WOBO: Search for words and phrases in the texts here...

Before concluding our article, it may be necessary to advert to some particulars of Mr. Evelyn’s history, which are interspersed in his “Sylva,” and could not well be incorporated in our sketch. From that work we learn, that the true signification of his surname, Evelyn, written anciently Avelan or Evelin, was filberd, or rather hazel, which gives him occasion to remark, that these trees are commonly produced where quarries of free-stone lie underneath, as at Hazelbury in Wiltshire, Haslingfield in Cambridgeshire, and Haslemere in Surrey. He more than once remarks, that his grandfather was a great planter and preserver of timber, as it seems were the ancient possessors of the place where he lived, whence it acquired its name of Wotton (i. e.) Woodtown, from the groves and plantations that were about it. He farther remarks, that there was an oak felled by his grandfather’s order, out of which there was a table made, measured by himself more than once, of five feet in breadth, nine and a half in length, and six inches thick, all entire and clear. It was set up in brick-work for a pastry-board; and, to fit it for that use, it was shortened by a foot, being originally ten feet and a half, as appeared from an inscription cut in one of its sides, whence it appeared to have lain there above one hundred years, when pur author wrote this description. When his grandfather’s woods were cut down, which consisted entirely of cak, they sprang up again, not oaks but beeches; and when these too in their turn felt the axe, there arose spontaneously a third plantation, not of oak or beech, but of birch, which he does not set down as a thing singular in itself, but because it happened under his own eye. He is a declared enemy to iron works, on account of their destroying woods; yet he observes, from the prudential maxims prevailing in his own family, they had quite a contrary effect, as being one principal cause of their making such large plantations, and taking so much pains about them. It was a relation of his that sold Richmond new park to kiug Charles I. after planting many fine trees there. Our author carried this disposition with him to Sayes-court, where he must have shewn it very early, since be assures us that the marquis of Argyle presented him with the cones of a peculiar kind of fir, which he takes to be the Spanish pinaster, or wild pine, and gives a very particular account of the manner in which they grew in the marquis’s county in Scotland. He informs us, that it was the lord chancellor Bacon who introduced the true plane tree, which he planted originally about Verulam, whence he had his title. Mr. Evelyn takes to himself the honour of having propagated the alaternus from Cheshire to Cumberland, which was before reputed an inhabitant only of the green-house, but is found very capable not only of living without doors, but of standing unhurt by the rigour of our severest winters. He mentions a most glorious and impenetrable holly-hedge which he had at Sayes-court^ four hundred feet in length, nine feet high, and five in diameter, which occasions his dropping a hint, that the fine gardens he had raised there were wholly ruined by the tzar of Muscovy, who it seems lived there for the sake of being near the yard. He recommended Mr. Gibbons, the carver, to king Charles II. by whom some exquisite works were performed in St. Paul’s cathedral. He was likewise consulted by the Bedford family about preserving their fine trees, so long as the gardens were kept up about Bedford-house, which, before the last edition of his book, were demolished, to make way for the new buildings about Bloomsbury. He takes notice of an admirable remedy for a dysentery, which had been otherwise, in all probability, buried in oblivion; and this is the fungous substance separated from the lobes of walnut kernels, powdered and given in a glass of wine, which, he affirms, relieved the English soldiers in the famous Dundalk campaign in Ireland, soon after the revolution, when all other remedies failed. He was acquainted with the conde Mellor, a Portuguese nobleman, who resided some time at the court of king Charles II. when an exile from his own, by whom he was informed, that his father, when prime-minister, as himself had likewise been, received in a case a collection of plants of china oranges, of which only one escaped, and was with difficulty recovered; and yet from this plant came all the china oranges that ever were seen in Europe, which, our author observes, is a most noble and wonderful instance of what industry may do from the slightest and least promising beginnings. One instance of the vast advantages derived from woods we shall borrow, because the facts are notorious and indisputable. “Upon the estate of George Pitt, esq. of Stratfield-Say, in the county of Southampton, a survey of timber being taken in 1659, it came to ten thousand three hundred pounds, besides near ten thousand samplers not valued, and growing up naturally. Since this there hath been made by several sales, five thousand six hundred pounds, and there has been felled for repairs, building, and necessary uses, to the value, at the least, of twelve hundred pounds; so as the whole falls of timber amount to six thousand eight hundred pounds. The timber upon the same ground being again surveyed anno 1677, appears to be worth above twenty-one thousand pounds, besides eight or nine thousand samplers and young trees to be left standing, and not reckoned in the survey. But, what is yet to be observed, most of this timber abovementioned being oak, grows in hedge-rows, and so as that the standing of it does very little prejudice to the plough or pasture.” To conclude: this worthy person, who was born in a town famous for wood, who derived from his ancestors an affection for plantations, who wrote the most correct treatise of forest-trees extant in our own, or perhaps in any language, and who was himself a most eminent planter, had a strong desire, after the example of sir William Temple, who directed his heart to be deposited in his garden, to have his corpse also interred in the like manner; but very probably he was prevailed upon to alter his mind afterwards, notwithstanding what he had expressed upon that subject in his book; which shews how warm and lasting that passion for improvement was in his own breast, which, with so much learning, eloquence, and success, he laboured to excite in the bosoms of his countrymen.

“The sixth of December, 1631, being in the gulph of Volo riding at anchor about ten of the clock that night, it began to rain sand or ashes, and continued till two of the clock the next morning. It was about two inches thick on the deck, so that we cast it overboard with shovels, as we did snow the day before: the quantity of a bushel we brought home, and presented to several friends, especially to the masters of Trinity-house. There were in our company capt. John Wilds, commander of the Dragon, and capt. Anthony Watts, commander of the Elizabeth and Dorcas. There was no wind stirring when these ashes fell: it did not fall only in the places where we were, but likewise in other parts, as ships were coming from St. John d'Acre to our port, they being at that time an hundred leagues from us. We compared the ashes together, and found them both one. If you desire to see the ashes, let me know.” In the spring of 1670, our author communicated in a letter to the lord viscount Brouncker, a large and circumstantial account of a very singular and extraordinary invention by a person of rank, called the Spanish Sembrador, or new engine for ploughing and equal sowing all sorts of grain, and harrowing at once: by which a great quantity of seed-corn is saved, and a rich increase yearly gained; together with a description of the contrivance and uses of this engine. The description of this machine, translated from the Spanish into English, is of a considerable length, and therefore we refer the reader to it in the Transactions, No. 21. The chief reason for mentioning it here was, to shew how vigilant our author was in his inquiries, and how diligent in the prosecution of them; and yet not with any view of concealing the discoveries he made, but quite the contrary, that the royal society might have the honour, and the British nation the benefit, of them. In this respect, no doubt, be reaped abundant since it was declared, over and over again in the Transactions, that his Sylva had raised whole forests, and his Pomona produced numberless orchards: yet that he affected not praise out of any degree of vanity, but was really pleased with being the instrument of good to others, appears very plainly from that warmth, as well as readiness, tvith which he recommended other men’s works to the favour of the public, even upon subjects on which he had employed his own pen, particularly in the case of Mr. Smith, which is printed in the Transactions.

He was also very assiduous in procuring, as early as possible, from abroad, all new books upon curious and useful subjects; as also such as, from their universal high character, were become scarce and dear; some of which he communicated to the secretary of the society, and of others he made large and curious extracts himself; and, as is very justly observed, his translations were doubly valuable, on account of that clearness and fidelity with which he expressed the author’s sense, and the improvements that he added from his own observations, as he rendered no treatises into English, without being perfectly versed in the subject upon which, as well as the language in which, they were written. He likewise, in testimony of his respect and duty to the society, bestowed upon them those curious tables of veins and arteries, which he brought with him from Padua, and consequently deserved to be honourably mentioned in their registers, and to have his picture, as it is, hung up in their apartments. He might, therefore, justly style himself, as we have already noticed, a pioneer in the service of the society. Amongst other advantages that attended the institution of the royal society, one was its giving birth to, and the highest encouragement for, free and open inquiries; nor was it any wonder that, amongst these, some turned upon those learned persons who first exerted themselves in favour of this method of improving knowledge. Amongst, these, Mr. John Houghton, though with great decency and good manners, censured our author’s great performance, on account of its crossing a notion he had advanced, “that it would be highly advantageous for the nation, if all the timber within twelve miles of a navigable river were destroyed.” It is but fair that he should speak for himself: his words then are these: Collections on husbandry and trade, vol. IV. p. 273. “I question not but you eagerly expect to hear what may be said, in answer to Mr. Evelyn’s Sylva. There he seems to be quite of another opinion, and to give many instances of profits from woods, so great that few other parts of husbandry can equal them. 1 must confess Mr. Evelyn is a great man, one that I have the honour to be acquainted with, and happy is he that is so he is a gentleman of great piety, modesty, and. complacency and also endowed with such an universality of useful learning, that he may very well be esteemed a darling of mankind. But he is particularly well versed in the affairs of the woodman; and his Sylva is so good a book, that I have not heard of any thing written on the subject like it. To answer it, I will not pretend; to gainsay what he affirms I cannot, for I believe he loves veracity more than life. I will only make some observations, and, if my sentiments differ from his, I know he will pardon me, he being well inclined to allow freedom of thought, and also well versed in a motto, Aw­Ihis in verba, which is that of the royal society. Now, I first observe the reason why this Sylva, or discourse of forest-trees, was delivered to the royal society. It was, as I am told in the title-page, upon occasion of certain queries propounded to that illustrious assembly, by the honourable the principal officers and commissioners of the navy. What these queries were, does not altogether appear; but, by the discourse, one of them seems to be hour timber might be propagated in his majesty’s dominions. An answer to this our ingenious author hath bravely given. But my considerations are not how, or how not, to propagate timber; but a query, `Whether it is best, within certain limits, to propagate it or no?' a thing quite beside his design. Indeed, in his introduction, he, like a very good Englishman, laments the notorious decay of our wooden walls, which he thought likely to follow, when our then present navy should be worn out or impaired; and I must confess, when he considered the great destruction of our wood that had been made in the foregoing twenty years, by some through necessity, and others through ill ends and purposes; together with our not being used to fetch much timber from abroad, and a general cry that none could furnish us with any for shipping, especially so good as our own; with the addition of what amounted to a complaint from the honourable commissioners of his majesty’s navy: when he considered all this, I say, every good man will rather commend than blame his zeal. But now since that destruction of our timber hath forced us to look out for a more convenient supply to London, and some other places, and our having greater experiences of sea-fights than ever we had before, other things are known; and it is believed, to my certain knowledge, by some of the commissioners of the navy, and others that have been, greatly concerned in building of ships, that there is some other timber in the world that will build ships as well as ours: for instance, the French Ruby that we took from France, when he joined with Denmark and Holland against tis, had such good timber in it, that, as I have been told, England never had better. The bullets that entered this French ship made only round holes without splinters, the thing our timber is valued for and it was so hard, that the carpenters with their tools could hardly cut it it was like a piece of iron. I fancy it some of that oak Mr. Evelyn speaks of in his fore-cited Sylva, chap. iii. p. 25. ‘ There is,’ saith he, `a kind of it so tough, and so extremely compact, that our sharpest tools will hardly enter it, and scarcely the very fire itself, in which it consumes but slowly, as seeming to partake of a ferruginous and metal0 line shining nature, proper for sundry robust uses.' These last thirty ships that were built have a great deal of foreign timber in them; and, although there is some decay in them already, yet I am told that the fault is not attributed to the foreign timber, but rather to the hasty building; the king having not a stock before-hand, the timber had not time enough for a seasoning. For these reasons, and what I said before about the increase of seamen, persuades me to believe, that such means will never lessen our strength; and I question not but that, for our money, we may be furnished sufficiently from abroad.”

