burgundy, was born Nov. 23, 1407, and began his career, during the war which the English carried on in France, by the defeat of the earls of Warwick and Suffolk, whom he pursued to the gates of Paris. Orleans being besieged by the English, he bravely defended that town, until Joan of Arc was enabled to bring him succours. The raising of the siege was followed by a train of successes, and Dunois had almost the whole honour of driving the enemy out of Normandy and la Guienne. He gave them the fatal blow at Castillon, in 1451, after having taken from them Blaie, Fronsac, Bourdeaux,and Bayonne. Charles VII. owed his throne to the sword of Dunois; nor was he ungrateful, for he bestowed on him the title of restorer of his country, made him a present of the comté of Longueville, and honoured him with the office of grand chamberlain of France. He was held in equal esteem by Louis XI. Count cle Dunois, under the reign of that prince, entered into the league of what was called the Public-good, of which, by his conduct and experience, he became the principal supporter. The hero died Nov. 24, 1468, aged 61, regarded as a second du Guesclin, and not less dreaded by the enemies of his country, than respected by his fellowcitizens, for his valour, which was always guided by prudence, for his magnanimity, his beneficence, and every rirtue that enters into the character of a truly great man.

, surnamed Sgotus, an eminent scholastic divine, who flourished in the latter end of the thirteenth and the beginning of the fourteenth century, was born at Dunstance, in the parish of Emildun or Embleton, near Alnwick in Northumberland. Some writers have contended that he was a Scotsman, and that the place of his birth was Duns, a village eight miles from England, and others have asserted that he was an Irishman. He is, however, treated as an Englishman by all the early authors who speak of him; and the conclusion of the ms copy of his works in Merton college, gives his name, country, and the place where he was born, as stated above. When a youth, he joined himself to the minorite friars of Newcastle; and, being sent by them to Oxford, he was admitted into Merton college, of which, in due time, he became fellow. Here, besides the character he attained in scholastic theology, he is said to have been very eminent for his knowledge in the civil and canon law, in logic, natural philosophy, metaphysics, mathematics, and astronomy. Upon the removal of William Varron from Oxford to Paris, in 1301, Duns Scotus was chosen to supply his place in the theological chair; which office he sustained with such reputation, that more than thirty-thousand scholars came to the university to be his hearers, a number which, though confidently asserted by several writers, we admit with great hesitation. After John Duns had lectured three years at Oxford, he was called, in 1304, to Paris, where he was honoured with the degrees, first of bachelor, and then of doctor in divinity. At a meeting of the monks of his order at Tholouse, in 1307, he was created regent; and about the same time he was placed at the head of the theological schools at Paris. Here he is affirmed to have first broached the doctrine of the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary, and to have supported his position by two hundred arguments, which appeared so conclusive, that the members of the university of Paris embraced the opinion; instituted the feast of the immaculate conception; and issued an edict, that no one, who did not embrace the same opinion, should be admitted to academical degrees. In 1308, Duns Scotus was ordered by Gonsalvo, the general of the Minorites, to remove to Cologn, on the road to which he was met in solemn pomp, and conducted thither by the whole body of the citizens. Not long after his arrival in this city, he was seized with an apoplexy, which carried him off, on the eighth of November, 1308, in the forty-third, or, as others say, in the thirty-fourth, year of his age. Paul Jovius’s account of the mode of his death is, that when he fell down of his apoplexy he was immediately interred as dead; but that, afterwards coming to his senses, he languished in a most miserable manner in his coffin, beating his head and hands against its sides, till he died. This story, though generally treated as a fable, is hinted at by Mr. Whavton, who says, “Apoplexia correptus, et festinato nimis, ut volunt, funere elatus,” and whether true or not, gave occasion to the following epitaph:

John Duns was at first a follower of Thomas Aquinas; but, differing from his master on the question concerning the efficacy of divine grace, he formed a distinct sect, and hence the denominations of the Thomists and Scotists, who were engaged for centuries in eager and trifling disputes, and the nances of the two sects still subsist in some of the Roman Catholic schools. On account of Scotus’s acuteness in disputation, he was called “the most subtile Doctor;” but his ingenuity was wholly employed in embarrassing, with new fictions of abstraction, and with other scholastic chimeras, subjects already sufficiently perplexed. He was the author of a. vast number of works, several of which have been separately published, and in 1474, the English Franciscans printed a collection of the larger part. At length, the whole of them (some few still remaining in manuscript excepted) were collected together by Luke Wadding, illustrated with notes, and published at Lyons in 1639, in 12 vols. folio. Absurd as many of the questions were which called forth the exertions of his talents, it is probable that in a more enlightened age, genius and abilities like his might have been of lasting benefit to posterity.

It may not be unamusing to recite an example of the extravagant praises that have been bestowed upon Duns Scotus by his followers. They tell us that “He was so consummate a philosopher, that he could have been the inventor of philosophy, if it had not before existed. His knowledge of all the mysteries of religion was so profound and perfect, that it was rather intuitive certainty than belief. He described the divine nature as if he had seen God; the attributes of celestial spirits, as if he had been an angel; the felicities of a future state, as if he had enjoyed them; and the ways of providence, as if he had penetrated into all its secrets. He wrote so many books, that one man is hardly able to read them; and no one man is able to understand them. He would have written more, if he had composed with less care and accuracy. Such was our immortal Scotus, the most ingenious, acute, and subtile, of the sons of men.” His portraits at Windsor and Oxford have been generally considered as ideal.

, “an English musician of the fifteenth century, at an early stage of counterpoint, acquired on the continent the reputation of being its inventor, which, however, Dr. Burney has proved could not belong to him. He was the musician whom the Germans, from a similarity of name, have mistaken for saint Dunstan, and to whom, as erroneously, they have ascribed with others the invention of counterpoint in four parts. He was author of the musical treatise” De Mensurabili Musica,“which is cited by Franchinus, Morley, and Ravenscroft. But though this work is lost, there is still extant in the Bodleian library, a Geographical Tract by this author and, if we may believe his epitaph, which is preserved by Weever, he was not only a musician, but a mathematician, and an eminent astrologer. Of his musical compositions nothing remains but two or three fragments in Franchinus, and Morley. He is very unjustly accused by this last writer of separating the syllables of the same words by rests. Stow calls him” a master of astronomy and music," and says he w;;s buried in the church of St. Stephen, Walbrook, in 1458.

was born of noble parents at Glastonbury, in Somersetshire, in the year 925. Under the patronage of his uncle Aldhelm, archbishop of Canterbury, he was instructed in the literature and accomplishments of those times, and in consequence of his recommendation invited by king Athelstan to court, who bestowed on him lands near Glastonbury, where he is said to have spent some years in retirement. Edmund, the successor of Athelstan, appointed him abbot of the celebrated monastery which he began to rebuild in that place in the year 042, and by the munificence of the king, who gave him a new charter in the year 944, he was enabled to restore it to its former lustre. Among other legendary stories reported of St. Dunstan we are told that he had been represented to the king as a man of licentious manners; and dreading the ruin of his fortune by suspicions of this nature, he determined to repair past indiscretions by exchanging the extreme of superstition for that of licentiousness. Accordingly he secluded himself altogether from the world; and he framed a cell so small that he could neither stand erect in it, nor stretch out his limbs during his repose; and here he employed himself perpetually in devotion or manual labour. In this retreat his mind was probably somewhat deranged; and he indulged chimeras which, believed by himself and announced to the credulous multitude, established a character of sanctity among the people. He is said to have fancied that the devil, among the frequent visits which he paid him, was one day more earnest than usual in his temptations; till Dunstan, provoked hy his importunity, seized him by the nose with a pair of red-hot pincers as he put his head into the cell, and he held him there till the malignant spirit made the whole neighbourhood resound with his bellowings. The people credited and extolled this notable exploit, and it ensured to Dunstan such a degree of reputation, that he appeared again in the world, and Edred, who had succeeded to the crown, made him not only the director of that prince’s conscience, but his counsellor in the most important affairs of government. He was also placed at the head of the treasury; and being possessed of power at court, and of credit with the populace, he was enabled to attempt with success the most arduous enterprizes. Taking advantage of the implicit confidence reposed in him by the king, Dunstan imported into England a new order of monks, the Benedictines, who, by changing the state of ecclesiastical affairs, excited, on their first establishment, the most violent commotions. Finding also that his advancement had been owing to the opinion of his austerity, he professed himself a parti zan of the rigid monastic rules; and after introducing that reformation into the convents of Glastonbury and Abingdon, he endeavoured to render it universal in the kingdom. This conduct, however, incurred the resentment of the secular clergy; and these exasperated the indignation of many courtiers, which had been already excited by the haughty and over-bearing demeanour which Dunstan assumed. Upon the death of Edred, who had supported his prime-minister and favourite in all his measures, and the subsequent succession of Edwy, Dunstan was accused of malversation in his office, and banished the kingdom. But, on the death of Edwy, and the succession of Edgar, Dunstan was recalled and promoted first to the see of Worcester, then to that of London and about the year 959, to the archiepiscopal see of Canterbury. For this last advancement it was requisite to obtain the sanction of the pope; and for this purpose Dunstan was sent to Rome, where he soon obtained the object of his wishes, and the appointment of legate in England, with very extensive authority. Upon his return to England, so absolute was his influence over the king, he was enabled to give to the Romish see an authority and jurisdiction, of which the English clergy had been before in a considerable degree independent. In order the more effectually and completely to accomplish this object, the secular clergy were excluded from their livings, and disgraced; and the monks were appointed to supply their places. The scandalous lives of the secular clergy furnished one plea for this measure, and it was not altogether groundless; but the principal motive was that of rendering the papal power absolute in the English church; for, at this period, the English clergy had not yielded implicit submission to the pretended successors of St. Peter, as they refused to comply with the decrees of the popes, which enjoined celibacy on the clergy. Dunstan was active and persevering, and supported by the authority of the crown, he conquered the struggles which the country had long maintained against papal dominion, and gave to the monks an influence, the baneful effects of which were experienced in England until the era of the reformation. Hence Dunstan has been highly extolled by the monks and partizans of the Romish church; and his character has been celebrated in a variety of ways, and particularly by the miracles which have been wrought either by himself or by others in his favour. During the whole reign of Edgar, Dunstan maintained his interest at court; and upon his death, in the year 975, his influence served to raise his son Edward to the throne, in opposition to Ethelred. Whilst Edward was in his minority, Dunstan ruled with absolute sway, both in the church and state, but on the murder of the king, in the year 979, and after the accession of Ethelred, his credit and influence declined; and the contempt with which his threatenings of divine vengeance were regarded by the king, are said to have mortified him to such a degree, that on his return to his archbishopric, he died of grief and vexation, May 19, 988. A volume of his works was published at Doway, in 1626. His ambition has given him a considerable place in ecclesiastical and civil history; and he appears to have been a man of extraordinary talents. Dr. Burney, in his history, notices his skill in music, and his biographers also inform us that he was a master of drawing, engraved and took impressions from gold, silver, brass, and iron, and that he even practised something like printing. Gervase’s words are, “literas formare,” which however, we think, means no more than that he cut letters on metal.

