BOTANICAL INVESTIGATION IN MIDDLESEX. 377 



such treatise was ever published, but a MS. in Doody's hand (Sloane MSS. 

 231.5) in the British Museum seems to be a rough draught of it. 



In 1693, Doody undertook, at a salary of 100^. per annum, the care and 

 expenses of the Apothecaries Society's garden at Chelsea, in the room of 

 Mr. John Watts. It is probable that he continued the management till his 

 death.* He does not seem to have married. 



His fame as a cryptogamic botanist steadily increased. In 1695 he was 

 elected a F.R.S., and the following year, on the appearance of the second 

 edition of the Synopsis, his diligence was made known to the world by the 

 long list of new plants and localities which he contributed to its pages, and 

 his accuracy vouched for by the deserved praise of Eay. The mosses continued 

 to occupy the most part of his attention. Buddie says in 1698, that Doody 

 knew them 'the best of any man ;' and there is no doubt that he was in this 

 aspect, as Pulteney terms him, ' the Dillenius of his time.' But into his 

 labours in this field we cannot follow him. In phanerogamic botany we 

 shall find that he has contributed much that is new. 



For the next ten years he continued to botanise about town, his companions 

 being frequently his friends Buddie and Petiver, and entered his remarks 

 and discoveries in a copy of ed. ii. of the Synopsis, which still exists. There 

 are several letters in Sloane MSS. 4043, written by him at this time to 

 Petiver and Sloane, but they contain little of interest. 



He mentions that he suffered much from gout, and it may have been of 

 this malady, in one of its forms, that in 1706, at fifty years of age, he died. 

 He was buried at Hampstead on December 3,t where his funeral sermon 

 was preached by Buddie. Of this interesting discourse a part, viz. ' all that 

 related to him and Botany,' may be found in Sloane MSS. 2972. 



In this sermon Buddie says that Doody ' was in Botany very particular, 

 very singular, none before him ever knew so much ; ' and again, ' every 

 botanist cannot be a Doody,' which remarks show the very high opinion in 

 which he was held by his contemporaries. 



Of his character some idea may be formed from the following extract, 

 also from Buddie's sermon. He was ' very slow of speech, even in his 

 mother tongue, and at fii-st sight you would take him to be of as little sense 

 as eloquence .... he generally wanted words to express his wisdom, but 

 when he did or could exert himself, his discourse was always full of argu- 

 ment and sound reasoning, plain and improving. . . . His notions of God 

 and religion were very sublime .... his faith was orthodox. ... His 

 probity and integrity were visible in all his actions .... the plainness and 

 simplicity of his soul were very conspicuous.' Buddie adds that poor Doody 

 had ' a vice, which .... he seemed industriously to make known, and in- 

 deed it was very notorious, whilst his virtues, like his learning, lay hid to 

 all but his particular friends and acquaintances.' From various considera- 

 tions, it seems not unlikely that the ' vice ' in question was an over-fondness 

 for the bottle. 



» Field's Memoirs of the Botankk Garden at Chelsea, pp. 1.5-18. 



t In the parish register the entry is ' Samuel Dooty— from London.' 