This warm censure might be safely trusted by our author, without any answer, in those days, when none pretended to decide without hearing both parties with attention. It is, however, but doing common justice to his memory, to set these points in a clear light, which may be done in a very narrow compass. In the first place, Mr. Evelyn lays down facts that are indisputable; for he mentions no improvement in his book without clear authority. On the contrary, Mr. Houghton’s is a supposition, and a supposition that is entirely groundless. He values the young ashplant at a shilling; he might have read in Mr. Evelyn, that an hundred saplings, of three years growth, are worth but eighteen pence. Instead of fourscore and four years, he ought to have set down a third, or at most half, of that time; and then, at his own rate of compound interest, the value of the plant would not have exceeded a single penny. His objections to the second instance are not less frivolous. Barren ground, in the common acceptation of the word, is ground worth nothing, and for that reason unlet and unemployed: our critic will have it worth three shillings an acre, and, having thus created a rent of nine shillings a year, he converts it next imo a rent-charge, and supposes a sixty years lease of this barren land to be worth two-and-thirty years purchase; and this money, put out at compound interest, is run up to twice as much as the wood is worth. We will not push things to extremity, but suppose with him the land worth nine shillings a year, and to be sold for twenty years purchase, which would produce nine pounds. That nine pounds placed out at compound interest, at the rate of six per cent would amount, in sixty years, to two hundred eighty-eight pounds; so that there is twelve pounds, and all the intermediate profits by lopping, to pay for the original plantation and cultivation of the trees. Upon the whole it is manifest, even from this author’s manner of arguing, that planting wood is not only more honest and virtuous, but at the same time a safer and speedier way of raising a great fortune than the most exorbitant usury.

We may, says the editor of the Biog. Britannica, from the large works which Mr. Evelyn has published, from the complete plan which he has given us of a large work he intended to publish, and from various circumstances that occur in his letters, form a pretty sure judgment of the method pursued by him, in composing the many and valuable treatises that fell from his pen. His way was, when he had made choice of a subject, to resolve it into its proper parts, and to entitle these, according to the bulk of the volume he proposed, either books or chapters, that he might digest his materials under their proper titles. He then set down his own thoughts in a free succinct manner under every head, to which he added what occurred to him, useful or memorable, in his reading; and when he had finished this, he digested his own thoughts regularly, supporting them by proper testimonies from ancient and modern authors, or, if that were the case, shewing the reasons for which he dissented from them. This made his collections very large, in comparison of the books he published, into which there entered nothing but the quintessence of the authors he had perused. The first great work which occupied his thoughts was one of which he formed the plan in his travels, and which he intended to have entitled “A general history of all Trades.” We have an account of this in one of his own letters to Mr. Boyle, dated from Sayes-court, August the 9th, 1659, which begins thus:

“I am perfectly ashamed at the remissness of this recognition for your late favours from Oxon, where, though had you resided, it should have interrupted you before this time. It was by our common and good friend Mr. Hartlib, that I came now to know you are retired from thence, but not from the muses, and the pursuit of your worthy designs, the result whereof we thirst after with all impatience, and how fortunate should I esteem myself, if it were in my power to contribute in the least to that which I augur of so great and universal a benefit! But so it is, that nty late inactivity has made so small a progress, that, in the” History of Trades,“I am not advanced a step, finding, to my infinite grief, my great imperfections for the attempt, and the many subjections which I cannot support, of conversing with mechanical capricious persons, and several other discouragements; so that, giving over a design of that magnitude, I am ready to acknowledge my fault, if, from any expression of mine, there was any room to hope for such a production further than by a short collection of some heads and materials, atrd a continual propensity of endeavouring, in some particular, to encourage so noble a work as far as I am able; a specimen whereof I have transmitted to Mr. Hartlib, concerning the ornaments of gardens, which I have requested him to communicate to you, as one from wlrom I hope to receive my best and most considerable furniture, which favour I doagain and again humbly supplicate, and especially touching the first chapter of the third book, the eleventh and twelfth of the first, and indeed on every particular of the whole.” Whoever would be better acquainted with the whole extent of our author’s project, may consult his extract of the life of signor Giacomo Favi, who had the like, and intended to have travelled over the whole world, in order to collect proper materials; in which design having made some progress, he died of a fever at Paris Of this gentleman Mr. Evelyn speaks in raptures, from the similitude between their tempers; but it seems he had not altogether the patience of that Italian virtuoso, who could accommodate himself to the humours of the lowest of the people, as well as make himself acceptable even to the greatest monarclis of Europe. But, though our author desisted from the original plan, yet it was not till he had finished several parts of it, particularly his Chalcography, which Mr. Boyle prevailed upon him to publish, and the following pieces which he never published: “Fire Treatises, containing a full view of the several arts of painting in oil, painting in miniature, annealing in glass, enamelling, and making marble- paper.” We may form a judgment, fronv the piece he published, of the great loss the world had from his not altering his resolution with respect to these, which no doubt were as thoroughly finished and as perfect in their kind as that. We may collect from the letter before mentioned, that a system of gardening made a part of his great design, which, however, there are some grounds to believe, he detached thence, and considered as a whole or distinct system of itself, to the completing of which he applied himself with great spirit and labour, and intended to have given it the following title, under which he shewed part of his collection to his friends: “Elysium Brhannicum.” We cannot positively affirm, but there are very probable grounds to believe, that this was the very same work, of which he has given a plan before his “Acetaria,” about which he intimates, in his preface to that treatise, he had spent upwards of forty years, and his collections for which had in that time filled several thousand pages. The title of this vast work, as it is there expressed, is this “The Plan of a royal Garden describing and shewing the amplitude of that part of Georgicks which belongs to Horticulture.” He proposed to divide this into three books, the first of which was to consist of six chapters, wherein he meant to discourse of the principles of things, the four reputed elements, the celestial influences, the seasons, the natural soil of a garden, and all the artificial improvements that could be made therein. The second book was to contain twenty-four chapters, and of these it is sufficient to say, that the twentieth chapter seems to have been executed in his discourse of sallads, and that the last chapter of this book was no other than his Gardener’s Kalendar. The third book was to be divided into twelve chapters, and to comprehend all the accessaries, so as to leave nothing which had so much as any relation to this favourite subject unexhausted. The cause of his leaving this work also unfinished, he very freely and plainly tells us, was his perceiving that it exceeded his whole power of execution, that is, to come up to the scheme formed in his own mind, notwithstanding his glorious spirit, his easy fortune, and indefatigable diligence. This we may very easily credit, when we consider that his treatise of sallads could not be above a fortieth, perhaps not above a fiftieth part of his intended performance. To these his unpublished works we must add another, mentioned only by Mr. Wood, who gives us nothing concerning it but the following title: “A treatise of the Dignity of Man.”

, a very eminent lawyer, and upright magistrate, was born at Gripskerque, in the island of Walcheren, in 1462, and studied law at Louvain under Arnold de Bek, and Peter de Themis, whose praises for profound knowledge he has celebrated in his “Topica juris.” In 1493 he took his doctor’s degree, and acquired so much reputation that Erasmus, in a letter to Bernard Buchon, pronounces him a man born for the good and service of his country. Everard’s first public situation was at Brussels, where he was appointed judge in ecclesiastical causes under Henry de Berg, bishop and prince of Cambray: he was then, although not in any of the ecclesiastical orders, presented to the deanry of the collegiate church of St. Peter of Anderlechten, in that city. In 1505 being invited to Mechlin, he was first appointed assessor of the grand Belgic council, and afterwards left that place to become president of the supreme council of Holland and Zealand. During the eighteen years that he executed this important trust, his whole conduct was so marked by profound knowledge, and upright decision, that in 1528, the emperor Charles V. recalled him to Mechlin to exercise the same functions. All who speak of him represent him as a man totally uninfluenced by any interest, or motives of favour, who admitted no solicitations from power or friendship, and administered strict justice without ever giving the laws an inclination that they did not fairly bear, whether the party concerned was poor or rich. He died at Mechlin, Aug. 9, 1532, in his seventieth year. His works were, 1. “Topica juris, sive loci argumentorum legales,” of which he printed the first part or century, at Louvain, in 1516, fol. This he afterwards reviewed and enlarged, and it was published by his sons in 1552, at Louvain, and reprinted in 1568 and 1579, at Lyons, and in 1591 at Francfort. It was afterwards abridged by Abraham Marconet, and published in that form at Magdeburgh, 1655, 12mo. 2. “Consilia, sive responsa juris,” Louvain, 1554, fol. and at Antwerp, 1577, enlarged and corrected by Molengrave. There are also other editions of 1643, &c. By his wife Elissa Bladelle of Mechlin, he left three daughters, one of whom, Isabella, whq became a nun, was celebrated for her learning and knowledge of the Latin language, and five sons, all of considerable eminence in the literary world; Peter Jerome, a religious of the order of the Premonstratenses, a doctor of the civil and canon law at Louvain, and afterwards abbot of St. Mary of Middlebourgh; Nicolas, first, president of the supreme council of Friesland, and afterwards successor to his father in the office of president of the grand council of Mechlin Nicolas Grudius Adrian Marius, and John Secundus. Of these last three, some notice will be taken here, as more suitable to the family connection than under the articles Grudius and Secundus, where they have hitherto been placed.

, and more generally known by these last names, was born at the Hague in 1511, and received the first impressions of virtue and knowledge from his father. On what account our author, as he was not the second son, was called Secundus, is not known. Perhaps the name was not given him till he became eminent, and was in poetry nemini sccundus. Poetry, however, was not the profession which his father wished him to follow. He intended him for the law, and when he could no longer direct his studies himself, placed him under the care of Jacobus Valcardus, or Volcardus. This gentleman, the author of a treatise “de usu eloquentix in obeundis muncribus publicis,” is said to hare been every way qualified to discharge the important trust that was committed to him; and he certainly gained the affection of his pupil, who, in one of his poems, mentions his death with every appearance of unfeigned sorrow. Another tutor, Stenemola of Mechlin, was soon provided, but it does not appear that Secundus devoted much of his time to legal pursuits. Poetry, and the sister arts of painting and sculpture, had engaged his mind at a very early period. He is said to have written verses when but ten years old; and from the vast quantity which he left behind him, we have reason to conclude that such writing was his principal employment.

, the nephew of the former, was born in Alkmaer, in 1621. Having first attended to the instructions of Roland Savery, he afterwards greatly improved by those of Peter Molyn, whom at last he surpassed in skill. He delighted most in the grand scenes of nature, or rather her more romantic features, such as rocks, torrents, and cataracts, which he executed with great freedom and variety of touch. In his time he had no superior; but Jacob Ruysdael followed him immediately, was indeed partly contemporary with him, and in his own style left him far behind in the brilliancy and force of his colours and execution, and the choice of his forms. However, Everdingen is highly deserving of great praise for the care which he took to make himself acquainted with the effects of nature, and the truth with which he marked them. He made a voyage up the Baltic, and was much gratified by and made much use of the scenery, which the romantic coasts of that sea, and of Norway, (which he also visited) afforded him. He died in 1675, and left behind him a great number of drawings, both of real views and compositions, which are very freely wrought. He was thought not to succeed so well in large works as in smaller ones, those coming more within the management of the neatness of pencilling, which characterizes his style of execution. The latter are very highly and very deservedly valued in Flanders and Holland.