, bookseller and miscellaneous writer, was born at Graff bam, in Huntingdonshire, the 14th of May, 1659; the son of John Dunton, fellow of Trinity-college, Cambridge, and rector of Graft ham, whose works he published in 8vo, embellished with very curious engravings. Dunton was in business upwards of twenty years, during which time he traded considerably in the Stationers’ company; but, about the beginning of the last century, he failed, and commenced author; and in 1701, was amanuensis to the editor of a periodical paper called the “Post Angel.” He soon after set up as a writer for the entertainment of the public; and projected and carried on, with the assistance of others, the “Athenian Mercury,” or a scheme to answer a series of questions monthly, the querist remaining concealed. This work was continued to about 20 volumes; and afterwards reprinted by Bell, under the title of the “Athenian Oracle,” 4 vols. 8vo. It forms a strange jumble of knowledge and ignorance, sense and nonsense, curiosity and impertinence. In 1710 he published his “Athenianism,” or the projects of Mr. John Dunton, author of the “Essay on the hazard of a deathbed repentance.” This contains, amidst a prodigious variety of matter, six hundred treatises in prose and verse, by which he appears to have been, with equal facility, a philosopher, physician, poet, civilian, divine, humourist, &c. To this work he has prefixed his portrait, engraved by M. Vander Gucht; and in a preface, which breathes all the pride of self-consequence, informs his readers he does not write to flatter, or for hire. As a specimen of this miscellaneous farrago, the reader may take the following heads of subjects: 1. The Funeral of Mankind, a paradox, proving we are all dead and buried. 2. The spiritual hedge-hog; or, a new and surprising thought. 3. The double life, or a new way to redeem time, by living over to-morrow before it comes. 4. Dunton preaching to himself; or every man his own parson. 5. His creed, or the religion of a bookseller, in imitation of Brown’s Religio Medici, which h.is some humour and merit. This he dedicated to the Stationers’ company. As a satirist, he appears to most advantage in his poems entitled the “Beggar mounted” the “Dissenting Doctors;” “Parnassus hoa!” or frolics in verse “Dunton’s shadow,” or the character of a summer friend but in all his writings he is exceedingly prolix and tedious, and sometimes obscure. His “Case is altered, or Dunton’s remarriage to his own wife,” has some singular notions, but very little merit in the composition. For further particulars of this heterogeneous genius, see “Dunton’s Life and Errors,” a work now grown somewhat scarce, or, what will perhaps be more satisfactory, the account of him in our authority. Dunton died in 1733.

, a political writer of much note in France and England, and a citizen of Geneva, was born in 1749, of an ancient family in Switzerland, who had been distinguished as magistrates and scholars. At the age of twenty-two he was appointed, through the interest of Voltaire, professor of belles-lettres at Cassel, and about that time he published two or three historical tracts. He was afterwards concerned with Linguet in the publication of the “Annales Politiques,” at Lausanne. In 1783 he went to Paris, where, during the three years’ sitting of the first French assembly, he published an analysis of their debates, which was read throughout all Europe, and considered as a model of discussion no less luminous than impartial. While he intrepidly attacked the various factions, he neither dissembled the faults nor the exaggerations of their adversaries. In the month of April, 1792, he left Paris on a confidential mission from the king to his brothers, and the emperor of Germany. In consequence of his quitting Paris, his estate in France, and his personal property, were confiscated; and among other losses, he had to regret that of a valuable library, and a collection of Mss. including a work of his own, nearly ready for the press, on the political state of Europe before the French revolution. Whilst resident at Brussels with the archduke Charles, in 1793, he published a work on the French revolution, which was warmly admired by Mr. Burke, as congenial with his own sentiments, and indeed by every other person not influenced by the delusions which brought about that great event. In 1794 he returned to Switzerland, which he was obliged to leave in 1798, the French, to whom he had rendered himself obnoxious by his writings, having demanded his expulsion. The same year he came to England, where he published a well-known periodical journal called the “Mercure Britannique,” which came out once a fortnight, nearly to the time of his death. This event took place at the house of his friend count Lally Tollendal, at Richmond, May 10, 1800. His “Mercure,” and other works, although of a temporary nature, contain facts, and profound views of the leading events of his time, which will be of great importance to future historians, and during publication contributed much to enlighten the public mind.

, at first advocate-general, and afterwards president à mortier in the parliament of Bourdeaux, was born at Rochelle, and died at Paris in 1788, at no very advanced age, with the character of an upright, enlightened, and eloquent magistrate. He acquired considerable honour, by his inflexible constancy in the revolution of the magistracy in 1771, and still more, by delivering from punishment three poor wretches of Chaumont, condemned to be broke alive upon the wheel. The statement he published in his defence does credit to his talents and humanity, which may likewise be said of his “Historical reflections on Penal Laws.” The president Du Paty employed himself for a length of time in endeavouring to reform these laws; and displayed no less sagacity than zeal in combating the obstacles he met with from inveterate prejudices. As a literary man, we have by him, “Academical Discourses,” and “Letters on Italy,” 1788, 2 vols. 8vo, of which last, two rival translations were published in this country in the same year. Yet, although he shows himself a man of considerable taste, and possessed of descriptive talents, his travels are frequently disfigured by emphatical phrases, and by attempts at wit, savouring of conceit and affectation. It was his misfortune to aim at imitating Diderot and Thomas, who furnished him with many of his phrases. His adversaries have spread abroad an anecdote, that Voltaire, being asked his opinion of his abilities as a magistrate, answered, “He is a good scholar.” And, when he was urged to give his sentiments on his talents for literature and the arts, he said, “He is a good magistrate.”

