TTte Dance of Death. 151

person as before, making his complaint, accompanied byseveral other persons at the feet of Death, sorrowfullydeposing the attributes of their respective conditions, andat the head of them a Pope kneeling with one knee on theground. The third cut has two figures of Death, one ofwhich, on foot, mows down several boys and girls ; theother is on horseback, and pursues some cavaliers, againstwhom he shoots his arrows. The fourth cut is in twocompartments, the upper representing, as before, a mancomplaining to Death seated on a throne with a crown onhis head. Below, on the spectator's left hand, is a con-vent whence several monks are issuing towards a gardenencircled with hurdles, in which is a tree laden with fruit,by the side of a river; a woman is seen crowning a childwith a chaplet, near whom stands another female in con-versation with a young man. M. Camus, in the course ofhis description of this cut, has fallen into a very ludicrouserror. He mistakes the very plain and obvious gate of thegarden for a board, on which, he says, " Several charactersare engraved which may be meant to signify the arts andsciences , none of 7vhich are competent to protection against theattacks of Death? These supposed characters, however,are nothing more than the flowered hinges, ring or knockerand lock of the door, which stands ajar. The fifth cut isdescribed as follows, and probably with greater accuracythan in M. Camus, by Dr. Dibdin, from a single leaf ofthis very curious work in the " Bibliotheca Spenceriana,"vol. i. p. 104, accompanied with a copy of part of it only:—"Above the figures there seen sits the Almighty upon athrone, with an attendant angel on each side. He isputting the forefinger of his left hand into the centre of hisright, and upon each of the hands is an eye, denoting, Ipresume, the omniscience of the Deity." The fac-similecut partly corresponds with M. Camus's description ofDeath, and the complainant before Christ seated on athrone in a heaven interspersed with stars. The abovefourth cut among these is on a single leaf in the possessionof the author, which had Dr. Dibdin seen, he would nothave introduced M. Camus's erroneous account of it, whohas also referred to Heinecken's "Idee," &c. p. 276. whereJt certainly is not in the French edition ot 1771, ovo.