, a writer, who distinguished himself by his talents and productions in polite literature, and who was many years resident in England,. was born at St. Denis le Guast, in Lower Normandy, April 1, 1613. He was the third son of Charles de St. Denis, castellan or baron of St. Denis le Guast; and took the name of St. Evremond from a manor which was part of the estate of his father, and of which he was sometimes styled lord. He was intended, by his father, for the profession of the law; and, when he was nine years of age, he was sent to Paris to be bred a scholar. He was entered in the second form in the college of Ciermont; and continued there four years, during which he went through a course of grammar learning and rhetoric. He was next sent to the university of C;ien, in order to study philosophy but he continued there one year only, and then returned to Paris, where he pursued the same study a year longer in the college of Harcourt. He distinguished himself not only by his application to literature, but by other accomplishments; and he particularly excelled in fencing, so that “St. Evremond’s pass” was famous among those who were skilled in that art. When he had passed through a course of philosophy, be began to study the law: but whether his relations had then other views for him, or that his inclination led him to a military life, he quitted that study after he had prosecuted it somewhat more than a jear, and was made an ensign before he hud quite attained to the age of sixteen. After he had served two or three campaigns, he obtained a lieutenant’s commission; and, after the siege of Laiidvecy, in 1637, he had the command of a company of foot.

When the civil war broke out, the French king, being acquainted with St. Evremond’s merit and bravery, and knowing that he had constantly refused to join with those who were in opposition to the court, made him a mareschal de. camp, or major-general. His commission was dated Sept. 6, 1652; and the next day he received a warrant for a pension of three thousand livres a year. He served afterwards in the war of Guienne, under the duke of Candale; but, after the reduction of Guienne, he was committed to the Bastile, where he ivas confined as a prisoner two or three months. Some jests that had been thrown out relative to cardinal Mazarin, in a company wherein St. Evremond was present, but in which he had no greater share than the rest, were the pretence for his confinement. But the true reason of it was supposed to be, a suspicion that he had given some advice to the duke of Candale, which was inconsistent with the cardinal’s views. However, when St. Evremond obtained his liberty, he went to return thanks to the cardinal for his enlai?gement. Mazarin told him on this occasion, that “he was persuaded of his innocence, but that a man in his station was obliged to hearken to so many reports, that it was very difficult for him to distinguish between truth and falsehood, and not sbmetimes to do injustice to an honest man.”

He did not continue long in Holland, but went over to England in 1662, and was well received at the British court. He particularly numbered among his friends the dukes of Buckingham and Ormond, the earls of St. Alban‘a and Arlington, lord D’Aubigny and lord Crofts. He also cultivated the acquaintance of those persons in England who were the most eminent for literature; and often conversed with Hobbes, sir Kenehn Digby, Cowley, and Waller. In England he wrote many literary pieces, which were afterwards printed. In 1665 he was seized with a disorder, which threw him into a kind of melancholy, and greatly weakened him. His physicians told him, that nothing but a change of air could cure him; and that, if he could not go to Montpelier, be would at least do well to cross the sea, ^nd make some stay in Holland. He complied with this, advice; and liked his situation in Holland so well, that he thought of spending the remainder of his life in that country. In a letter written about this time to the marquis de Crequi, he says, “After having lived in the constraint of courts, I console myself with the hope of ending my days, in the freedom of a republic, where, if nothing is to be hoped for, there is at least nothing to be feared. It would be disgraceful to a young man not to enter the world with a design of making his fortune: but, when we are upon the decline, nature calls us back to ourselves; and, the sentiments of ambition yielding to the love of our repose, we find it agreeable to live in a country, where the laws guard us against any subjection to the will of others; and where, to be secure of all, we need only be secure of ourselves. To this blessing we may add, that the magistrates have great authority in their offices for the interests of the public, but are little distinguished in their persons by any particular privileges or advantages. You see here none of those odious distinctions, which are so offensive to men of real good breeding no useless dignities, or inconvenient degrees of rank none of that cumbrous greatness, which restrains liberty, without advancing one’s fortune. Here the magistrates procure our repose, without expecting any acknowledgment, or even any expressions of respect for the services that they render to us. They are rigorous in the execution of the orders of the state firm and unaccommodating in the management of the interest of their country with foreign nations mild and tractable with their fellow-citizens and easy with all sorts of private persons. The foundation of equality remains, notwithstanding the exercise of authority; and, therefore, credit never makes a man insolent, nor do the governors ever bear hard on those that are governed.”

St. Evremond now thought of passing the remainder of his days in Holland but, in 1670, sir William Temple delivered to him letters from the earl of Arlington, by which he was informed, that king Charles -II. desired his return to England. This induced him to change his intentions; and, on his arrival in England, the king conferred on him a pension o:' three hundred pounds a-year. In 1675, the duchess of Mazarin arrived in England; and we are told, that “her house was the usual rendezvous of the politest persons in England; and in these assemblies the people of fashion found an agreeable amusement, and the learned an excellent pattern of politeness.” It is added, that, in her house, “all manner of subjects were discoursed upon, as philosophy, religion, history, pieces of wit and gallantry, plays, and authors ancient and modern.” St. Evremond spent much of his time at the house of the duchess of Mazarin, and appears to have had a great friendship for her. He was also on very friendly terms with the celebrated Ninon de PEnclos, with whom he often corresponded. He sometimes passed the summer season with the court at Windsor, where he conversed much with Isaac Vossius, who had been made one of the prebendaries of Windsor by king Charles II. By the death of that prince, St. Evremond lost his pension; but, in 1686, the earl of Sunderland proposed to king James II. to create for him an office of secretary of the cabinet, whose province should be to write the king’s private letters to foreign princes. The king agreed to the proposal, but St. Evremond declined accepting the office. He made his acknowledgments to lord Sunderland, and to the king; and said, “he should account himself very happy to be able to serve his majesty; but that a man of his age ought to think of nothing, but how to husband the little time he had to live, and to spend it in ease and tranquillity.” After the Revolution, he was so well treated in England by king William, that he declined returning again to his own country, though the French king now gave him permission, and even promised him a favourable reception. Yet king William’s characteristic address to him, when first introduced at court, could not be very acceptable to a man who valued himself on his literary reputation “I think you was a major-general in the French service” About 1693, the abbot de Chaulieu sent a poem to the duchess of Mazarin, accompanied with a letter in verse, which contained a high compliment to St. Evremond, whom he compared to Ovid. St. Evremond made some remarks on the abbot’s poetical epistle, in which he objected to the comparison between himself and the Roman poet. “Ovid,” said he, “was the most witty and the most unfortunate man of his time. I am not like him, either as to wit or misfortunes. He was exiled among barbarians, where he made fine verses; but so doleful and melancholy, that they excite as much contempt for his weakness as compassion for his disgrace. Where I am, I daily see the duchess of Mazarin. I lire among sociable people, who have a great deal of merit and a great deal of wit. I make very indifferent verses; but so gay, that they make my humour to be envied, while they make my poetry to be laughed at. I have too little money but I love to be in a country where there is enough besides, the nse of it ends with our lives and the consideration of a greater evil is a sort of remedy against a lesser. Thus you see I have several advantages over Ovid. It is true, that he was more fortunate at Rome with Julia than I have been at London with Hortensia: but the favours of Julia were the occasion of his misfortune; and the rigours of Hortensia do not make a man of my age uneasy.”

St. Evremond was a kind of epicurean philosopher; but though his speculative morality was too lax, yet in his general conduct he appears to have acted like a man of probity. He preserved his health and his chearfulness to a very great age. In one of his letters to Ninon de TEnclos he says, “At eighty-eight years of age, I eat oysters every morning. I dine heartily, and sup tolerably. Heroes are celebrated for less merit than mine.” He was at length afflicted with a strangury, which was attended with great pain, and by which he was much weakened. Bayle tells us, in one of his letters, that it was publicly known, that St. Evremond used no assistance of minister or priest to prepare him for death; and that it was said, that the envoy from the court of Florence sent to him an ecclesiastic, who, asking him whether he would be reconciled, received for answer, “With all my heart: I would fain be reconciled to my stomach, which no longer performs in usual functions.” Bayle also says, “I have seen verses, which he wrote fifteen days before his death; and his only regret was, that he was reduced to boiled meats, and could no longer digest partridges and pheasants.” He died on the 9th of Sept. 1703, aged ninety years, five months, and twenty days. Des Maizeaux says, “He preserved, to the very last, a lively imagination, a solid judgment, and a happy memory. The great and acute pains, which he felt during his sickness, never disturbed his tranquillity. He bore them with a courage and constancy that may be envied by philosophers of the first rate.” The same writer gives the following description of his person: “M. de St. Evremond had blue, lively, and sparkling eyes, a large forehead, thick eye-brows, a handsome mouth, and a sneering physiognomy. Twenty years before his death, a wen grew between his eye-brows, which in time increased to a considerable bigness. He once designed to have it cut oft; but, as it was no ways troublesome to him, and he little regarded that kind of deformity, Dr. Le Fevre advised him to let it alone, lest such an operation should be attended with dangerous symptoms in a man of his age. He would often make merry with himself on account of his wen, his great leather cap, and grey hair, which he chose to wear rather than a periwig .” Des Maizeaux afterwards adds, “His behaviour was civil and engaging, his conversation lively and pleasant, his repartees quick and happy. We find very few that know how to read well. M. de St. Evre-p mond told me one day, that he had not known three in his whole life that could read justly. He had this art in perfection; and, what is altogether as uncommon, he had a very happy way of telling a story.” “His humour was ever gay and merry; which was so far from declining towards the latter end of his life, that it seemed rather to gather fresh strength.” “He was extremely fond of the company of young people, and delighted to hear the stories of their adventures.” “Although he did not pretend to over-rigid morals, yet he had all the qualities of a man of honour. He was just, generous, and grateful; and full of goodness and humanity.”

St. Evremond also, drew his own character, in a letter to the count de Grammont. It is as follows: “He was a philosopher equally removed from superstition and from impiety a voluptuary, who had no less aversion from debauchery than inclination for pleasure a man who had never felt the pressure of indigence, and who had never been in possession of affluence. He lived in a condition despised by those who have every thing, envied by those who have nothing, and relished by those who make their reason the foundation of their happiness. When he was young, he hated profusion, being persuaded that some degree of wealth was necessary for the conveniences of a long life. When he was old, he could hardly endure ceconomy; being of opinion, that want is little to be dreaded when a man has but little time left to be miserable. He was well pleased with nature, and did not complain of fortune. He hated vice, was indulgent to frailties, and lamented misfortunes. He sought not after the failings of men with a design to expose them; he only found what was ridiculous in them for his own amusement. He had a secret pleasure in discovering this himself; and would, indeed, have had a still greater in discovering this to others^ had he not been checked by discretion. Life, in his opinion, was too short to read all sorts of books, and to burden one’s memory with a multitude of things at the expence of one’s judgment. He did not apply himself to the most learned writings, in order to acquire knowledge; but to the most rational, to fortify his reason. He sometimes chose the most delicate, to give delicacy to his own taste; and sometimes the most agreeable, to give the same turn to his own genius. It remains that he should be described such as he was in friendship and in religion. In friendship he was more constant than a philosopher, and more sincere than a young man of good nature without experience. With regard to religion, his piety consisted more in justice and charity than in penance or mortification. He placed his confidence in God, trusting in his goodness, and hoping, that in the bosom of his providence, he should find his repose and his felicity.” He was interred in Westminster- abbey, in the nave of the church near the cloister, where a monument was erected to his memory by his friends, with an inscription, in which he is highly praised. It is said to have been written by Dr. Garth. Dr. Atterbury, who looked on St. Evreniond as an infidel, appears to have had objections to his being buried in the abbey, for which he is reflected upon, with petulant malignity, by one of the editors of the last edition of the Biographia Brttannica.