, an eminent ecclesiastical historian of the last century, was the son of a father of the same names, descended of a noble family in Normandy, by Mary Vitart, of a family in Champagne. He was born at Paris, June 17, 1657, and after being instructed in the rudiments of grammar by his father, and private tutors, was entered, at the age of ten, of the college of Harcourt, where, under professor Lair, he imbibed that thirst for general knowledge which he indulged during the whole of his studious life. In 1672 he was admitted to the degree of master of arts. Having made choice of the church as a profession, he went through the usual course of studies at the Soi bonne, and employed much of his time in perusing the fathers and ecclesiastical historians, but had no other view in this than to gratify his curiosity, while preparing himself for his licentiateship in divinity, which he was then too young to obtain. In 1680, he took the degree of bachelor of divinity, and in July 16S4, that of doctor. He soon after undertook to publish the work which has made him most known, his Universal Library of Ecclesiastical Writers, containing their lives, and a catalogue, critical account, and analysis of their works: a design of vast extent, which might have done credit to the labours of a society, yet was successfully accomplished by an individual, who was not only interrupted by professional duties, but wrote and published a great many other works. The first volume of his “Bibliotheque” was printed at Paris, 1686, 8vo, and the others in succession as far as live volumes, which contained an account of the first eight centuries. The freedom, however, which he had used in criticising the style, character, and doctrines of some of the ecclesiastical writers, roused the prejudices of the celebrated Bossuet, who exhibited a complaint against Dupin to Harlay, archbishop of Paris. The archbishop accordingly, in 1693, published a decree against the work, yet with more deliberation than might have been expected. His grace first ordered the work to be read by four doctors of divinity of the faculty of Paris, who perused it separately, and then combining their remarks, drew up a report which they presented to the archbishop, who, in his decree, says that he also examined the work, and found that it would be very prejudicial to the church, if it were suffered to be dispersed. Dupin was then summoned before the archbishop andthe doctors, and after several meetings, gave in a paper, in which he delivered his opinion on the objections made to his hook in such a manner as to satisfy them that, however liberal his expressions, he was himself sound; but the work itself they nevertheless thought must be condemned, as “containing several propositions that are false, rash, scandalous, capable of offending pious ears, tending to weaken the arguments, xvhich are brought from tradition to prove the authority of the canonical books of holy scripture, and of several other articles of faith, injurious to general councils, to the holy apostolic see, and to the fathers of the church; erroneous, and leading to heresy.” This sentence upon the work, however, will prove its highest recommendation to the protestant reader, who will probably, as he may very justly infer, that it means no more than that Dupin was too impartial and candid for his judges. With the above decree was published Dupin’s retractation, both of which were translated and printed at London in 1703, folio, by William Wotton, B. D. who observes that in Dupin’s retractation, “dread of farther mischief seems to be far more visible, in almost every article, than real conviction arising from an inward sense of the author’s having been in an error; at least, that it is so written, as to have that appearance.” Dupin, however, went on with his work, and by some means obtained a permission to print, with some small alteration in the title, from “Bibliotheque universelle” to “Bibliotheque nouvelle,” and the addition of the ecclesiastical history to the ecclesiastical biography. He thus went on, concluding with the beginning of the eighteenth century, the whole making 47 vols. 8vo, which were reprinted at Amsterdam, in 19 vols. 4to; but as most of these volumes were printed from the first editions, this edition is imperfect. It was also begun to be translated into Lathy, and the first three volumes printed at Amsterdam; but no farther progress was made. Monsieur Dupin was engaged at his death in a Latin translation, to which he intended to make considerable additions. This Bibliotheque was likewise translated into English, and printed at London in several volumes in folio, usually bound in seven. A much finer edition was printed in 3 vols. folio, by Grierson of Dublin. The translation appears to have been executed partly by Digby Cotes, and revised by Wotton. Dupin’s Bibliotheque was attacked by M.Simon in a book printed at Paris in 1730, in four volumes 8vo, under the following title “Critique cle la Bibliotheque des Auteurs Ecclesiastiques & de Prolegomenes de la Bible publiez par M. Elies Dupin. Avec des eclaircissemens & des supplemens aux endroits, ou on les a juge necessaires, par feu M. Richard Simon, avec des remarques.” Simon has pointed out a considerable number of errors in Dupin, but when all deductions of this kind are made, it must be allowed that we have no book more generally valuable as a repository of ecclesiastical history and biography, making allowance for the author’s attachment to the principles of his church.

In addition to Dupin’s other literary labours, he was commissary in most of the affairs of the faculty of theology, was professor of divinity in the royal college, and for many years editor of the “Journal des Scavans,” carried on an extensive correspondence with learned men, and was often requested to prepare editions of works for the press, and to write prefaces. Yet notwithstanding all this, and his more urgent labours in preparing his own works, we are told that he divided his time judiciously, and had leisure to visit and receive the visits of his friends or strangers, whom he entertained with as much apparent ease as if his time was wholly unoccupied. His openness of temper, however, and the general impartiality of his works, procured him many enemies, whom the celebrated “Case of Conscience” afforded an opportunity of bringing him into fresh trouble. This “Case of Conscience” was a paper signed by forty doctors of the Sorbonne, in 1702, the purport of which allows some latitude of opinion with respect to the sentiments of the Jansenists. It occasioned a controversy of some length in France, and most of those who signed it were censured or punished. Dupin, in particular, was not only deprived of his professorship, but banished to Chatellerault, which last gave him most uneasiness, as it removed him from the seat of learning, and the company of learned men, always so delightful to him, and so necessary to the pursuit of his studies. At length he was induced to withdraw his subscription, and by the interest of some friends, was permitted to return; but his professorship was not restored to him. After he resumed his studies at Paris, he published many of those works of which we are about to give a catalogue, all of which had a. quick and extensive sale, although many of them prove that his accuracy was not equal to his diligence, and that by confining himself to fewer subjects, he would have better consuited his reputation. It must, however, be acknowledged that he possessed considerable taste, great freedom from common prejudices, a clear and methodical head, and most extensive reading. He corresponded with eminent men of different communions, and was much censured and threatened for a correspondence he carried on with archbishop Wake, respecting the union of the churches of Rome and England. Dupin and some other doctors of the Sorbonne were the first movers of this plan, although Mosheim, in his first edition, has represented Dr. Wake as offering the first proposals. This matter, however, is placed in a more clear light in the last edition of Mosheim, edited by Dr. Coote (1811) in the Appendix to which (No. IV.) the reader will find the whole correspondence, and probably be of opinion that while we admire the archbishop’s firmness and caution in stipulating for an emancipation from the papal yoke as a sine qua non, we have equal reason to admire the candour of Dupin in his review of the XXXIX Articles, and in the advances he endeavours to make to protestant sentiments. The czar of Muscovy, we are also told, consulted Dupin on an union with the Greek church. Dupin was an eager opponent of the constitution styled Unigenitus, and was the great leader of the opposition to it in the Sorbonne, the deputations, commissions, and memorials, all passing through his hands. At length, exhausted by his uninterrupted labours, and by a regimen too strict for health, he died June 6, 1719, in his sixtysecond year. It is said that, while he was in his last sickness, father Courayer of St. Genevieve came to see him with another of his brethren. Dupin began the conversation at first with mentioning the criticism, which had been published in the “Europe Savante,” upon the first volume of his “Bibliotheque des Auteurs separez de la Communion Romaine,” and spoke of it with great severity, not knowing that Courayer was the author of it. These fathers then went up to the chamber of Le Cointe, who had written in conjunction with Dupin, and was author of the answer to that criticism, which had been erroneously ascribed to Dupin himself. Le Cointe, who likewise knew not that Courayer was their antagonist, began upon the same subject, and told them, that if he lived, he would never desist from writing against those who had attacked Dupin, whom he styled his dear master; and though he had but a very small estate, would at his death leave money for a foundation to support those who should defend his memory; but Le Cointe died about fifteen days after, without performing his promise.

