30 
Mac Encrocy Author of Connuhia Floriim, [Aug. 
il, towards the end of which we read, 
“ Haec esse (iuxi praemittenda, Dionvsi 
frater — ut horis subsecivis, si quas tainen 
trbi faciunt reliquas cnrae, in quibus jam 
consenulsti, sacerdotales, ad manus lia- 
bens/’ &c. , 
The.poet was a warm Irishman. Ilis 
exclusive compliment to his countrymen, 
wfiile he pays *.one to other foreigners, 
is a clear pi-oofuf Ids patriotism. 
“ Mille aderant rnedici variis e finibus orbis, 
pulque Istrum Tanaimuue bibunt, Tame- 
siinque, Tagumque, 
Et misti Suecis Itidi, Erigenaeque frequentes, 
iAere genus beilo, studiis genus acre Minervae, 
Devotumqae mori pro rege fideque tuendis.” 
V. 4b8, seqq. 
He alludes to hi^ exile, v, 476 : 
Gallia perfugium exilii et spes ultima re¬ 
gum.” 
He was a native of Munster, In which 
province the name ]\Iac Encroe is very 
common, and does not forget to mention 
it: - 
^'Momoniae in pratis LiraericI moenia propter.” 
V.240. 
In Sir Richard Clayton’s edition of 
this poem, Bath, 1791, taken from that 
©f Paris, 1728, the slrangest confusion 
.and raisrepresc^ntation occur with regard 
to the autlior’s name, country, connex- 
iotis, and poems. In the title page he 
1ms, “ AuctoreX). de la Croix;” now Hal¬ 
ler mentions the Ppris edition under the 
.head of J. (tiiat is John) de la Croix. In 
his preface Sir Richard says, “ Auctorfuit 
I), de ia Croix, jM,D. — Uidcus, prout 
-scio, sui ingeidi foetus, quern nobis reli- 
quic, omissk quibusdam epigrammatibus, 
quae in Praefatiune Vaillanti Botan. 
Paris, occiirrunt.” To unravel this maze, 
1 must observe, tliat in the preface to 
Vaillant’s work, after the epistle, De 
Connubiis. ^c. which is signed Mac 
Encroe, Hibernus; there are a few- epi¬ 
grams, two ofwldch are signed Demetrius 
de la Croix. Among these epigrams is 
one signed Nedson, Hibernus, M.D. 
How could Sir Richard have supposed 
or su.spected, that Mac Encroe and thijs 
Dr. Demetrius were the same person ? 
M ac Encroe was a much gteater prmt 
than poor Demetrius. Let the reader 
judge from his'second epigram, which I 
give as being the shortest: 
*‘Fioreu‘i hie liberest, hoc Hbru Flora superbit; 
Et dici possit Eibliocheca Deae ; 
Quantum gens florum gemniantibus eminet 
arvis, 
Tartuffi inter llhra emir.et ie'e liber. 
Notwithstanding this confusion, Sir 
Richard quotes the following passage of 
a letter of Dr. Atterbury’s, “ I have 
sent you six copies of a Latin poem, writ 
by an Irishman, here a< Paris, which, in 
some parts of it, is excellent, and ap¬ 
proaches very near to the manner of the 
versification ofVirgil’s Georgies.” — Letter 
to Mr. Morice\ Atterhury& Correspond 
deuce, vol. iv. 167. 
Theie is still greater confusion in Srr 
Richard’s note to v. i. “ Hujusce poeraa- 
tis”’ he says, “ maxima pars extat in 
praefatione Vaillanti Botqn. Parisis. 
quod mecum communicavit eruditissimu* 
T. Velley, et, quodmirari restat, sub no- 
mine Mac En Croix. Epigrammata D. 
de la Croix sequuntur, quae inemoravi, 
Vaillanti Botan. Paris, prrjdiit Londin, 
1723; Connubia Florum Parisiis, 1728; 
sed utrum I^Iac EtV Croix fraternis colo- 
ribus splendere voluit, vel D. de la Croix, 
fratris opusculum auxit, et de novo re- 
finxit, dubitare admodum licet. Sic 
equidem res se habet; de ea iudicet 
lector.” 
But truly the matter is not so. Short 
as this note is, it is full of inaccuracies ; 
and 1 can scarcely believe, that Sir Ri¬ 
chard saw Vaillant’s work, although he 
says that it was communicated to him by 
Mr. Velley, and I suspect, that what he 
states with such confidence was taken 
upon the word of that Frenchman, wh» 
.wisiied to make our poet appear as a 
countryman of his own. In the first 
place it was wrong to state, that the 
greatest part of the poem is in the pre¬ 
face to Vaillant’s' work, as if what is 
there given were a fragment of the entire 
poem. He ought to have said, that the 
poem, as it first fell from the author, is 
in that preface, and that, having been 
afterwards improved and augmented, it 
was published separately in 1728. In the 
second place'be says, that it appears in 
the preface under the name of Mac En 
Croix. But the fact is, that the name 
is written, Mac Encroe, and that in ca¬ 
pitals, with the addition Hibernus, &c. 
Then Sir Richard tells us, that Vaiilant’g 
Botanicon was published at London, in 
1723. He was quite mistaken. The 
Botanicon, in the preface to which is 
ine poem, was not published until the 
year 1727, when, through the exertions 
of Dr. Sherard (ot wliom seesaid preface, 
and Pulteney’s “ Sketches of Botany,” 
V. ii. p. 147,) and the celebrated Boec- 
haave, it came out at Leyden and Am- 
steroam. Boerliaave had already pub¬ 
lished the lProdro?niis to Vaiilant’s great 
« ork^ 