By his wiil, St. Evremond, who died worth about 800l. left 20l. to the poor French refugees; and the same sura to “the poor Roman catholics, or of any other religion.” His manuscripts he left to Dr. Sylvestre. The earl of Galway was his executor.

, a Spanish ex-jesuit, was born at Balbastro, in the kingdom of Arragon, in 1732, and at the age of ten, went to Salamanca, where he began his studies with great ardour, and made extraordinary proficiency in mathematics and physics. In 1764- he was appointed to teach mathematics and engineering in the royal military school founded at Segovia. On entering into this office, he delivered a speech, shewing the necessity of cultivating the art of war upon fixed principles; and with a view to exhibit examples as well as precepts to his scholars, he published the lives of all the eminent Spanish heroes, under the title of “The Spanish military History,” Segovia, 1769, 4to; and as a supplement, he added, in 1772, “The Engineer’s Manual,” 8vo. Both these works were much admired, the first particularly, for the elegance of the language, and the impartiality of the narrative. At what time he entered the order of the Jesuits is not known, but after their expulsion, he lived at Rome, and devoted his attention chiefly to music, of which, from his infancy, he was passionately fond. After six years’ labour and study, he produced a work on the subject, which contributed, although without much reason, to his reputation in the musical world. This appeared at Rome in 1774, and was entitled “Dell' Origine e della regole della Musica, &c.” 4to, in which, says Dr. Burney, too confident of his own powers, he imagined himself capable, with four years’ study only, intuitively to frame a better system of counterpoint than that upon which so many great musicians had been formed. Possessed of eloquence, fire, and a lively imagination, his book has been called in Italy, “a whimsical romance upon the art of music, in which is discovered a rage for pulling down, without the power of rebuilding.” The author has certainly, with shrewdness and accuracy, started several difficulties, and pointed out imperfections in the theory and practice of music, as well as in the particular systems of Tartini and Rameau; but his own resources and experience are totally insufficient to the task of correcting the errors of the old system, or forming a new one that is more perfect. He has more eloquence of language than science in music. His reasoning is ingenious and specious, even when his data are false; but his examples of composition are below contempt; and yet they are courageously given as models for students, superior to those of the old great masters of harmony.

, president of the parliament of Grenoble, was born Dec. 22, 1561, at Voiron in Dauphiny. His father Claude Expilli had acquired great reputation in the army. This his son studied first at Turin, and in 1581 and 1582 went through a course of law studies at Padua, where he became acquainted with many of the most learned men of his time, particularly Speroni, Torniel, Decianus, I'ancirollus, Pinelli, Zabarella, Picolomini, &c. On his return to France, he took his doctor’s degree at Bourges, where the celebrated James Cujas bestowed high praise on. him. He then settled at Grenoble, and acquired such distinction among the advocates of the parliament, that the king Henry IV. considered him as fit for the highest offices in law. Expilli was accordingly promoted to that of king’s procurator in the chamber of finances, king’s advocate in parliament, and lastly that of president. The same monarch, as well as Louis XIII. employed him in many important affairs in thecomte Venaissin, Piedmont, and Savoy, where he was first president of the parliament of Chamberi, after that city was taken in 1C 30. Three years after, the king made use of his services at Piguerol; but on his return to Grenoble, he died July 22 or 23, 1636, in the seventy- fifth year of his age. James Philip Thomasini, bishop of Citta Nova, wrote his eloge, and his life was written by Antony Boniel de Catilhon, his nephew, and advocate general of the chamber of accounts in Dauphiny. It was printed at Grenoble in 1660, 4to. Cherier, in his History of that province, says of him, that his works are an incontestable proof of his learning, which was by no means confined. He. was an orator, lawyer, historian, and poet, a man of excellent private character, and a liberal patron of merit, which alone was a sure introduction to his favour. His works are both in prose and verse. His “Pleadings” were printed at Paris, 1612, 4to. His French poems, after the greater part of them had been printed separately, were collected in a large volume, 4to, printed at Grenoble in 1624; and among them are some prose essays on the fountains of Vals and Vivarez, and on the use of medicinal waters; a supplement to the history of the chevalier Bayard, &c. He wrote also a treatise on “French orthography,” Lyons, 1618, folio, in which, however, he has not shewn much judgment, having proposed to spell according to pronunciation; and upon the whole, it appears that, although a man of learning as well as probity, he was a better magistrate than a writer.

, an eminent lawyer, descended from an ancient and noble family in East Friesland, was bora at Norden, Nov. 20, 1629. He had the misfortune to lose his father, when he was in his sixth year, but by the care of his mother and relations, he was sent to college, where he made great progress in the earlier classical studies. He then went to Rintelin, and began a course of law. In 1651 he removed to Marpurg, about the time when the academy in that city was restored, and here he recounts among the most fortunate circumstances of his life that he had au opportunity of studying under Justus Siriold, or Schutz, and John Helvicus his son, the former of whom was chancellor of the academy, and the latter was counsellor to the landgrave of Hesse, and afterwards a member of the imperial aulic council. Under their instructions he acquired a perfect knowledge of the state of the empire, and took his doctor’s degree in 1655. Soon after he was appointed by George II. landgrave of Hesse, to be professor of law, and his lectures were attended by a great concourse of students from every part of Germany. In 1669 he was invited by the dukes of Brunswick and Lunenburgh to Helmstadt, where he filled the offices of counsellor and assessor with great reputation. He was also appointed by the circle of Lower Saxony a judge of the imperial chamber of Spire, and in 1678 was received among the number of its assessors. The emperor Leopold, hearing of his eminent character and talents, engaged him to come to his court in the rank of aulic counsellor, and to reward his services, restored the rank of nobility which had been in his family. Eyben died July 25, 1699. His works were collected into a folio volume, and printed at Strasburgh in 1708. They are all on subjects of law. His son, Christian William, who was born in 1663, and died in 1727, was also a lawyer and classical antiquary. He published at Strasburgh, in 1684, “Dissertatio de ordine equestri veterum Romanorum,” folio, which was afterwards inserted in Sallengre’s “Thesaurus.”

, a painter, born at Maaseyk in 1366, is regarded as the founder of the Flemish school of painting, the Giotto of Flanders; and exhibited, for that early period of art, great genius and skill. In concert with his brother John, he was celebrated for many extraordinary and curious works, executed in oil, after the latter had made his discovery of that mode of painting., He painted well also in distemper, but gave that up after he adopted the other. One work of his, painted in conjunction with John, was in a chapel of the cathedral of Ghent. Sir Joshua Reynolds, who saw it there, says of it, “it represents the adoration of the lamb taken from the Apocalypse: it contains a great number of figures in a hard manner, but there is great character of truth and nature in the heads, and the landscape is well coloured.” It is now among the spoils of the French in the gallery of the Louvre; but whileat Ghent it was held in such estimation as to be shut up from public view, except on festivals; and at other times was only shewn to ambassadors or princes themselves who desired to see it. Philip I. of Spain wished to purchase it; but that not being practicable, he employed Michael Coxis to copy it, who spent two whole years about it, and received four thousand florins for his labour from the king, who placed it in the Escurial. This artist died in 1426, aged sixty.

, younger brother to the preceding, and the supposed inventor of oil-painting, was borii at Maaseyk in 1370, and studied with his brother, whom he afterwards excelled. His great discovery is said to have been made in 1410, in the following manner: He had painted a picture in the usual way (in distemper), and having varnished it, set it to dry in the sun’s rays, as was customary; but either from the wood being ill seasoned and ill put together, or from the extreme violence of the heat, the picture was cracked and quite spoiled. He therefore deliberated how he should in future best prevent accidents of this nature happening to his works, and endeavoured to make a varnish which would dry in the shade, without the necessity of exposing it to the sun. After many experiments, he found at last that oil of linseed and of nuts, were more siccative than any others he had tried. These, when boiled with other ingredients, made the varnish so much wished for by him and other painters. He afterwards discovered that mixing these oils with his colours gave them a hardness, and in drying not only equalled the water colour, but gave them more brilliancy and force and that, without the necessity of varnishing afterwards and he was surprised to find also, that they united far better in oil than in water.

The fame of this discovery soon spread over Flanders and into Italy; and when he grew old, but not till then, he imparted his secret to several painters, both Flemish and Italian. And it must be confessed the art of painting is very highly indebted to him for this foundation of the wonderful success with which succeeding ages have profited by this very useful discovery. As a painter he possessed very good talents, considering the early period of the art. He copied his heads generally from rtature; his figures are seldom well composed or drawn. But his power of producing richness of positive colours is surprising, and their durability no less so. He paid great attention evidently to nature, but saw her in an inferior style. He la-> boured his pictures very highly, particularly in the ornaments, which he bestowed with a lavish hand, but with alf the Gothic taste of the time and country in which he lived. In the gallery of the Louvre is a picture of the “Divine Being,” as he chose to call it, represented by an aged man with a long beard, crowned with the pope’s tiara, seated in a chair with golden circles of Latin inscriptions round his head, but without the least dignity of character, or evident action or intention. It is the very bathos of the art. At the earl of Pembroke’s, at Wilton house, is a small picture which does him more credit. -It represents the nativity of our Saviour, with the adoration of the shepherds, and the composition consists of four figures, besides the Saviour and four angels, and has in the back ground the anomaly of the angels at the sa.me time appearing to the shepherds. It is in oil, and the colours are most of them very pure, except those of the flesh. The garment of Joseph is very rich, being glazed thick with red lake, which is as fresh as if it were new. Almost all the draperies are Sg glazed with different colours, and are still very clear, except the virgin’s, which, instead of maintaining its blue colour, is become a blackish green. There is a want of harmony in the work, but it is more the effect of bad arrangement of the colours than the tones of them. The glory surrounding the heads of the virgin and child is of gold. We have been the more particular in stating these circumstances of this picture, because our readers will naturally be curious to know how far the original inventor of oil painting succeeded in his process, and they will see by this account that he went very far indeed, in what relates to the perfection of the vehicle he used, which, if he had happily been able to employ as well as he understood, the world would not have seen many better painters. He lived to practise his discovery for thirty-one years, dying in 1441, at the advanced age of seventy-one. Although in the preceding sketch we have principally followed the first authority in our references^ it must not remain unnoticed that the learned antiquary, Mr. Raspe, has proved, in the opinion of sir Joshua Reynolds beyond all contradiction, that the art of painting in oil was invented and practised many ages betbre Van Eyck was born.

, or Eykens, called the Olp, was born at Antwerp in 1599, and became eminent for his historical paintings. His compositions are full of spirit; his figures have some degree of elegance; his draperies are broad, and the hack-grounds of his pictures are enriched with architecture and landscape in a good taste. As he always studied and copied nature, his colouring was warm, agreeable, and natural; and to his carnations he always gave a great deal of delicacy, particularly to the carnations of hrs nymphs and boys. He painted subjects in one colour, such as basso-relievos and vases of marble, extremely well; and was frequently employed to insert figures in the landscapes of other masters, as he designed them correctly, and adapted them to the different scenes with propriety and judgment. The principalpaintings mentioned as his productions are, a “Last Supper,” in St. Andrew’s church at Antwerp; “St. John preaching in the Desert,” in another church; “St. Catherine,” in the cathedral of Antwerp, &c. The time of his death is not known. Descamps has strangely divided him into two persons, in both which the dates are erroneous.

As his judicial life was one sober series of official employment, in which no extraordinary events called forth an extraordinary application of mind or knowledge, his reputation is confined to the regular scene of public duty. It may, perhaps, be thought that his appointment to preside at the state trials in London in 1794 is an exception to the foregoing observation. It was indeed a very important charge; nor do we mean to disparage his useful qualities or acknowledged integrity, by expressing our opinion concerning it. Whether it arose from his superior view of the case, an harassed mind, or what he conceived to be a discreet accommodation to the circumstances of the moment, we do not pretend to determine; but it appeared to us that he did not resist the bold irregularities of Home Tooke as sir Michael Foster would have resisted them.