Dupin’s works, besides his Ecclesiastical History, were* l.“De antiqua Ecclesiee Disciplina, dissertationes historicge,” Paris, 1686, 4to; the best edition, as some important passages were omitted in the subsequent ones. 2. “Liber Psalmorumcum notis,” ibid. 1691, 8vo. 3. A French translation of the preceding, ibid, same year, and in. 17.10. 4. “La juste Defense du Sieur Dupin, -pour sefvir de reponse a un Libelle anonyme contre Les Pseaumes,” Cologne, 1693, 4to. 5. “S.Optati de Schismate Donatistarum, libri Septem, ad Mss. codices et veteres editiones collati,” Paris, 1700, fol. 6. “Notas in Pentateuchem,” ibid. 1710, 2 vols. 8vo; short notes like those he wrote on the Psalms. 7. “Defense de la Censure de la Facultie de Theologie de Paris, contre les Memoires de la Chine,” ibid. 1701, 8 vO. This is a defence of the censure of the Sorbonne against Le Compte’s “Memoires de la Chine.” 8. A preface to Arnaud’s work “De la necessite de la Foi en Jesus Christ, &c.” 1701, 2 vols. 8vo. 9. “Dialogues posthumes du Sieur de la Bruyeresur le Quietisme,” Paris, 1699, 12mo. Seven of these dialogues are by Bruyere, and two by Dupin, which are not inferior to the former in style and manner. 10. “Traite de la Doctrine Chretienne et orthodox,” ibid. 1703, 8vo; containing the preliminary matter to a body of divinity, which he did not complete. 11. An edition of the “Opera Gersoni,” 1703, Amst. 5 vols. fol. which, Dupin says, would have been more correct had it been printed under his inspection. 10. “Histoire d'Apollone de Tyane convaincue de faussete” et d'imposture,“Paris, 1705, 12mo, which Dupin published under the name of De Claireval. 13.” Traite de la puissance ecclesiastique ettemporelle,“ibid. 1707, 8vo. 14.” Bibliotheque Universelle des Historiens,“ibid. 1707, 2 vols. 8vo. Dupin did not proceed far in this undertaking, but these two volumes were translated and printed at London, under the title of” The Universal Library of Historians,“1709. 15.” Lettre sur l'ancienne discipline de TEglise touchant la celebradoH de la Messe.“Paris, 1708, 12mo. 16.” Histoire des Juifs,“&c. Paris, 7 vcrfs. 12mo. This is, in fact, Basnage’s History of the Jews, with alterations, and as Dupin omitted Basnage’s name, the latter complained, and asserted his property. It is rather surprising Dupin should have committed such a breach of decorum. 17.” Dissertations historiques, chronologiques, et critiques sur la Bible,“vol. I. ibid. 1711, 8vo. These relate only to the book of Genesis, and were not continued. 18.” Histoire de TEglise en abrege,“ibid. 1714, 4 vols. 4to. This, although highly praised by the writers of the Journal de Trevoux, is in the objectionable form of question and answer. A translation was made of it into Italian, suppressing Dupin’s name, which was not very popular at Rome, and substituting that of Salvaggio Canturani. 19.” Histoire profane depuis son commencement jusqu'a present,“Paris, 1714 1716, 6 vols. 12mo; reprinted most incorrectly at Antwerp, 1717, 6 vols. 12mo. 20.” Analyse de l'Apocalypse,“Paris, 1714, 2 vols. 12mo. 21.” Traite“historique des Excommunications,” ibid, 1715, 12mo. 22. “Methode pour etudier la Theologie,” ibid. 1716, 12mo. 23. “Denonciation a M. le Procureur General, &c.” respecting the constitution Unigenitus, 12mo. 24. “Defense de la monarchic de Sicile contre les enterprises de la cour de Rome,” Amst. (Lyons) 1716, 8vo, and Amst. same year, 12mo. 25. “Traite philosophique et theologique sur l'amour de Dieu,” Paris, 1717, 12mo. 26. “Continuation du Traite de l'amour de Dieu, &c.” ibid. 3717, 8vo. 27. “Bibliotheque des auteurs separez de la communion Romaine de XVI et XVII siecle,” ibicl. 1718, 4 vols. 8vo. The author, we have seen, was offended with the character given of this work in the journal called “Europe Savante,” and returned a sharp answer. Besides these works, Dupin was employed in the earlier editions of Moreri’s Dictionary, and frequently, as we have already remarked, contributed to new editions of valuable works.

, a famous French merchant, the rival of La Bourdonnaye in the Indies, equally active and more reflective, was sent into those far distant countries, in 1730, as director of the colony of Chandernagore, which was verging to decay for want of capital. Dupleix restored it to life and vigour, and extended the commerce of that colony through all the provinces of the mogul, and quite to Thibet. He fitted out ships for the Red Sea, for the Persian Gulf, for Goa, for the Maldives, and for Manilla. He built a town and formed a vast establishment. His zeal and his intelligence were recompensed, in 1742, by the government of Pondicherry. In 1746 La Bourdonnaye made himself master of Madras, the place having capitulated, when Dupleix, secretly jealous of his success, broke the capitulation, took the command of his vessels, was even disposed to put him under an arrest, and sent such representations to the court of France as occasioned La Bourdonnaye to be committed to the Bastille on his arrival at Paris. In 1748, when the English attacked Pondicherry, Dupleix defended it for forty-two days of bombardment against two English admirals, supported by two nabobs of the country. He acted in the several capacities of general, of engineer, and commissary, and was rewarded with the red ribbon and the title of marquis, as the recompense of this gallant defence, which for a time restored the French name in India. This was followed, two years after, by a patent of the title of nabob from the grand mogul, on his acquiring possession of the Decan for Salabetingue; and the Indians, on many occasions, treated him as king, and his wife as queen; but this prosperity was not of long duration. In 1751 two pretenders arose to the nabobship of Arcot, and the English favoured the rival of the nabob that was supported by the French, and the two companies, English and French, engaged in actual war; the success of which was by no means in favour of the latter, who were; dispossessed of their territories by generals Lawrence and Clive. Remonstrances were sent over against Dupleix, as he had before preferred complaints against La Bourdonnaye: an instance of the equal balance held by Providence over the affairs of mortals. Dupleix was accordingly recalled in 1753, and arrived at Paris in a desponding state, He commenced a suit at law against the company for the reimbursement of millions of livres that were due to him, which the company contested, and could not have paid if the debt bad been established. He published a long statement of the c;ise, which was read with avidity at the time and died soon after, a victim to mortified pri4e and ambition.

, a French historian, was born at Condom in 1569, of a noble family originally from Languedoc. His father had served with distinction under marshal de Montluc. Scipio having attracted notice at the court of queen Margaret, then at Nerac, came to Paris in 1605 with that princess, who afterwards made him her master of requests. His next appointment was to the post of historiographer of France, and he employed himself for a long time on the history of that kingdom. In his old age he compiled a work on the liberties of the Gallican. church; but the chancellor Seguier having caused the manuscript, for which he came to apply for a privilege, to be burnt before his face, he died of vexation not long after, at Condom, in 1661, at the age of ninety-two, the greater part of which time he had passed without sicknesses or infirmities. The principal of his works are, 1. “Memoirs of the Gauls,” 1650, folio, forming the first part of his History of France, a work much valued for its information, but ill written. 2. “History of France,” in 5, afterwards in 6 vols. fol. The narration of Dupleix is unpleasant, as well from the language having become obsolete, as from his frequent antitheses and puerile attempts at wit. Cardinal Richelieu is much flattered by the author, because he was living at the time; and queen Margaret, though his benefactress, is described like a Messalina, because she was dead, and the author had nothing farther to expect from her. Matthew de Morgues, and marshal Bassompierre both convicted him of ignorance and insincerity. Dupleix endeavoured to answer them, and after the death of the cardinal he wished to recompose a part of his history, but was presented by declining age. 3. “Roman History,” 3 vols. fol. an enormous mass, without spirit or life. 4. “A course of Philosophy,” 3 vols. 12mo. 5. “Natural Curiosity reduced to questions,” Lyons, 1620, 8vo, publications of which very little can be said in their praise. His “Liberte de la Langue Francaise,” against Vaugelas, does him still less credit; and upon the whole he appears to be one of those authors whose fame it would be impossible to revive, or perhaps to account for.

, D. D. a learned Greek scholar, was born in 1606, in Jesus college, Cambridge, of which college his father was master from 1590 to 1617; and, after a classical education at Westminster, was admitted in 1622, of Trinity college in that university, under the tuition of Dr. Robert Hitch, afterwards dean of York, to whom he gratefully addressed a Latin poem in his “Sylvse,” where he calls him “tutorem suurn colendissimum.” He regularly became a fellow of his college; and his knowledge of Greek was so extensive, that he was appointed regius professor of that language at Cambridge in 1632-.' He was collated to the prebend of Langford Ecclesia, in the cathedral of Lincoln, Aug. 14, 1641; and to the archdeaconry of Stow in that diocese, Sept. 13 of that year, being then B. D.; and on the 13th of November in the same year exchanged his prebend for that of Leighton Buzzard in the same cathedral; but in 1656 he was ejected from his professorship at Cambridge, for refusing the engagement. On the 20th of May, 1660, on the eve of the restoration, he preached a sermon at St. Paul’s cathedral; and his loyalty on that occasion was rewarded by an appointment to the office of chaplain in ordinary to Charles II. He was also restored to the professorship; which he resigned the same year in favour of Dr. Barrow; and on the 5th of September following he was, by royal mandate, with many other learned divines, created D. D. He was installed dean of Peterborough July 27, 1664, by Mr. William Towers, prebendary; and elected master of Magdalen college, Cambridge, 1668. When he obtained the rectories of Aston Flamvile and Burbach, we cannot exactly say; but it was probably in 1672, and owing to the patronage of Anthony the eleventh earl of Kent. In 167G, he preached three different sermons upon public occasions, all which were printed, Jan. 30, May 29, and Nov. 5. He died July 17, 1679, and was buried in Peterborough cathedral, to which, and to the school there, he had been a considerable benefactor. Against a pillar on the north side of the choir, behind the pulpit, is a handsome white marble tablet, with his arms and a Latin inscription commemorating his learning and virtues.

Dr. Duport left behind him several learned works, among which his “Gnomologia Homeri,” 1660, shews his extensive reading, and great knowledge of the Greek tongue, and was then deemed very useful for the understanding of that poet. His other works are, 1. “Tres Libri Solomonis, scilicet Proverbia, Ecclesiastes, Cantica, Graco Carmine donati, 1646,” 12mo. 2. “Metaphrasis libri Psalmorum versibus Graecis contexta cum versione Lat. Cantabr. 1666,” 4to, a work very honourably mentioned by Jo. Alb. Fabricius, in his “Bibliotheca Grteca,” and in Tillotson’s Life by Birch. 3. “Musae Subsecivae, sen Poetica Stromata,” 1676, 8vo. This volume consists of three books of miscellany poems, under the title of “Sylvae,” “Carmina Gratulatoria ad Regemet Reginam,” ' Epicedia, seu Carmina Funebria,“*' Carmina Comitialia, seu Epigrammata in Comitiis Academicis composita,” “Epigrammata Sacra,” and “Epithalamia Sacra.”

