ch of science. Among the earliest benefactors were, Robert Devereux, earl of Essex Thomas Sackville, lord Buckhurst and earl of Dorset Robert Sidney, lord Sidney of Penshurst
It would requirea volume to enumerate the many important additions made to the Bodleian library by its numerous benefactors, or to give even a superficial sketch of its ample contents in every branch of science. Among the earliest benefactors were, Robert Devereux, earl of Essex Thomas Sackville, lord Buckhurst and earl of Dorset Robert Sidney, lord Sidney of Penshurst viscount Lisle and earl of Leicester; George Carey,- lord Hunsdon William Gent, esq. Anthony Browne, viscount Montacute John lord Lumley Philip Scudamore, of London, esq. and Lawrence Bodley, younger brother to the founder. All these contributions were made before the year 16 Oo. In 1601, collections of books and manuscripts were presented by Thomas Allen, some time fellow of Trinity college Thomas James, first librarian Herbert Westphaling, bishop of Hereford sir John Fortescue, knt. Alexander Nowell, dean of St. Paul’s John Crooke, recorder of London, and chief justice of the Common Pleas and Nicholas Bond, D. D. president of Magdalen college. The most extensive and prominent collections, however, are those of the earl of Pembroke, Mr. Selden, archbishop Laud, sir Thomas Roe, sir Kenelm Digby, general Fairfax, Dr. Marshall, Dr. Barlow, Dr. Rawlinson, Mr. St. Amand, Dr. Tanner, Mr. Browne Willis, T. Hearne, and Mr. Godwin. The last collection bequeathed, that of the late eminent and learned antiquary, Richard Gough, esq. is perhaps the most perfect series of topographical science ever formed, and is particularly rich in topographical manuscripts, prints, drawings, and books illustrated by the manuscript notes of eminent antiquaries. Since 1780, a fund of more than 4001. a year has been esablished for the purchase of books. This arises from a small addition to the matriculation fees, and a moderate contribution annually from such members of the university as are admitted to the use of the library, or on their taking their first degree.
, lord Buckhurst and earl of Dorset, an eminent statesman and poet,
, lord Buckhurst and earl of
Dorset, an eminent statesman and poet, was born at Withyam in Sussex, in 1527. He was the son of sir Richard
Sackville, who died in 1566, by Winifred Brydges (afterwards marchioness of Winchester), and grandson of John
Sackville, esq. who died in 1557, by Anne Boleyne, sister
of sir Thomas Boleyne, earl of Wiltshire and great grandson of Richard Sackviiie, esq. who died in 1524, by Isabel,
daughter of John Digges, of Digues 1 s place in Barham,
Kent, of a family which for many succeeding generations
produced men of learning and genius. He was first of the
university of Oxford, and, as it is supposed, of Hart-hall,
now Hertford-college; but taking no degree there, he removed to Cambridge, where he commenced master of arts,
and afterwards was a student of the Inner Temple. At
both universities he became celebrated both as a Latin and
English poet, and carried the same taste and talents to the
Temple, where he wrote his tragedy of “Gorboduc,
” which
was exhibited in the great hall by the students of that society, as part of a Christmas entertainment, and afterwards
before queen Elizabeth at Whitehall^ Jan. 18, 1561. It
was surreptitiously printed in 1563, under the title of
“The Tragedy of Gorboduc,
” 4to; but a correct edition
under the inspection of the authors (for he was assisted by Thomas Norton), appeared in 1571, entitled “The Tragedie of Ferrex and Porrex.
” Another edition appeared
in the dawn of our English poetry was in Chaucer’s time,
but that it shone out in him too bright all at once to last
long. The succeeding age was dark and overcast. There
was indeed some glimmerings of genius again in Henry
VIII's time but our poetry had never what could be called
a fair settled day-light till towards the end of queen Elizabeth’s reign. It was between these two periods, that lord
Buckhurst wrote; after the earl of Surrey, and before
Spenser.
” Warton’s opinion of this tragedy is not very
favourable. He thinks it never was a favourite with our
ancestors, and fell into oblivion on account of the nakedness anil uninteresting nature of the plot, the tedious
length of the speeches, the want of discrimination of character, and almost a total absence of pathetic or critical
situations. Yet he allows that the language of “Gorboduc
” has great merit and perspicuity, and that it is entirely free from the tumid phraseology of a subsequent age
of play-writing.