In private life, lord chief justice Eyre displayed the qualities which rendered him estimable among his friends, nor was he less respected by his brethren in public life. In him was exhibited a rare union of judicial qualities; and his talents and disposition were such as peculiarly adapted him to the bench. To great sagacity he added great candour. Though he soon discerned the merits, and foresaw the issue of a cause, he never betrayed any impatience, nor relaxed in his attention during its progress; and in this as in other respects, resembled the venerable Hale; it was scarcely possible to discover the opinion which he had formed before the moment when he was called upon to deliver it publicly. He was not only impartial in the ordinary sense of the word, but anxious to prevent his judgment in the case before him from being biassed by his indignation at any illiberal or dishonest conduct. Such indeed was the temper and ability with which he sifted every question, as commonly to extort an acknowledgment even from the unsuccessful party, that his case had been fairly, fully, and dispassionately heard and determined.

His knowledge of the law consisted in a familiar acquaintance with those principles which extensive reading and long experience had impressed upon his mind, rather than in a ready recollection of decided cases. But his application of principles was seldom erroneous; for, as his apprehension was clear, and his judgment strong, he embraced the most complicated variety of facts, and discerned the bearings of the most intricate question. As he comprehended with precision, he explained Vith perspicuity; and, perhaps, no man ever performed the delicate and arduous task of commenting upon evidence to ajury, more usefully to the jury themselves, more satisfactorily to the parties concerned, or more to the advancement of the ends of justice. From his own opinions he was ever ready to recede, when convinced by mature reflection, or the arguments of counsel, that they were ill-founded; and in doing so, he willingly avowed the error he had committed. His judgments displayed great learning, employed by a vigorous understanding; the reasoning cogent, the illustration apposite, the language manly, and not unfrequently eloquent. Perhaps, in no purt of his public duty was he more eminent, though none was more repugnant to his feelings, than in the administration of criminal justice. In this department, though the mildness of his disposition inclined him to mercy, he yielded not to indiscriminate lenity, because he remembered that he was the guardian of the public safety. He was convinced that the observance of solemnity in the courts of justice contributed to excite veneration for their proceedings. His judicial deportment, therefore, was calculated to convey un impression of awe and respect But though his manner was grave and punctilious, it was marked witU great courtesy, for it was not dictated by pride, but by a conscientious regard for the dignity of the court. That this was the case, those who had the happiness to know him in private life could testify, where it seemed as much his aim to draw closer round him by social ease and unaffected pleasantry the circle of his friends, as it was in public to maintain the distance that his situation required. Nor, amidst the amiable qualities which distinguished his private life, should be unrecorded his warm and affectionate attachment to his relations and friends, his prompt and active zeal to promote the welfare of many who were little known to him but by their want of his assistance, his affability and tenderness towards all his dependants and domestics, and the support given to his elevated station by an hospitable and liberal establishment.

, is the name of two engravers whose works are held in some estimation among portrait-collectors. The elder was born in Holland, where he learned the art of mezzotinto-scraping, and also drew portraits from the life, on vellum, with a pen. What time he came into England does not appear, but he resided here a considerable time, in Fountain court in the Strand, London. He died at Bristol in May 1721. He drew many of the portraits which he engraved from nature, but they are not remarkable either for taste or execution. His most esteemed works were, a collection of the founders of the colleges of Oxford, half sheet prints, the heads of the philosophers from Rubens, and a portrait of Dr. Wallis the mathematician, from Kneller. The other John Faber, the younger, was his son, and lived in London, at the Golden Head in Bloomsbury-square, where Strutt thinks he died in 1756. Like his father, he confined himself to the engraving of portraits in mezzotinto; but he excelled him in every requisite of the art. The most esteemed works are the portraits of the Kit-Cat club, and the Beauties of Hampton Court. Some of his portraits are bold, free, and beautiful.

, an eminent French officer, was the son of a bookseller at Mentz (author of “Notes sur la Couturhe de Lorraine,” 1657, fol.) He was educated with the duke d'Epernon, and saved the royal army at the famous retreat of Mentz; which has been compared by some authors to that of Xenophon’s 10,000. Being wounded in the thigh by a musket at the siege of Turin, M. de Turenne, and cardinal de la Valette, to whom he was aid de camp, intreated him to submit to an amputation, which was the advice of all the surgeons but he replied, “I must not die by piece-meal death shall have me intire, or not at all.” Having, however, recovered from this wound, he was afterwards made governor of Sedan; where he erected strong fortifications, and with so much ceconomy, that his majesty never had any places better secured at so little expence. In 1654 he took Stenay, and was appointed marechal of France in 1658. His merit, integrity, and modesty, gained him the esteem both of his sovereign and the grandees. He refused the collar of the king’s orders, saying it should never be worn but by the ancient nobility; and it happened, that though his family had been ennobled by Henry IV. he could not produce the qualifications necessary for that dignity, and “would not,” asi he said, “have his cloke decorated with a cross, and his soul disgraced by an imposture.” Louis XIV. himself answered his letter of thanks in the following terms: “No person to whom I shall give this collar, will ever receive more honour from it in the world, than you have gained in my opinion, by your noble refusal, proceeding from so generous a principle.” Marechal Fabert died at Sedan, May 17, 1662, aged sixty-three. His Life, by father Barre, regular canon of St. Genevieve, was published at Paris, 1752, 2 vols. 12mo. There is one older, in one thin vol. 12ino.

, was a celebrated Roman, who was five times consul, three times dictator, and triumphed twice or more, yet was always distinguished by his modesty and equanimity. The first public office in which we trace him, is that of curule aedile, which he bore in the year before Christ 330. In the year 324, he was named master of the horse by the dictator L. Papirius Cursor, in the war against the Samrates; and, having given battle to the enemy in the absence of the dictator, contrary to his express order, though completely victorious, was capitally condemned; and through the strictness of Roman discipline, and the inflexible severity of the dictator, would have been executed bad be not been first rescued by the army, and then strongly interceded for by the senate and people of Rome. His first consulship was three years after, in the year 321 B. C. It was not till the year 303 B. C. when he bore the office of censor, that he acquired the sirname of Maximus, which afterwards was continued in his family, and was given him in consequence of his replacing the low and turbulent mob of Rome in the four urban tribes, and thereby diminishing their authority, which, when they were scattered in the various tribes, had been considerable on account of their numbers. His last consulship was in the year 294 B. C. and it is not likely that he lived many years after that period. We find him, however, three years after, attending the triumph of his son the proconsul, a very old man, and celebrated by the historians for his modest demeanour, and respectful acknowledgment of his son’s public dignity.

, a noble Roman, was the fourth in decent from the preceding, and in a very similar career of honours, obtained yet more glory than his ancestor. He also was consul five times, in the years 233 Ant. Chr. 228, C 15, 214, and 210; and dictator in the years 221 and 217. His life is among those written by Plutarch. In his first consulship, he obtained the honour of a triumph for a signal victory over the Ligurians. His second consulship produced no remarkable event, nor, indeed, his first dictatorship, which seems to have been only a kind of civil appointment, for the sake of holding comitia, and was frustrated by some defect in the omens. But in the consternation which followed the defeat at Thrasymene, his country had recourse to him as the person most able to retrieve affairs, and he was created dictator a second time. In this arduous situation he achieved immortal fame, by his prudence in perceiving that the method of wearing out an invader was to protract the war, and avoid a general engagement, and his steady perseverance in preserving that system. By this conduct he finally attained the honourable title of Cunctator, or protector. But before he could obtain the praise he merited, he had to contend not only with the wiles and abilities of Hannibal, but with the impatience and imprudence of his countrymen. The former he was able to baffle, the latter nearly proved fatal to Rome. “If Fabius,” said Hannibal, “is so great a commander as he is reported to be, let him come forth and give me battle.” “If Hannibal,” said Fabius in reply, “is so great a commander as he thinks himself, let him compel me to it.” A battle in Apulia, however, was brought on by the rashness of his master of the horse, Minucius, and it required all the ability of Fabius to prevent an entire defeat. His moderation towards Minucius afterwards, was equal to his exertions in the contest. After he had laid down his office, the consul Paulus jEmilius endeavoured to tread in his steps; but rashness again prevailed over wisdom, and the defeat at Cannae ensued in the year 215, and then the Romans began to do full justice to the prudence of Fabius. He was called the ^ield, as MarcelU is the sword of the republic; and, by an honour almost unprecedented, was continued in the consulship for two successive years. He recovered Tarentum before Hannibal could relieve it, and continued to oppose that general with great and successful skill. It has been laid to his charge that when Scipio proposed to carry the war into Africa, he opposed that measure through envy; and Plutarch allows that though he was probably led at first to disapprove, from the cautious nature of his temper, he afterwards became envious of the rising glory of Scipio. It is, however, possible, that he might think it more glo rious to drive the enemy by force out of Italy, than to draw" him away by a diversion. Whether this were the case or not, he did not live to see the full result of the measure, for he died in the year 203, at a very advanced age, being, according to some authors, near a hundred. This was the very year preceding the decisive battle of Zama, winch concluded the second Punic war. The highest encomiums are bestowed by Cicero upon Fabius, under the person of Cato, who just remembered him, and had treasured many of his sayings.

, a Roman historian, the first prose writer on the subject of Roman history, was the son of C. Fabius Pictor, who was consul with Ogulnius Callus in the year 271 B. C. and grandson of the Fabius who painted the temple of health, from whom this branch of the family obtained the name of Pictor. He was nearly related to the preceding Fabius, and after the battle of Cannae was sent to the Delphic oracle to inquire by what supplications the gods might be appeased. He wrote the history of this war with Hannibal, and is cited by Livy as authority in it. The fragments of his annals that remain in the works of the ancients, whether in Greek or Latin, for he wrote in both, relate chiefly to the antiquities of Italy, the beginnings of Rome, or the acts of the Romans. He is censured by Polybius, as too partial to the Romans, and not even just to the Carthaginians. His style was doubtless that of his age, unformed, and imperfect. An history, circulated as his, consisting of two books, one on the golden age, the other on the origin of Rome, is now known to have been a forgery of Annius of Viterbo,

He was soon, however, called to perform a more important part on the revolutionary stage, being chosen, in 1792, a deputy to the national convention. For this office he had all the negative qualities that were necessary, no regard for religion or Civil subordination; and accordingly took a very active part in the insurrection of Aug. 10, and the prison massacres of the September following; the latter are called “measures which would save France.” After this, it was in character to vote for the death of the king. It was generally supposed that he contributed with Danton and Robespierre to the massacre of May 31, 1793, when the Girondine faction was overthrown by a popular insurrection. What gives the appearance of authenticity to this supposition is, that Fabre himself, some days afterwards, observed to a friend, that the domineering spirit of the Girondines, who had engrossed all power and office, had induced him and his colleagues, in order to shake off the yoke, to throw themselves into the hands of the sans culoterie; but that he could not help, however, foreboding dangerous consequences from that day, May 31st, as the same mob which they had taught to despise the legislature, might, at the instigation of another faction, overthrow him in his turn.