, whether an ancestor of the preceding, does not appear, was the son of Thomas Duport of Shepshed in Leicestershire, esq. became fellow of Jesus college, and was one of the university proctors in 1580, in which year he was instituted to the rectory of Harleton in Cambridgeshire, and afterwards became rector of Bosworth and Medbourne in his native county of Leicester. In 1583, Dec. 24, he was collated to the rectory of Fulbam in Middlesex, which Mr. Bentham calls a sinecure, and succeeded Henry Hervey, LL. D. April 29, 1585, in the precentorship of St. Paul’s, London; became master of Jesus college, Cambridge, in 1590; was four times elected vice-chancellor of the university, and in 1609 was made a prebendary of Ely. He died about, or soon after Christmas, 1617, and deserves this brief notice here, as being one of the learned men employed by king James I. in translating the Bible.

, a learned English bishop, was born at Lewisham in Kent, of which place his father was then vicar. He was baptized there March 18, 1588-9, was educated at Westminster school, and thence elected student of Christ church, Oxford, in 1605. In 1612 he was chosen fellow of All Souls’ college; then went into orders, and travelled abroad; particularly into France and Spain. In July 1625 he took the degree of doctor in divinity; and by the interest and recommendation of the earl of Dorset, to whom he afterwards became chaplain, was appointed dean of Christ church, Oxford, in June 1629. In 1634 he was constituted chancellor of the church of Sarum, and soon after made chaplain to Charles I. He was appointed, in 1638, tutor to Charles prince of Wales, and afterwards to his brother the duke of York; and about the same time nominated to the bishopric of Chichester. In 1641 he was translated to the see of Salisbury, but received no benefit from it, on account of the suppression of episcopacy. On this event he repaired to the king at Oxford; and, after that city was surrendered, attended him in other places, particularly during his imprisonment in the Isle of Wight. He was a great favourite with his majesty; and is said by some to have assisted him in composing the “Eikon Basilike.”

After the king’s death, he retired to Richmond in Surrey, where he lived a solitary life till the restoration, when he was translated to the bishopric of Winchester, and also made lord almoner. About 1661 he began an alms-house at Richmond, which he endowed with a farm at Shepperton, for which he gave 1540l. which now produces 115l. per annum and though he did not live to finish it, yet it was finished by his appointment, and at his expence. This house is of brick, and stands on the hill above Richmond, and took its rise from a vow made by him in the time of the king’s exile. On the gate is this inscription; “I will pay my vows which I made to God in my trouble.” The bishop had a more than ordinary affection for Richmond, not only because he had resided there several years during the absence of the royal family, but also because he had educated the prince in that place. He had designed some other works of piety and charity, but was prevented by death; for he enjoyed his new dignity little more than a year and a half, dying at Richmond in 1662, aged seventythree. A few hours before he expired, Charles II. honoured him with a visit; and, kneeling down by the bedside, begged his blessing; which. the bishop, with one hand on his majesty’s head> and the other lifted up to heaven, gave with great zeal. He was buried in Westminster-abbey, on the north side of the Confessor’s chapel; vfhere a large marble stone was laid over his grave, with only these Latin words engraved upon it: “Hie jacet Brianus Winton.”

By his will he bequeathed several sums of money to charitable uses; particularly lands in Pembridge, in Herefordshire, which cost 250l. settled upon an alms-house there begun by his father; 500l. to be paid to the bishop of Sarum, to be bestowed upon an organ in that church, or such other use as the bishop shall think fittest; 500l. to the dean and chapter of Christ-church, in Oxford, towards the new buildings; 200l. to be bestowed on the cathedral church of Chichester, as the bishop and dean and chapter shall think fit; 200l. to the cathedral church at Winchester; 40l. to the poor of Lewisham, in Kent, where he was born; 40l. to the poor of Greenwich; 20l. to the poor of Westham, in Sussex, and 20l. more to provide communion-plate in that parish, if they want it, otherwise that 20l. also to the poor; 20l. to the poor of Witham, in Sussex; 10l. per annum for ten years to William Watts, to encourage him to continue in his studies; 50l. a-piece to ten widows of clergyman; 50l. a-piece to ten loyal officers not yet provided for; 200l. to All-souls’ college, in Oxford; 300l. to the repair of St. Paul’s cathedral; and above 3000l. in several sums to private friends and servants! so that the character given of him by Burnet, who represents him as not having made that use of his wealth that was expected, is not just. He wrote and published a few pieces: as, 1. “The soul’s soliloquies, and conference with conscience;” a sermon before Charles I. at Newport, in the Isle of Wight, on Oct. 25, being the monthly fast, 1648, 4to. 2. “Angels rejoicing for Sinners repenting;” a sermon on Luke xv. 10, 1648, 4to. 3. “A guide for the penitent, or, a model drawn up for the help of a devout soul wounded with sin,” 1660, 8vo. 4. “Holy rules and helps to devotion, both in prayer and practice, in two parts,” 1674, 12mo, with the author’s picture in the beginning. This was published by Benjamin Parry, of Corpus Christi college, in Oxford. The life of archbishop Spotsvvood is likewise said by some to have been written by bishop Duppa but, as Wood justly observes, that could not be, because it was written by a native of Scotland.

, a celebrated French cardinal, sprung of a noble family of Issoire, in Auvergne, appeared first at the bar of Paris. he was afterwards made lieutenant-general of the bailiwic of JMontferrant, then attoiv ney-general at the parliament of Toulouse. Rising from one post to another, he came to be first president of the parliament of Paris in 1507, and chancellor of France in 1515. He set out, it is said, by being solicitor at Cognac for the countess of Angouleme, mother of Francis I. This princess entrusted to him the education of her son, whose confidence he happily gained. Some historians pretend that Duprat owed his fortune and his fame to a bold and singular stroke. Perceiving that the count d'Angouleme, his pupil, was smitten with the charms of Mary, sister of Henry VIII. king of England, the young and beautiful wife of Louis XII. an infirm husband, who was childless; and finding that the queen had made an appointment with the young prince, who stole to her apartment during the night, by a back staircase; just as he was entering the chamber of Mary, he was seized all at once by a stout man, who carried him off confounded and dumb. The man immediately made himself known it was Duprat. “What!” said he sharply to the count, “you want to give yourself a master! and you are going to sacrifice a throne to the pleasure of a moment!” The count d'Angouleme, far from taking this lesson amiss, presently recollected himself; and, on coming to the crown, gave him marks of his gratitude. To settle himself in the good graces of this prince, who was continually in quest of money, and did not always find it, he suggested to him many illegal and tyrannical expedients, such as selling the offices of the judicature, and of creating a new chamber to the parliament of Paris, which, composed of twenty counsellors, formed what was called la Tournelle. By his influence also the taxes were augmented, and new imposts established, contrary to the ancient constitution of the kingdom, all which measures he pursued without fear or restraint Having attended Francis I. into Italy, he persuaded that prince to abolish the Pragmatic Sanction, and to make the Concordat, by which the pope bestowed on the king the right of nominating to the benefices of France, and the king granted to the pope the annates of the grand benefices on the footing of current revenue. While this concordat, which was signed Dec. 16, 1515, rendered him odious to the magistrates and ecclesiastics, he soon reaped the fruits of his devotion to the court of Rome; for, having embraced the ecclesiastical profession, he was successively raised to the bishoprics of Meaux, of Albi, of Valence, of Die, of Gap, to the archbishopric of Sens, and at last to the purple, in 1527. Being appointed legate a latere in France, he performed the coronation of queen Eleonora of Austria. He is said to have aspired to the papacy in 1534, upon the death of Clement VII.; but his biographers are inclined to doubt this fact, as he was now in years and very infirm. He retired, as the end of his days approached, to the chateau de Nantouillet, where he died July 9, 1535, corroded by remorse, and consumed by diseases. His own interests were almost always his only law. He sacrificed every thing to them; he separated the interests of the king from the good of the public, and sowed discord between the council and the parliament; while he did nothing for the dioceses committed to his charge. He was a long time archbishop of Sens, without ever appearing there once. Accordingly his death excited no regret, not even among his servile dependents. However, he built, at the HotelDieu of Paris, the hall still called the legate’s-hall. “It would have been much larger,” said the king, “if it could contain all the poor he has made.”

