208 
To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 
SIR, > 
HEN enjoying the ferene and de- 
lightful weather laft Sunday afford- 
ed, in the ficlds near my own houfe, my 
attention was fuddenly arrefted by the ex- 
traordinary appearance of what is called 
goffamer. . The whole furface of the grafs 
was overlaid with innumerable filvery 
hairs from one blade to another, which 
were perceptible only betweenthe obferver 
and the declining fun. The effeét, as vi- 
brating with the breeze, was beautiful, 
and reminded me of the line of light re- 
ficQed by the moon on the furface of a 
placid fea. I fkirted the field (of eleven 
acres), and crofied it in every dire&tion ; 
it was uniformly the fame, even to a piece 
of ground (about an acre) which was dry 
on the preceding day ; thence proving 
clearly that the work was completed in a 
fingle night. I fhould moft certainly have 
purfued my obfervations in the adjoining 
fields ; but fo delicate was the texture of 
this net-work, that without the fun it was 
imperceptible, and that was now down.— 
That 1 am indebted toa little infeé&t for 
this fingular and beautiful phenomenon, 
T guefs will be the general opinion ; but 
is it not almoft incredible, that fo labo- 
Fious a bufinefs fhouid be thus accomplifhe 
ed? And why fhould thefe creatures be fo 
remarkably active onthat particular night? 
There is a very entertaining account of 
an appearance in fome refpeéts fimilar, ob- 
ferved by Mr. White, in page 323, vol. i. 
of his Natural Hiftory of Selborne. His 
narrative is even fore furpriling ; but 
as, in moft refpe&s, it 1s diffeient, the 
very ingenious conjezture he-has formed 
will not apply, thovgh dcubtlefs both ef- 
festsorig iy ated in the fame caufe. 
Iam, &c. W.B. 
Near Guildford, Feb. 12, 1805. 
EE 
To the Editor of tbe Monthly Magazine. 
= 
SIR, 
f HE little work quoted by Academi- 
a cus (pay ©, No. 125}, was repub- 
dithed in 1732, ier the title of Microcoi- 
mography , @, a Piece of the World 
diicovered in Efiays and Charatters.— 
The pretace mentions * fix editions between 
41628. and A533, without any author’s 
name to recommend it.” The author is 
reprelented to have been ** Dr. John 
Earle, of Chrift Church and Merton Col, 
leges, Oxford, tutor to Prince Charles in 
1643,elected cne of. the Afianbly of Di- 
vines, but refufed to act, and fucceflively: 
Bithop oF W orceiier and Salifbury 5 a very 
5 
Goffamer.—Bifhop Earle—Mr. B, Hollis. 
~ 
fApril 15 © 
genteel man, yet religious, and 2 con= 
temner of the world ; in his youth an ex- 
cellent oratorand poet, in his ~edvanced 
years an admirable preacher and diiputant.,, 
He attended the Court when they retired 
to Oxford from tHe plague, and died there 
Nov. 17, 1665, in the 65th year of his 
age.” 
The Microcofmography was allo re- 
printed at Salifbury in 1786, with the 
omiffion of a few of the charaéters and the 
preface, but with an advertifement refer- 
ring to Walton's Life of Hooker (p. 215) 
and Wood’s Athen. Oxon. (v. ii.) for an 
account of Bifhop Earle and his perfor- 
mance. Ina copy of this edition which 
belonged to the late Mr. Wakefield, he 
has written the following judgment of 
thefe Efflays—that they are—‘* after the 
manner of Theophraftus ; and with an 
execution at leaft equal to their exemplar.” 
I am forry to find, by the poftfcript to 
Mr. Capel Lofft’s letter (page 34), that 
the article in your obituary which ecca= 
fioned my former letter, was written by 
that gentleman, from whom I could not 
differ upon any fubjeét without great re- 
luétance. I am quite unacquainted with 
Mr. Lofft's fources of information on the 
point in queftion. My own information 
was derived from the aflurances of Mr. 
Wakefield’s family, an intimate know- 
ledge of his concerns during the period 
of his acquaintance with the late Mr. 
Brand Hollis, and an examination of his’ 
letters and papers, in conjunétion with: 
my friend Mr. Arnold Wainewright, for . 
the purpofe of our publication of his Me- 
moirs. On thefe authorities I have been 
confident that Mr. Hollis never had the 
Jeaft claim to be confidered as a patron of 
Mr. Wakefield’s literary labours, which I 
naturally fuppofe to be intended by being 
“© a fubfcriber to his works,’ when this is: 
ftated as a fa€t worthy of public memo- 
rial. If; -however, your valuable corre- 
fpondent fhould ftill believe his account 
to be * fubftantiatly and literally”’ exa&, 
and will name any competent authority for 
attributing to his friend fuch an honour. 
able diftinétion, I thal] moft readily acknow- 
ledge myielf correétgd. Indeed I fhali be 
obliged to Mr. Lofft4er no {mall gvatifi- 
cation, if he can authorize me to confider 
a departed acquaintance as a greater pro- 
ficient in that fcience of rare attainment, 
“‘ the ufe of riches,” than I ever appre- 
hended from perfonal ob’e vation of the 
late Mr. Hollis, or the "or oreing opinion 
of all his affociates whom’ 1 have heard 
mention the fubje&, . 
Requefting 