On the overthrow of the Girondine party, and the establishment in power of the sansculoterie, Fabre began to render himself more conspicuous. As a member of the committee of public safety, he demanded of the jacobins “a manifesto furnished with 300,000 signatures, for the formation of a faction, or holy league of public safety,” and was one of the instigators of the decree that ordained that all the English and Hanoverian prisoners should be shot, which, however, we believe, was never carried into execution. He was also appointed a member of the committee of public instruction, and in August 1793 gave his vote for suppressing all academies and literary corporations, which, from their privileges and aristocratic spirit, were considered as unfriendly to a truly republican government. In October 1793, he submitted to the national convention the plan of a new calendar, which was afterwards adopted; but which, absurd as we find it, is said not to have been of his own composition.

In the winter of 1793, the Sansculoterie became divided into two parts or factions, the jacobins and cordeliers, or, in other words, the Robespierrists, and the Dantonists. Fabre was of the faction of Danton, and was confined with Danton’s adherents in the prison of the Luxemburgh. After a month’s imprisonment, Fabre was, with many others, dragged to the scaffold in April 1794, where he was executed in the thirty-fifth year of his age. Mercier, who was his colleague, speaks of him thus in his “Tableau de Paris:” “He was a promoter and panegyrist of the revolutionary system, the friend, the companion, the adviser of the pro-consuls, who carried throughout France, fire and sword, devastation and death.” In 1802 a collection of his works was published in 2 vols. 8vo, containing some posthumous pieces.

, a voluminous French writer, or rather compiler, was born April 25, 1668, at Paris, the son of an eminent surgeon. He was subdeacon, and bachelor of the Sorbonne, and had been second teacher at St. Quintin, when he entered the congregation of the oratory at Paris. He rose to be successively professor of philosophy at Itumilly in Savoy, at Toulon, Riom, Mans, and Nantes; afterwards taught theology three years at Riom, and during three more at the seminary of the congregation at Lyons. While he lived in the last named city, he published a small dictionary, Latin and French, 8vo, compiled from the best classical authors, which has passed through several editions; and he also published at Lyons, in 1709, a new edition of Richelet’s dictionary, 2 vols. folio, under the title of Amsterdam, which edition was suppressed on account of several theological articles respecting the affairs of the times; and because in his list of authors, he bestowed great encomiums on Messrs, of Port Royal, but none on their adversaries. This obliged him to quit the oratory, and retire to Clermont in Auvergne, where, being destitute of a maintenance, he undertook the education of some children, and had recourse to father Tellier, a Jesuit, the king’s confessor, who twice supplied him with money. In the latter end of 171 Fabre again entered the congregation of the oratory, and was sent to Douay, where he wrote a small pamphlet, entitled “Entretigns de Christine^ et de Pelagie, sur la lecture de PEcriture-Sainte” which is still in request. Having afterwards preached the Sunday sermons of the oratory of Tragany with great credit (for he had also talents for preaching), he went to reside at Montmorency, towards the end of 1723, and there began his “Continuation de l'Histoire Ecclesiastique, de feu M. TAbbe Fleury;” and published 16 vols. 4to or 12mb, which induced his superiors to invite him again to their houses, Rue St. Honore*, at Paris, where he died, October 22, 1755, aged eighty-five, much lamented by his brethren and friends, for his mildness, candour, modesty, and virtue. The discourse “Sur le renouvellement des etudes ecclesiastiques,” &c. at the beginning of the thirteenth volume of the Continuation, is by the abbe Goujet. This Continuation discovers great learning, and facility in writing, but has neither the wit, penetration, character, style, nor accuracy of judgment possessed by the abbe Fleury. Fabre would have carried it on much farther, but was forbidden to print any new volumes. He made the index to M, de Thou’s history translated into French, 4to, and had begun one to the “Journal des Sgavans,” but soon gave up his undertaking to the abbe* de Claustre, to whom the public owes that useful work, 10 vols. 4to. Fabre also left a moderate translation of Virgil, 4 vols. 12mo, and a translation of the Fables of Phaedrus, Paris, 1728, 12mo, with notes.

Upon the death of Alexander, Fabretti retired from business, and devoted himself entirely to his favourite amusement. He went to search antiquities in the country about Home, without any other companion than his horse, and without any regard to the heat or inclemency of the weather. As he always made use of the same horse, his friends gave that animal, by way of jest, the name of Marco Polo, the famous traveller; and said, that this horse used to discover ancient monuments by the smell, and to stop of himself immediately when he came to any ruins of an old building. Fabretti was so well pleased with the name given to his horse, that he used it to write a letter to one of his friends in an ironical strain, yet full of learning, upon the study of antiquity: but this letter was never printed. Innocent XII. obliged him to quit his retirement, and made him keeper of the archives of the castle of St. Angelo; a post, which is never given but to men of the most approved integrity, since he who enjoys that place is master of all the secrets of the pope’s temporal estate. All these different employments never interrupted his researches into antiquity; and he collected enough to adorn his paternal house at Urbino, as well as that which he had built at Rome after the death of Alexander VIII. Neither could old age divert him from his studies, nor hinder him from labouring at the edition of his works, which he printed at his own house. He died Jan. 7, 1700. He was a member of the academy of the Assorditi at Urbino, and the Arcadi at Rome.

He was the author of the following works 1 <c De Aquis & Aquae-ductibus Veteris Romae Dissertationes tres,“Romae, 1680, 4to. This book may serve to illustrate Frontinus, who has treated of the aqueducts of Rome, as they were in his time under the emperor Trajan. It is inserted in the fourth volume of Graevius’s” Thesaurus Antiquitatum Romanarum.“. 2.” De Columna Trajana Syntagma. Accesseruntexplicatio Veteris Tabellae Anaglyphae Homeri Iliadem, atque ex Stesichoro, Arctino, et Lesche Ilii excidium continentis, et emissarii lacus Fucini descriptio,“Romae, 1683, folio. 3.” Jasithei ad Grunnovium Apologema, in ej usque Titivilitia, sive de Tito Livio somnia, animadversiones,“Neapol. 1686, 4tp. This work is an answer to James Gronovius’ s” Responsio ad Cavillationes R. Fabretti,“printed at Leyden, 1685. Fabretti had given, occasion to this dispute, by censuring, in his book” De Aquae-ductibus,“some corrections of Gronovius; and thus had drawn upon himself an adversary, who treated him witk very little ceremony. Fabretti replied to him here, under the name Jasitheus, and treated him with equal coarseness. Gronovius called him Faber fiusticus, which he retorted by styling his antagonist Grunnovius. 4.” Inscriptionum Antiquaruni, quae in aedibus paternis asservantur, explicatio et additamentum,“Romae, 1699, folio. Fabretti had an admirable talent in decyphering the most difficult inscriptions, and discovered a method of making something out of those which seemed entirely disfigured through age, and the letters of which were effaced in such a manner as not to be discernible. He cleaned the surface of the stone, without touching those places where the letters had been, engraven. He then laid upon it a piece of thick paper well moistened, and pressed it with a spunge, or wooden pin covered with linen; by which means the paper entered into the cavity of the letters, and, taking up the dust there, Discovered the traces of the letters. M. Baudelot, in his book” De FUtilitc* des Voyages,“informs us of a secret very like this, in order to read upon medals those letters which are difficult to be deciphered. 5.” A Letter to the abb Nicaise,“containing an inscription remarkable for the elegance of its style, inserted in the” Journal des Seavans“of Dec. 1691. He left unfinished” Latium vetus illustratum." Fabretti discovers in his writings a lively genius, a clear and easy conception, and a great deal of learning.

, an industrious and learned Jesuit, was born in the diocese of Bellay in 1606 or 1607. He for a long time held the chair of professor of philosophy in the college de la Trinit at Lyons; but in consequence of his profound knowledge of theology, he was called to Home, where he was made a penitentiary. He died in that city on the 9th of March, 1688. He was a man of most extensive and universal knowledge, and studied medicine and anatomy with considerable ardour. He assumed the credit of the discovery of the circulation of the blood, and father Regnault, and other credulous persons, have supported his assumption, on the grounds that he had main*­tained the fact of the circulation in a discussion in 1638: but Harvey had published his discovery in 1623. The medical works of this Jesuit consist of an apology for the Peruvian bark, in answer to Plempius, which he published at Rome in 1655, under the title of “Pulvis Peruvianus Febrii'ugus vindicatus;” and two other essays, one, “De Plantis, et Generatione Animalium,” the other, “De Homine,” published at Paris in 1666, and at Nuremberg in 1677. His theological works are mostly controversial, and now held in little estimation.

Such proficiency could not escape the attention of his masters, nor go unrewarded, and accordingly we find that he was admitted to the degree of bachelor of philosophy, as it is styled in that college, Nov. 27, 1686, and on Jan 26, 1688, to that of master. In this last year, he produced his first publication, a dissertation “de numero septuagenario;” and in the same year published his “Scriptorum recentiorum decas,” a sort of criticism on ten eminent writers, George Morhoff, Christ. Cellarius, Henning Witte, Christian Thomasius, William Salden, Abraham Berkelius, Servatius Gallaeus, James Tollius, George Matthias Konig, and Christian William Eyben. This was published at Hamburgh, without his name, and having been attacked by an anonymous opponent, he replied in a “Defensio decadis adversus hominis malevoli maledicum judicium, justis de causis ab auctore suscepta.” He was a young man when he assumed such a decisive and disrespectful tone, of which his good sense soon made him ashamed, and he afterwards abstained from this opprobrium of controversial writing, and received every criticism or remark on his works with perfect submission and temper. It was peculiar to him that the more he knew, the more he learned how to excuse the imperfections of others, and to speak diffidently of his own acquisitions.

In 1696 he went into Sweden with M. Mayer, who introduced him to Charles XL; and after their return, Mayer endeavoured to procure for him the professorship of logic and metaphysics, vacant by the resignation of Gerard Ma'ier. Fabricius accordingly became a candidate, and sustained a public cjisputation, without a respondent, the subject of which was “Specimen elencticum historic logicte, &c.” After the other candidates had exhibited their talents, their number was reduced to Fabricius and another, Sebastian Edzard. The votes on the election happened to be equal, and the matter being therefore determined by casting lots, Edzard was chosen. Fabricius, however, was not long without a situation befitting his talents. In the same year, 1699, he was unanimously chosen to be professor of eloquence, in the room of Vincent Placcius, who died in April; and on June 29, Fabricius delivered his inaugural speech “on the eloquence of Epictetus,” and he now settled at Hamburgh for the remainder of his life, having a few months before taken his degree of doctor in divinity at Kiel. On this occasion he supported a thesis “De recordatione animae humame post fata superstitis.” In April 1700 he married Margaret Scultz, daughter of the rector of the lower school in that city, to which situation Falmcius was presented in 1708, in order to keep him at Hamburgh, for he had many tempting invitations from other universities, particularly in 1701, when his friend and patron Mayer left Hamburgh to settle at Grypswald, and procured Fabricius the offer of the divinity-professorship in that university, with a salary of 500 crowns. On entering on the duties of his new situation, as rector of the schools, he began, as usual, with an oration, on the causes of the contempt of public schools but after the deaih of M. Scultz, Fabricius resigned this office in 1711, as interfering too much with the duties of his professorship. In 1719, the landgrave of Hesse Cassel offered him the professorship of divinity at Giessen, and with it the place of superintendent of the churches of the confession of Augsburgh. Fabricius had some inclination to have accepted this offer; but the magistrates of Hamburgh, sensible of the value of his services, made a very considerable increase of his salary, the handsome manner of offering which, more than the value of the money, induced him to adhere to his resolution of never leaving Hamburgh; and in this city he died April 30, 1736. His last illness appears to, have been a complication of asthma and fever, attended with great pain and difficulty of breathing, which he bore with unexampled patience; and employed his last powers of speech in pious reflections and exhortations to his family and servants. His whole life had been spent in the practice of piety and the accumulation of learning, and his death was regretted as an irreparable loss to the university to which he belonged, and to the learned world at large. Few men, indeed, have laid scholars under greater obligations; and he has contributed, perhaps, more than any man ever did to abridge the labours of the student, and facilitate the researches of the most minute inquirer. He had a prodigious memory, and a great facility in writing; and both enabled him to accomplish labours, at the thought of which many a modern scholar would be appalled. Never, perhaps, was there such an instance of literary and professional industry. In the first six years of his professorship he devoted ten hours a day to his scholars; and afterwards seldom less than eight, unless when his last illness obliged him to reduce his hours to four or five. With such employment in public, it is, with all the explanation his biographers have given, difficult to comprehend how he could find time and health, not only for his numerous printed undertakings, but for that vast extent 'of correspondence which he carried on with the learned men of his time, and for the frequent visits of his friends, whom he received with kindness.