, master of the accounts at Paris, was born there in 1696, and died in that capital Dec. 1, 1774. He was admitted of the French academy in 1733, and was much esteemed as a man of general knowledge and taste. He attempted to give his countrymen an idea of English poetry, by a translation into French of Milton’s Paradise Lost, in 4 vols. 12mo, containing also the Paradise Regained, translated by a Jesuit, with Addison’s remarks on the former. This version, in which great liberties are taken with the original, is written in an animated and florid style. The last edition of the Diet. Hist, however, robs him of the whole merit of this translation, and ascribes it to Boismorand, whose name was not so good a passport to fame as that of Dupre. He wrote also, an “Essay on the Coins of France,” 1746, 4to, a work abounding in curious disquisition, and justly esteemed “Inquiries concerning the value of Monies, and the price of Grain,” 1761, 12mo and “The Table of the duration of Human Life,” in the Natural History of M. de Buffon. The author, who had cultivated in his youth the flowers of imagination, devoted his old age to studies relative to rural oeconomy, to agriculture, and other sciences of importance to mankind.

, D. D. a very eloquent French protcstant preacher at the Savoy in London, and a fellow of the royal society, was born about 1679 at St. Pargoire in Lower Languedoc, and was the son and brother of two distinguished protestant clergymen. Of his history, however, our memoirs are very scanty. It appears that he had a congregation first at Amsterdam, whence he was invited to that of the Savoy in London, where he died Jan. 16, 1763. His character was that of an universal scholar, a deep divine, a devotee to truth, and a most benevolent and disinterested man. Among: his works are, 1. “La Vie et les Sentimens de Lucilio Vanini,” Rotterdam, 1717, 12mo, and afterwards published in English. 2. “Histoire de la Peinture ancienne,” from Pliny’s Natural History, with the Latin text, and notes, Lond. 1725, fol. without his name. [3. “A volume of Sermons in French,” Lond. 1726.] 4. “Hist, naturelle del‘Oretde l’Argent,” edited in the same manner, 1729, fol. and both marked by French bibliographers among their rare books. 5. “C. Plinii historiae naturalis ad Titum imperatorem pra?fatio,” collated with ancient Mss. &c. Lond. 1728, 8vo. 6. An edition of Telemachus, with notes and illustrations, and a life of Fenelon, Hamburgh, 1731, 2 vols. 12mo, and revised by Dr. Durand for Watts of London, 1745. 7. “Histoire du XVI Siecle,” Lond. 1725 29, 6 vols. 8vo, on the plan of Perizonius. 8. “Onzieme et douzieme volumes de l‘Hist. d’Angleterre par Rapin,” Hague, 1734, and Paris, 1749, 2 vols. 4to. 9. “Academica, sive de judicio erga verum, in ipsis primis fontibus, opera P. Valentiae Zafrensis, editio jiova emendatior,” Lond. 1740, 8vo, printed by Bowyer, in French and Latin. This work is so scarce in France, that when M. Capperonnier, one of the keepers of the national library, wanted to add it to the other editions published by Barbou, he was obliged to transcribe the whole from a copy lent to him by M. Chardin, who had one of the finest libraries in Paris. 10. “Exercices Francais et Anglais,” Lond. 1745, 8vo. 11. “Dissertation en forme cTentretien sur la Prosodie Francaise,” prefixed to Boyer’s Dictionary. 12. “Eclaircissemens sur le toi et sur le vous,” ibid. 1753, 12mo. His sentiments on the thce and thoit have been adopted by La Harpe in his late lectures. In 1777, a posthumous work by Dr. Durand, a life of Ostervald, was published, with a preface by the late rev. Samuel Beuzeville of Bethnal-green, a French clergyman, who died in 1782.

, one of the most learned lawyers of the thirteenth century, was born at Puimoisson in Provence; and was Henry of Suza’s pupil, and taught canon law at Modena. He afterwards was made chaplain and auditor of the sacred palace, legate to Gregory X. at the council of Lyons, and bishop of Mende, 1286. He died at Rome, November J, 1296. His works are, “Speculum Juris,” Rome, 1474, fol. a work which gained him the jiame of Speculator. “Rationale divinorum officiorum;” the first edition is Mentz, 1459, fol. very scarce. “Repertorium Juris,” Venice, 1496, fol. &c. He is to be distinguished from his nephew, William Durand, who succeeded him as bishop of Mende, and died 1328. There is an excellent treatise by this last; “De la maniere de celebrer le Concile general,” Paris, 154-5, 8vo. He wrote it on occasion of the council of Vienne, to which he was summoned by Clement V. 1310. This treatise may also be found in a collection of several works of the same kind, published by M. Fourte, doctor of the Sorbonne.

, so called from a town in Auvergne, a learned French divine of the fourteenth century, entered the Dominican order, took a doctor’s degree at Paris, was master of the sacred palace, bishop of Puy in Velay, and afterwards bishop of Meaux, where he died in 1333. Durand was one of the most eminent divines of his age he left Commentaries on the four books of Sentence, Paris, 1550, 2 vols. fol. and “Trait de TOrigine des Jurisdictions,” 4to. He frequently combats the opinions of St. Thomas, being an adherent of Scotus, and displayed so much ingenuity in his disputes, as to be called the Most resolute Doctor. Although the Thomists could not conquer him in his life, one of the number contrived to dispose of him after death, in these lines:

, not Durand (GiLLEs), Sieur de la Bergerie, an eminent advocate to the parliament of Paris, is supposed, according to Pasquier, book xix. letter 15, to be the same who was one of the nine advocates commissioned by the court to reform the custom of Paris. He was also among the best poets before Malherbe, wrote odes, sonnets, elegies, &c. and translated, or imitated part of the Latin pieces written by his friend John Bounefons the father; under the title of, “Imitations tirees du Latin de Jean Bonnefons, avec autres amours et melanges poetiques,” 1727, 12mo. This work has gone through several editions. “The verses to his godmother on the decease of her ass, who died in the flower of his age during the siege of Paris, Tuesday, Aug. 28, 1590,” are esteemed a masterpiece in the ironical and sportive style. They may be found in the ingenious work, entitled, " Satyre MenipeeY* and in the works of Durant, 1594, 12mo. He was broken on the wheel, July 16, 1618, with two Florentine brothers of the house des patrices, for a libel against the king. Some, however, doubt if this is the same.

, son of a counsellor of the parliament of Toulouse, was advocate general, and afterwards appointed first president of the parliament by Henry III. in 1581, at the time when the fury of the league was at its height. Duranti opposed it with all his might; but was unable to restrain the factious either by threats or caresses. After having many times narrowly escaped death, once, as he was endeavouring to appease a tumult, one of the rebels killed him by a musket ball, on the 10th of February, 1589. While Duranti with uplifted hands was imploring heaven for his assassins, the people stabbed him in a thousand places, and dragged him by the feet to the place of execution. As there was no gibbet prepared, they tied his feet to the pillory, and nailed behind him the picture of king Henry III., accompanying their cruelties with every brutal insult to his lifeless remains. Such was his recompense for the pains he had taken the foregoing year to preserve Toulouse from the plague. To this piece of service may be added the foundation of the college of FEsquille, magnificently constructed by his orders; the establishment of two brotherhoods, the one to portion off poor girls, and the other for the relief of prisoners; and, many other acts of liberality to several young men of promising hopes, &c. The church of Rome too was no less obliged to him for his book “De ritibus ecclesioe,” which was thought so excellent by pope Sixtus V. that he had it printed at Rome, in 1591, folio. It has been falsely attributed to Peter Danes. The life of Duranti was published by Martel, in his Memoirs. The day after his death, Duranti was secretly buried at the convent of the Cordeliers; on which occasion he had no other cerecloth than the picture representing Henry III. that had been hung up with his body to the prllory. His heirs raised a monument to him, when the troubles were appeased.

