[259] In the introduction to this volume Motteux says that Sir Thomas Urquhart was "a learned physician." It is difficult to understand what could have given rise to such a statement. Sir Thomas had many projects for the benefit of the human race, but there is no evidence of his ever having cherished that of combating disease. One cannot help thinking of the magniloquent terms in which he would have extolled his remedies, if the fates had led him to the concoction of patent medicines. It is doubtful, however, whether he would have had what is technically known as "a good bed-side manner." It is quite possible that Motteux simply meant that Sir Thomas was well acquainted with medical science, and not that he was a physician by profession. Yet his words have often been understood as asserting the latter. Thus we find the erroneous statement in Granger's _Biographical Dictionary_, the Amsterdam (1741) edition of Rabelais, and Sir John Hawkins' _Life of Johnson_, p. 294. [260] Both Ozell and Motteux figure in Pope's _Dunciad_, in i. 296, and ii. 412, respectively. APPENDICES I. PRIMITIVE FATHERS AND MOTHERS OF THE NAME OF URQUHART. II. THE ADMIRABLE CRICHTON. APPENDIX I THE NAMES OF THE CHIEFS OF THE NAME OF URQUHART, AND OF THEIR PRIMITIVE FATHERS; as by Authentick Records and Tradition they were from time to time through the various Generations of that Family successively conveyed, till the present yeer 1652 (p. 143). The ancestors of Sir Thomas, for whose existence there is evidence apart from his assertions, are indicated by their names being printed in italics. If the editor of the _Tracts_ (1774) were to believed, the italics would have to begin with George, No. 138 in the list. The fact that the names in this list are more numerous than those in the list which follows, is to be explained by brothers succeeding each other occasionally, when there was no son to inherit the dignity of chieftainship.