1. “Scriptorum recentiorum Decas,” Hamburgh, 1688, 4to, without his name. 2. “Defensio Decadis, &c.” 4to, without place or date. 3. tf Decas Decadum, sive plagiariorum et pseudonymorum centuria,“Leipsic, 1689, 4to. 4.” Grammatica Graeca Welleri,“ibid. 1689, 8vo, often reprinted, but Fabricius never put his name to it. 5.” Bibliotheca Latina, sive notitia auctorum veterum Latinorum, quorumcunque scripta ad nos pervenerunt,“Hamburgh, 1697, 8vo, afterwards enlarged in subsequent editions, the best of which is that of 1728, 2 vols. 4to. An edition of a part of this work has been more recently published by Ernesti, in 3 vols. 8vo, which is not free from errors. 6.” Vita Procli Philosophi Platonici scriptore Marino Neapolitano, quam alteraparte, de virtutibus Procli theoreticis ac theurgicis auctiorem et nunc demum integram primus edidit, &c.“Hamburgh, 1700, 4to, dedicated to Dr. Bentley. 7.” Codex Apocryphus N. T. collectus, castigatus, &c.“ibid. 1703, 8vo. 8.” Bibliotheca Graeca, sive Notitia Scriptorum Veterum Graecorum, quorumcunque Monumenta integra aut fragmenta edita extant: turn plerorumqtie ex Manuscripts ac Deperditis.“This consists of 14 vols. in 4to, and gives an exact account of the Greek authors, their different editions, and of all those who commented, or written notes upon them, and with the” Bibliotheca Latina,“exhibits a very complete history of Greek and Latin learning. Twelve volumes of a new edition of the” Bibliotheca Graeca“have been published by Hades, with great additions, and a new arrangement of the original matter. 9.” Centuria Fabriciorum scriptis clarorum, qui jam diem suum obierunt,“Hamburgh, 1700, 8vo, and” Fabriciorum centuria secunda,“ibid. 1727, 8vo. It was his intention to have added a third and fourth century, including the Fabri, Fabretti, Fabrotti, Le Fevre’s, &c. but a few names only were found after his death among his manuscripts. 10.” Memoriae Hamburgenses, sive Hamburgi et virorum de ecclesia, requepublica et scholastica Hamburgensi bene meritorum, elogia et vitae,“Hamburgh, 1710 1730, 7 vols. 11.” Codex pseudepigraphus Veteris Testamenti,“as a companion to his preceding account of the apocryphal writers of the New Testament times; ibid. 1713, 8vo, reprinted with additions in 1722. 12.” Menologiunj, sive libellusde mensibus, centum circiter populornm menses recensens, atque inter se conferens, cum triplice indice, gentium, mensium et scriptorum,“ibid. 1712, 8vo. 13.” Bibliographia Antiquaria, sive introductio in notitiam scriptorum, qui antiquitates Hebraicas, Graccas, Romanas et Christianas scriptis illustrarunt. Accedit Mauricii Senonensis de S. Missae ritibus carmen, nunc primum editum,“1713, 4to, and an enlarged edition, in which Mauricius’s poem is omitted, 1710, 4to. 14.” Mathematische Remonstration, &c.“Hamburgh, 1714, 8vo, a work in German against Sturmius, on the institution of the Lord’s Supper. J 5.” S. Hippolyti Opera, non antea collecta, et pars nunc primum a Mss. in lucem edita, Gr. et Lat. &c.“ibid. 1716 and 1718, 2 vols. fol. 16.” Bibliotheca Ecclesiastica,“ibid. 1718, fol. a very valuable collection of notices of ecclesiastical writers and their works from various biographers, beginning with Jerome, who goes to near the end of the fourth century, and concluding with Miraeus, who ends in 1650. 17.” Sexti Empirici Opera,“Gr. and, Lat. Leipsic, 1718, fol. 18.” Anselmi Bandurii Bibliotheca Nummaria,“Hamburgh, 1719, 4to. 19. S. Philastri de Hicresibus Liber, cum emendationibus et notis, additisque indicibus, ibid. 1721, 8vo. 20.” Delectus argumentorum et syllabus scriptorum, qui veritatem religionis Christianas adversus Atheos, Epiciireos, Deistas seu Naturalistas, Idolatras, Judaeos, et Mohammedanos lucubrat;onibus suis asseruerunt,“Hamb. 1725, 4to. This performance, very valuable in itself, is yet more so, on account of the Proemium and first chapters of Eusebius’s” Demonstratio Evangelica,“which are wanting in all the editions of that work, and were supposed to be lost; but which are here recovered by Fabricius, and prefixed to the” Delectus,“with a Latin translation by himself. 21.” Imp. Caes. Augusti temporum notatio, genus, et scriptorum fragmenta,“ibid. 1727, 4to. 22.” Centifolium Lutheranum, sive notitia literaria scriptorum omnis generis de B. D. Luthero, ej usque vita, scriptis et reformatione ecclesiae, &c. digesta,“ibid. 1728 and 1730, 2 parts or volumes, 8vo. 23. A German translation of Derham’s” Astro-theology,“and” Physico-theology,“1728, 1730, 8vo, by Weiner, to which Fabricius contributed notes, references, an analysis, preface, &c. 24.” Votum Davidicum (cor novum crea in me Deus) a centum quinquaginta amplius metaphrasibus expressum, carmine Hebraico, Graeco, Latino, Germanico, &c.“ibid. 1729, 4to. 25.” Conspectus Thesauri Literariae Italiae, premissam habens, praeter alia, notitiam diariorum Italiae literariorum, &c.“ibid, 1730, 8vo. Every Italian scholar acknowledges the utility of this volume. 26.” Hydrotheologise Sciagraphia,“in German, ibid, 1730, 4to. 27.” Salutaris Lux Evangelii, toti orbi per divinam gratiam exoriens: sive notitia historico-chronologica, literaria, et geographica, propagatorum per orbern totum Christianorum. Sacrorum,“Hamb. 1731, 4to. This work is very curious and interesting to the. historian as well as divine. It contains some epistles of the emperor Julian, never before published. 28.” Bibliotheca Mediae et infitnse Latinitatis,“printed in 5 vols. 8vo, 1734, reprinted at Padua, in 6 vols. 4to, 1754, a work equal, if not superior, to any of Fabricius’s great undertakings, and one of those, which, like his” Bibliotheca Graeca,“seems to set modern industry at defiance. 29.” Opusculorum Historico-critico-litterariorum sylloge quse sparsim viderant lucem, nunc recensita denuo et partim aucta," Hamburgh, 1738, 4to.

Besides these, Reimar gives a list of fifteen works to which he contributed additions and dissertations; thirteen original dissertations, or academical theses, published from 1688 to 1695; sixteen programmata thirteen lives; six prations, and thirty-eight prefaces, all from the pen of this indefatigable writer: he left also a considerable number of unfinished manuscripts.

, a man eminent for wit and learning, and for the civil employments with which he was honoured, was born at Hamburgh in 1613. He was a good poet, an able physician, a great orator, and a learned civilian. He gained the esteem of all the learned in Holland while he studied at Leyden; and they liked his Latin poems so well, that they advised him to print them. He was for some time counsellor to the bishop of Lubec, and afterwards syndic of the city of Dantzic. This city also honoured him with the dignity of burgomaster^ and sent him thirteen times deputy in Poland. He died at Warsaw, during the diet of the kingdom, in 1667. The first edition of his poems, in 1632, was printed upon the encouragement of Daniel Heinsius, at whose house he lodged. He published a second in 1638, with corrections and additions: to which he added a satire in prose, entitled “Pransus Paratus,” which he dedicated to Salmasius; and in which he keenly ridiculed the poets who spend their time in making anagrams, or licentious verses, as also those who affect to despise poets. The most complete edition of his poems is that of Leipsic, 1685, published under the direction of his son. It contains also Orations of our author, made to the kings of Poland; an Oration spoken at Leyden in 1632, concerning the siege and deliverance of that city and the Medical Theses, which were the subject of his public disputations at Leyden in 1634, &c.

From his earliest youth he cultivated a pure and ready Latin style, and as a specimen, he now, encouraged by Foggini, published the life of Clement XII. in that language. This however, he allows, was a severe task, and although he re-wrote it twice or thrice, and had the advice of his friend, he did not think it worthy of the illustrious subject. Cardinal Corsini, however, had a higher opinion of its merit, and not only defrayed the expence of printing, but made the author a handsome present.‘ Such liberality produced a suitable impression on Fabroni’ s mind, who became in gratitude attached to this patron, and when a female of the Corsini family married about this time, he, with learned gallantry, invited the most celebrated Italian poets to celebrate the joyous occasion. About this time having presented an oration, which he had delivered in. the pope’s chapel, on the ascension, to Benedict XIV. his holiness received him very graciously, and exhorted him to continue the studies he had begun so well. Among these we find that he had for some time made considerable progress in canon law, and had even defended some causes, but afterwards resigned all this for the more agreeable study of the belles lettres and classics. At the funeral of James III. of England, as he was styled, Fabroni was ordered by his college to compose an oration in praise of that prince, which he accordingly delivered in the presence of the cardinal duke of York, who expressed his sense of its merit not only by tears and kind words, but by a liberal present.

At Pisa, in 1771, he began a literary journal which extended to 102 parts or volumes; in this he had the occasional assistance of other writers, but often entire volumes were from his pen. At length the grand duke, who always had a high regard for Fabroni, furnished him liberally with the means of visiting the principal cities of Europe. ing this tour he informs us that he was introduced to, and lived familiarly with the most eminent characters in France, with D'Alembert, Conclorcet, La Lande, La Harpe, Mirabeau, Condilliac, Rousseau, Diderot, &c. and laments that he found them the great leaders of impiety. He then came to England, where he resided about four months, and became acquainted with Waring, Maskelyne, Priestley, and Dr. Franklin, who once invited him to go to America, which, he informs us, he foolishly refused. With what he found in England he appears to be little pleased, and could not be brought to think the universities of Oxford and Cambridge equal, for the instruction of youth, to those of Italy. In short he professes to relish neither English diet, manners, or climate; but perhaps our readers may dispute his taste, when at the same time he gives the preference to the manners, &c. of France. In 1773 he returned to Tuscany, and was desired by the grand duke to draw up a scheme of instruction for his sons, with which he insinuates that the duke was less pleased at last than at first, and adds that this change of opinion might arise from the malevolent whispers of literary rivals. He now went on to prosecute various literary undertakings, particularly his “Vitas Italorum,” and the life of pope Leo, &c. The greater part were completed before 1800, when the memoirs of his life written by himself end, and when his health began to be much affected by attacks of the gout. In 1801 he? desisted from his accustomed literary employments, and retired to a Carthusian monastery near Pisa, where he passed his time in meditation. Among other subjects, he reflected with regret on any expressions used in his works which might have given offence, and seemed to set more value on two small works he wrote of the pious kind at this time, than on all his past labours. When the incursions of the French army had put an end to the studies of the youth at Pisa, Fabroni removed to St. Cerbo, a solitary spot near Lucca, and resided for a short time with some Franciscans, but returned to Pisa, where an asthmatic disorder put an end to his life Sept. 22, 1803. He left the bulk of his property, amounting to about 1500 scudi, to the poor, or to public charitable institutions; and all the classics in his library, consisting of the best editions, to his nephew, Raphael Fabroni.