, a learned divine in the seventeenth century, who wrote several pieces in vindication of the Church of England, was born at St. Helier’s in the Isle of Jersey, in 1625. About the end of 1640, he was entered of Merton-college in Oxford; but when that city came to be garrisoned for king Charles I. he retired into France: and, having studied for some time at Caen in Normandy, took the degree of master of arts, in the Sylvanian college of that place, on the 8th of July 1664. Then he applied himself to the study of divinity, for above two years, at Saumur, under the celebrated Amyrault, divinity reader in that Protestant university. In 1647 he returned to Jersey, and continued for some time until the reduction of that island by the parliament-forces in 1651, when on account of his being in the defence of it for the king, he was forced to withdraw, or rather was expelled thence. He then went to Paris, and received episcopal ordination in the chapel of sir Richard Browne, knt. his majesty’s resident in France, from the hands of Thomas, bishop of Galloway. From Paris, he removed to St. Malo’s, whence the reformed church of Caen invited him to be one of their ministers, in the absence of the learned Samuel Bochart, who was going into Sweden. Not long after, the landgrave of Hesse having written to the ministers of Paris, to send him a minister to preach in French at his highness’s court, he was by them recommended to that prince, but preferred being chaplain to the duke de la Force, father to the princess of Turenne; in which station he continued above eight years. Upon the restoration he came over to England, and was very instrumental in setting up the new episcopal French church at the Savoy in London, in which he officiated first on Sunday, 14 July, 1661, and continued there for some years after, much to the satisfaction of his hearers. In April 1663, he was made prebendary of North Auiton, in the cathedral of Salisbury, being then chaplain in ordinary to his majesty; and, the llth of February following, succeeded to a canonry of Windsor. On the 1st of July, 1668, he was installed into the fourth prebend of Durham, and had a rich donative conferred on him. The 28th of February, 1669-70, he was actually created doctor of divinity, by virtue of the chancellor’s letters. In 1677, king Charles II. gave him the deanery of Windsor, vacant by the death of Dr. Bruno Ryves, into which he was installed July 27. He had also the great living of Witney in Oxfordshire conferred on him, all which preferments he obtained, partly through his own qualifications, being not only a good scholar, but also “a perfect courtier, skilful in the arts of getting into the favour of great men;” and partly through his great interest with king Charles II., to whom he was personally known both in Jersey and France. Mr. Wood thinks, that, had he lived some years longer, he would undoubtedly have been promoted to a bishopric. He published several things; and, among the rest, 1. “The Liturgy of the Church of England asserted, in a Sermon, preached [in French] at the chapel of the Savov, before the French Congregation, which usually assembles in that place, upon the first day that divine service was there celebrated according to the Liturgy of the Church of England.” Translated into English by G. B. doctor in physic, Lond. 1662, 4to. 2. “A View of the Government and public Worship of God in the reformed churches of England, as it is established by the act of uniformity,” Lond. 1662, 4to. Exceptions having been made to this book by the nonconformists, partly m a book called “Apologia pro ministris trt Anglia (vulgo) noneonformistis,” by an anonymous author, supposed to be Henry Hickman, he published, 3. “Sanctae Ecclesise Anglicanao ad versus iniquas atque inverecundas Schismaticorum Criminationes, Vindiciae.” The presbyterians, taking great offence at it, published these answers: 1. “Bonasus Vapulans or some castigations given to Mr. John Durel for fouling himself and others in his English and Latin book,” Loud. 1672, 8vo, reprinted in 1676 under this title, “The Nonconformists vindicated from the Abuses put upon them by Mr. Durel and Mr. Scrivner.” 2. Dr. Lewis Du Moulin published also this answer thereto: “Patronus bonre fidei, in causa Puritanorum,” &c Lond. 1672, 8vo. Besides these, Dr. Durel published his “Theoremata philosophise,” consisting of some theses maintained at the university of Caen; a French and Latin edition of the Common Prayer Book; and a French translation of the Whole Duty of Man, partly written by his wife.

, a learned divine, and biblical critic, of the church of England, was a native of the island of Jersey, and probably a descendant of the preceding Dr. John Durel. That the Durells were a very respectable family in Jersey is evident from there being several persons of the name who received considerable promotions both in that island and in England during the reign of king George the Second. He was born in 1728, and after going through a proper course of grammatical education, was matriculated at the university of Oxford, and became a member of Pembroke college, where, on the 20th of June, 1753, he took the degree of master of arts. After this, he was chosen a fellow of Hertford college, and was admitted principal of the same, in 1757, in the room of Dr. William Sharp, who resigned that office, and was afterwards regius professor of Greek in the university, and rector of East-Hampstead in Berks. On the 23d of April, 1760, Mr. Durell took the degree of bachelor in divinity, and that of Doctor on the 14th of January, 1764. Previously to the taking his last degree, he published, in 1763, his first learned work, entitled, “The Hebrew text of the parallel prophecies of Jacob and Moses, relating to the Twelve Tribes; with a translation and notes: and the various lections of near forty Mss. To which are added, 1. The Samaritan Arabic version of those passages, and part of another Arabic version made from the Samaritan text, neither of which have been before printed. 2. A map of the Land of Promise. 3. An Appendix, containing four dissertations on points connected with the subject of these prophecies,” Oxford, 4to. In this work our author exhibited a valuable and decisive proof of his skill in Oriental literature, and of his capacity and judgment in elucidating the sacred Scriptures. In 1767, he was made a prebendary of Canterbury, in the room of Dr. Potter, who had resigned. The only remaining preferment, which Dr. Durell appears to have been possessed of, was the vicarage of Tysehurst in Sussex. In 1772, he gave a farther evidence of his great proficiency in biblical learning, by publishing “Critical remarks on the books of Job, Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Canticles,” Oxford, 4to, printed at the Clarendon press. In the preface to this performance, the author pleads for a new translation of the Bible. He intended to publish some remarks on the prophetic writings; but this design he was prevented from accomplishing, by his comparatively premature death, which happened when he was only forty-seven years of age. He died at his college, on the 19th of October, 1775, and was buried at St. Peter’s in the East, Oxford, where there is an inscription on his grave-stone, with his arms. By his last will, he bequeathed twenty pounds a-year, arising from money by him lent for the building of Oxford-market; one half of which sum is given to the principal of Hertford college; the other, to the two senior fellows. From all that we have heard concerning Dr. DurelPs character, we understand him to have been a gentleman of eminent piety and goodness.

, an eminent engraver and painter, descended from an Hongarian family, was born at Nuremberg May 20, 1471. Having made a slight beginning with a pencil in the shop of his father, who was a goldsmith, one Martin Hupse taught him a little of colouring and engraving. He was also instructed in arithmetic, perspective, and geometry and then undertook, at twenty-six years of age, to exhibit some of his works to the public. His first work was the three Graces, represented by three naked women, having over their heads a globe, in which was engraved the date of the year 1497. He engraved on wood the whole life and passion of Christ in thirty-six pieces, which were so highly esteemed, that Marc Antonio Franci copied them on copper, and so exactly, that they were thought to be Albert’s, and sold as such. Albert hearing of this, and receiving at the same time one of the counterfeit cuts, was so enraged, that he immediately went to Venice, and complained of Marc Antonio to the government; but obtained no other satisfaction, than that Marc Antonio should not for the future put Albert’s name and mark to his works.

As Durer did not make so much use of the pencil as the graver, few of his pictures are to be met with, except in the palaces of princes. His picture of Adam and Eve, in the palace at Prague, is one of the most considerable of his paintings, and Bullart, who relates this, adds, that there is still to be seen in the palace a picture of Christ bearing his cross, which the city of Nuremberg presented to the emperor; an adoration of the wise men; and two pieces of the Passion, that he made for the monastery at Francfort; an Assumption, the beauty of which was a good income to the monks, by the presents made to them for the sight of so exquisite a piece: that the people of Nuremberg carefully preserve, in the senators -hall, his portraits of Charlemagne, and some emperors of the house of Austria, with the twelve apostles, whose drapery is very remarkable: that he sent to Raphael his portrait of himself done upon canvass, without any colours or touch of the pencil, only heightened with shades and white, but with such strength and elegance, that Raphael was surprised at the sight of it; and that this excellent piece, coming afterwards into the hands of Julio Romano, was placed by him among the curiosities of the palace of Mantua.

The particular account which we find in Vasari of his engravings is curious; and it is no small compliment to him to have this Italian author own, that the prints of Durer, being brought to Italy, excited the painters there to perfect that part of the art, and served them for an excellent model. Vasari is profuse in his praises of Duivr’s delicacy, and the fertility of his imagination. As Durer could not hope to execute all his designs while he worked on copper, he bethought himself of working on wood. One of his best pieces in this style is a Saint Eustachius kneeling before a stag, which has a crucifix between its horns which cut, says Vasari, is wonderful, and particularly for the beauty of the dogs represented in various attitudes. John Valentine Andreas, a doctor in divinity in the duchy of Wirtemberg, sent this piece to a prince of the house of Brunswick; to whom the prince replied by letter, “You have extremely obliged me by your new present; a cut which merits a nobler metal than brass, done by the celebrated painter of Nuremberg, and which, I think, wants nothing, unless Zeuxis or Parrhasius, or some person equally favoured by Minerva, should add colours and the native form.” The praises which this same divine gave to Durer in his answer to the prince’s letter, are remarkable, and worth transcribing: “I could easily guess,” says he, “that the Eustachius of Durer would not prove an unacceptable present to you, from whatever hand a performance of that admirable artist came. It is very surprising in regard to that man, that, in a rude and barbarous age, he was the first of the Germans who not only arrived to an exact imitation of nature by the perfection of his art, but likewise left no second; being so absolute a master of it in all its parts, in etching, engraving, statuary, architecture, optics, symmetry, and the rest, that he had no equal, except Michel Angelo Buonaroti, his contemporary and rival; and left behind him such works as were too much for the life of one man. He lived always in a frugal manner, and with the appearance of poverty. The Italians highly esteem him, and reproach us for not setting a due value on the ornaments of our own country.” We learn from the same authority, that the emperor Rodolphus II. ordered the plate of St. Eustachius to be gilded; and that Durer, at the intimation of his friend and patron Bilibaldus Pirkheimer, corrected an error in it, which was, that the stirrups of the horse on which Eustachius was to ride, were too short.

The emperor Maximilian had a great affection for Durer, treated him with a particular regard, and gave him a good pension and letters of nobility; and Charles V. and his brother Ferdinand, king of Hungary, followed Maximilian’s example in favour and liberality to him. This eminent man died at Nuremberg, on April 6, 1523, and was interred in the church-yard at St. John’s church, where his good friend Pirkheimer placed a very honourable sepulchral inscription to him. He was married, and had a shrew for his wife, while others relate, that, in painting the Virgin Mary, he took her face for his model it is not impossible that both these accounts may be true, and it is very certain that she embittered his life. He Was a man of most agreeable conversation, and a lover of mirth; yet he was virtuous and wise, and, to his honour be it said, never employed his art in obscene representations, which was too much the fashion of his times.

Albert Durer wrote several books in the German language, which were translated into Latin by other persons, and published after his death, viz. 1. His book upon the rules of painting, entitled “De Symmetria Partium in rectis formis Humanorum Corporum,” printed in folio, at Nuremberg, in 1532, and at Paris in 1557. An Italian Version also was published at Venice, in 1591. 2. “Institutiones Geometries,” Paris, 1532. 3. “De Urbibus, Arcibus, Castellisque condendis & muniendis,” Paris, 1531. 4. <c De Varietate Figurarum, et Flexuris Partium, et Gestibus Imaginum," Nuremberg, 1534. The figures in these books, which are from wooden plates, are very numerous, and most admirably well executed, indeed, far beyond any thing of the kind done in our own days. Some of them also are of a very large size, as much as 16 inches in length, and of a proportional breadth, which being exquisitely worked, must have cost great labour. His geometry is chiefly of the practical kind, consisting of the most curious descriptions, inscriptions, and circumscriptions of geometrical lines, planes, and solids. We here meet, for the first time, with the plane figures, which folded up make the five regular or platonic bodies, as well as that curious construction of a pentagon, being the last method in prob. 23 of Hutton’s Mensuration.

The incidents of Albert Durer’s life have been variously represented, and modern critics have entertained various opinions of his skill. Referring to our authorities for some of these, we shall conclude this article with what has been advanced by his latest critic, Mr. Fuseli. He seems, says this artist, to have had a general capacity, not only for every branch of his art, but for every science that stood in some relation with it. He was perhaps the best engraver of his time. He wrote treatises on proportion, perspective, geometry, civil and military architecture. He was a man of extreme ingenuity, without being a genius. He studied, and as far as his penetration reached, established rtain proportions of the human frame, but he did not invent or compose a permanent standard of style. Every work of his is a proof that he wanted the power of imitation; of concluding from what he saw, to what he did not see; that he copied rather than imitated the forms of individuals, and tacked deformity and meagreness to fulness, and sometimes to beauty. Such is his design. In composition, copious without taste, anxiously precise in parts, and unmindful of the whole, he has rather shewn us what to avoid than what to follow: in conception he sometimes had a glimpse of the sublime, but it was only a glimpse. Such is the expressive attitude of his Christ in the Garden, and the figure of Melancholy as the Mother of Invention. His Knight attended by Death and the Fiend, is more capricious than terrible, and his Adam and Eve are two common models, hemmed in by rocks. If he approached genius in any part of the art, it was in colour. His colour went beyond his age, and in easel-pictures, as far excelled the oil-colour of Raphael for juice and breadth, and handling, as Raphael excels him in every other quality. His drapery is broad, though much too angular, and rather snapt than folded. Albert is called the Father of the German school, and if numerous copyists of his faults can confer that honour, he was. That the exportation of his works to Italy should have effected a temporary change in the principles of some Tuscan artists, in Andrea del Sarto and Jacopo da Pontormo, who had studied Michel Angelo, is a fact which proves that minds at certain periods may be as subject to epidemic influence, as bodies.

, born of a noble family at Beaug6-laville, in Brescia, then belonging to the duke of Savoy, in 1527, was among the most famous physicians of his time, and practised his art at Paris with great reputation, during the reigns of Charles IX. and Henry III. to whom he was physician in ordinary. He came to Paris very young, without money or friends, yet soon acquired distinction in his studies of the belles Jettres and medicine, and when he had taken his doctor’s degree in the latter faculty, acquired great practice; a very advantageous marriage served to introduce him at court, and to the appointment of professor of medicine. Henry Til who had a singular esteem and affection for him, granted him a pension of four hundred crowns of gold, with survivance to his five sons; and, as a mark of his condescension, was present at the marriage of his daughter, to whom he made presents to a considerable amount. Duret died Jan. 22, 1586, at the age of fifty-nine. He was firmly attached to the doctrine of Hippocrates, and treated medicine in the manner of the ancients. Of several books that he left, the most esteemed is a “Commentaire sur les Coaques d'Hippocrate,” Paris, 1621, Gr. and Lat. folio. He died before he had put the finishing hand to this work. John Duret, his son, revised it, and gave it to the public under this title, “Hippocratis magni Coacte praenotiones: opus admirabile, in tres libros distributum, interprete et enarratore L. Dureto.” John Duret followed his father’s profession with great success, and died in 1629., aged sixty-six.

D‘Urfey (Thomas), an author, more generally spoken of by the familiar name of Tom, was descended from an ancient family in France. His parents, being protestants, fled from Rochelle before it was besieged by Lewis XIII. in 1628, and settled at Exeter, where this their son was born, but in what year is uncertain. He was originally bred to the law; but soon finding that profession too saturnine for his volatile and lively genius, he quitted it, to become a devotee of the muses; in which he met with no small success. His dramatic pieces, which are very numerous, were in general well received: yet, within thirty years after his death, there was not one of them on the muster-roll of acting plays; that licentiousness of intrigue, looseness of sentiment, and indelicacy of wit, which were their strongest recommendations to the audiences for whom they were written, having very justly banished them from the stage in the periods of purer taste. Yet are they very far from being totally devoid of merit. The plots are in general busy, intricate, and entertaining; the characters are not ill drawn, although rather too farcical, and the language, if not perfectly correct, yet easy and well adapted for the dialogue of comedy. But what obtained Mr. D’Urfey his greatest reputation, was a peculiarly happy knack he possessed in the writing of satires and irregular odes. Many of these were upon temporary occasions, and were of no little service to the party in whose cause he wrote; which, together with his natural vivacity and good humour, obtained him the favour of great numbers of all ranks and conditions, monarchs themselves not excluded. He was strongly attached to the tory interest, and in the latter part of queen Anne’s reign had frequently the honour of diverting that princess with witty catches and songs of humour, suited to the spirit of the times, written by himself, and which he sung in a lively and entertaining manner. And the author of the Guardian, who, in No. 67, has given a very humorous account of Mr. D‘Urfey, with a view to recommend him to the public notice for a benefitplay, tells us, that he remembered king Charles II. leaning on Tom D’Urfey’s shoulder more than once, and humming over a song with him. He used frequently to reside with the earl of Dorset at Knole; where a picture of him, painted by stealth, is still to be seen.

He appears to have been a diverting companion, and a cheerful, honest, good-natured man; so that he was the delight of the most polite companies and conversations, from the beginning of Charles II.‘s to the latter part of king George’s I.’s reign; and many an honest gentleman got a reputation in his county by pretending to have been in company with Tom D'Urfey. Yet he shared the fate of those whose only merit is to contribute to merriment, and towards the latter part of his life he stood in need of assistance, to prevent his passing the remainder of it in a cage, like a singing-bird for, to speak in his own words, “after having written more odes than Horace, and about four times as many comedies as Terence, he found himself reduced to great difficulties by the importunities of a set of men, who of late years had furnished him v\ith the accommodations of life, and would not, as we say, be paid with a song.” Mr. Addison informs us, that, in order to extricate him from these difficulties, he himself immediately applied to the directors of the play-house, who very generously agreed to act “The Plotting Sisters,” a play of Mr. D'Urfey’s, for the benefit of its author. What the result of this benefit was, does not appear; but it was probably sufficient to make him easy, as we find him living and continuing to write with the same humour and liveliness to the time of his death, which happened Feb. 26, 1723. What was his age at this time, is not certainly specified any where; but he must have been considerably advanced in life, his first play, which could scarcely have been written before he was twenty years of age, having made its appearance forty-seven years before. He was buried in the church-yard of St. James’s, Westminster.

Those who have a curiosity to see his ballads, sonnets, &c. may find a large number of them in six volumes, 12mo, entitled “Pills to purge Melancholy,” of which the Guardian, in No. 29, speaks in very favourable terms, although his muse was certainly not of a very high order. The titles of his dramatic pieces (thirty-one in number) may be found in the Biographia Dramatica.