, a very learned lawyer and scholar, was born in 1580, at Aix in Provence, whither his father, a native of Nismes in Languedoc, had retired during the civil wars. After making very distinguished progress in Greek and Latin, the belles lettres, and jurisprudence, he was admitted doctor of laws in 1606, and then became an advocate in the parliament of Aix. Among the many friends of distinction to whom his talents recommended him, were M. de Peiresc, a counsellor of that parliament, and William de Vair, first president. By the interest of this last-mentioned gentleman, he was promoted to the law-professorship at Aix, which office he filled until 1617, when Du Vair being made keeper of the seals, invited him to Paris. On Du Vair’s death in 1621, Fabrot resumed his office in the university of Aix, where he was appointed second professor in 1632, and first professor in 1638. At this time he was absent, having the preceding year gone to Paris to print his notes on the institutes of Theophilus, an ancient jurist. This work he dedicated to the chancellor Seguier, who requested him to remain in Paris, and undertake the translation of 1 the Basilics, or Constitutions of the Eastern emperors, and gave him a pension of 2000 livres. This work, and his editions of some of the historians of Constantinople, which he published afterwards, procured him from the king the office of counsellor of the parliamentof Provence, but the intervention of the civil wars rendered this appointment null. During his stay at Paris, however, several of the French universities were ambitious to add him to the number of their teachers, particularly Valence and Bourges, offers which his engagements prevented his accepting. His death is said to have been hastened by the rigour of his application in preparing his new edition of Cujas; but his life had already been lengthened beyond the usual period, as he was in his seventy-ninth year when he died, Jan. 16, 1659. His works are: 1. “Antiquite’s de la ville de Marseille,” Lyons, 1615 and 1632, 8vo. This is a translation from the Latin ms. of Raymond de Soliers. 2. “Ad tit. Codicis Theodosiani de Paganis, Sacrificiis, et Templis notae,” Paris, 1618, 4to. 3. “Exercitationes duae de tempore humani partus et de numero puerperii,” Aix, 1628, 8vo; Geneva, 1629, 4to, with a treatise by Carranza, on natural and legitimate birth. 4. “Car. Ann. Fabroti Exercitationes XII. Accedunt leges XIV. quae in libris digestarum deerant, Gr. et Lat. mine primum ex Basilicis editnc,” Paris, 1639, 4to. 5. rt Thcophili Antecessoris InstituiK-iies,“Gr. et Lat. Paris, 1638 and 1657, 4to. 6.” Inatiuuiones Justiniani, cum notis Jacobi Cujacii,“ibid. I, 12mo. 7.” Epistolae de Mutuo, cum responsionc Claudii Salmasii ad ^gidium Menagium,“Leyden, 1645, 8vo. 8.” Replicatio adversus C. Salmasii refutationem,“&c. Paris, 1647, 4to. 9.” Basilicorum libri sexaginta,“Gr. et Lat. ibid. 1647, 7 vols. folio. The whole of the translation of this elaborate collection of the laws and constitutions of the Eastern emperors, was performed by Fabrot, except books 38, 39, and 60, which had been translated by Cujas, whose version he adopted. 10.” Nicetae Acominati Choniatoe Historia,“ibid. 1647, fol. 11.” Georgii Cedreni Compendium historiarum,“Gr. et Lat. ibid. 1647, 2 vols. fol. 12.” Theophylacti Simocattse Hist, libri octo,“ibid. 1647, fol. 13.” Anastasii Bibliothecarii Hist. Ecclesiastica,“ibid. 1649, fol. 14.” Laonici Chalcondyla? Hist. de origine ac rebus gestis Turcarum, libri decem,“ibid. 1650. fol. 15.” Praelectio in tit. Decret. Gregorii IX. de vitaet honestate Clericorum,“ibid. 1651, 4to. 16.” Constantini Manassis Breviarium Historicum,“Gr. et Lat. ibid, 1655, fol. 17.” Cujacii Opera omnia,“ibid. 1658, 10 vols. fol. 15.” J. P. de Maurize Juris Canonici Selecta,“ibid. 1659, 4to. 19.” Notae in T. Balsamonis collectionem constitutionum Ecclesiasticarum." This is inserted in the second volume of Justel and VoePs Bibliotheca of Canon law. Ruhnkenius published a supplementary volume to his edition of Cujas at Leyden in 1765.

, a learned Italian orator and grammarian, was born Jan. 4, 1682, at Toreglia, and studied principally at Padua, where he took his degree of doctor in divinity in 1704, and taught for some time, and afterwards was professor of philosophy for three years. He was then appointed regent of the schools. As the Greek and Latin languages were now his particular department, he bestowed much pains in providing his scholars with suitable assistance, and with that view, reviewed and published new and improved editions of the Lexicons of Calepinus, Nizolius, and Schrevelius. Some years after he was promoted to be logic professor, and in that as well as the former situation, endeavoured to introduce a more correct and useful mode of teaching, and published a work on the subject for the use of his students. In 1739, when the business of teaching metaphysics was united to that of logic, Facciolati was desirous of resigning, that he might return to his original employment; but the magistrates of Padua would by no means allow that their university should be deprived of his name, and therefore, allowing him to retain his title and salary, only wished him to take in hand the history of the university of Padua, which Papadopoli had written, and continue it down to the present time. This appears, from a deficiency of proper records, a very arduous task, yet by dint of perseverance he accomplished it in a manner, which although not perfectly satisfactory, as far as regards the “Fasti Gymnastici,” yet was entirely so in the “Syntagmata.” He wrote also some works in theology and morals, and had the ambition to be thought a poet, but his biographer Fabroni thinks that in this he was not successful. His principal excellence was as a classical scholar and critic, especially in the Latin, and his high fame procured him an invitation from the king of Portugal to superintend a college for the young nobility at Lisbon, but he excused himself on account of his advanced age. Fabroni mentions a set of china sent to him by this sovereign, which he says was a very acceptable present, and corresponded to the elegant furniture of Facciolati’s house. He had a garden in which he admitted no plants or fruittrees but what were of the most choice and rare kind, and four or five apples from Facciolati’s garden was thought no mean present. In every thing he was liberal to his friends, and most benevolent to the poor. He died in advanced age of the iliac passion, Aug. 27, 1769.

, a painter of history, Was born at Bologna in 1560. He began to paint when already grown up to manhood, at the advice of An. Caracci, who, on seeing a whimsical design of his in charcoal, concluded he would be an acquisition to his school. Of this advice he had reason to repent, not only because Facini roused his jealousy by the rapidity of his progress, but because he saw him leave his school, become his rival in the instruction of youth, and even lay snares for his life. Facini had two characteristics of excellence, a vivacity in the attitudes and heads of his figures, that resembled the style of Tintoretto, and a truth of carnation which made Annibal himself declare that his colours seemed to be mixed with human flesh Beyond this he has little to surprise; his design is weak, his bodies vast and undefined, his heads and hands ill set on, nor had he time to correct these faults, as he died young, in 1602. At St. Francesco, in Bologna, is an altar-piece of his, the marriage of St. Catherine, attended by the four tutelary saints of the city, and a number of infant angels, which shews the best of his powers. His children carolling, or at play, in the gallery Matvezzi, and elsewhere at Bologna, are equally admired; they are in the manner of Albani, but with grander proportions.

His works, according to the catalogue given by Mehus, are, 1. 'De Bello Veneto Ciodiano ad Joannem Jacobum Spinulam, liber,“Leyden, 1568. 2.” De humanae vitæ felicitate,“Hanov. 1611, and with it,” De excellentia et prrcstantia hominis,“a work erroneously ascribed to Pius II. with whom Facio was intimately acquainted. 3.” De rebus gestis ab Alphonso primo Neapolitarum rege Commentariorum libri deceoi,“Leyden, 1560, 4to, and reprinted in 1562 and 1566. The first seven books were also published at Mantua in 1563, and it has been inserted in various collections of Italian history. 4.” Arriani de rebus gestis Alexandri libri octo, Latine redditi,“Basil, 1539, folio. This translation was made by Facio at the request of his patron Alphonsus. 5.” De viris illustribus liber,“published for the first time by the abbe Mehus, at Florence, 1745, 4to, with a life of the author, and some of his correspondence. Saxius has published in his Onomasticon a small tract of Facio’s,” de differentiis," or the difference between words apparently of the same meaning. Tiraboschi thinks Facio’s style much more elegant than that of any of his contemporaries, and in his lives of illustrious men, published by Mehus, he displays much impartial and just criticism.

, an elegant Latin poet and philologist, was born at Cremona in the early part of the sixteenth century, and by his accomplishments in polite literature, gained the esteem and friendship of the cardinal de Medicis, afterwards pope Pius IV. and of his nephew the cardinal Borromeo. Having acquired a critical knowledge of the Latin language, he was enabled to display much judgment in the correction of the Roman classics, and in the collation of ancient manuscripts on which he was frequently employed, and indeed had an office of that kind in the Vatican library. Ghilini says that he was equally learned in the Greek language, but Muret asserts that he was quite unacquainted with the Greek. That he was a very elegant Latin poet, however, is amply proved by his “Fables,” and perhaps his being accused of stealing from Phgedrus may be regarded as a compliment to his style. Thuanus appears to have first suggested this accusation. He says that the learned world was greatly obliged to him, yet had been more so, if, instead of suppressing, he had been content with imitating the Fables of Phaedrus, and asserts that Faeruo dealt unfairly with the public concerning Phoedrus, who was then unknown; having a manuscript of that author, which he concealed from the world for fear of lessening the value of the Latin fables he had made in imitation of Æsop. Perrault, however, who published a translation of Faerno’s Fables into French verse at Paris in 1699, has defended his author from Thuanus’s imputation. His words in the preface are as follow “Faerno has been called a second Phsedrus, by reason of the excellent style of his Fables, though he never saw Phaedrus, who did not come to our knowledge till above thirty years after his death; for Pithoeus, having found that manuscript in the dust of an old library, published it in the beginning of this century, Thuanus, who makes very honourable mention of our author in his history, pretends, that Phcedrus was not unknown to him; and even blames him for having suppressed that author, to conceal what he had stolen from him. But there is no ground for what he says; and it is only the effect of the strong persuasion of all those who are so great admirers of antiquity as to think that a modern author can do nothing that is excellent, unless he has an ancient author for his model. Out of the hundred fables which Faerno published in Latin verse, there are but five that had been treated by Phsedrus $ and out of those five there are but one or two that have been managed nearly in the same manner: which happened only because it is impossible that two men, who treat on the same subject, should not agree sometimes in the same thoughts, or in the same expressions.”

, a self-taught genius, was born in 1648 at Lisle en Albigeois in Languedoc. He drevr with the pen, or Indian ink, and arrived at such eminence in that branch as to be complimented upon it by Carlo Marat. He went to visit that painter, who received him with politeness, and offered him his pencil; when he declined using it, saying, that he had never practised painting. “I am glad to hear it,” said the artist, “for if I may judge from your drawings of the progress you would have made in painting, I must certainly have given place to you.” Fage lived irregularly, generally drawing at a public-house, and sometimes paying his bills by a sketch, produced upon the occasion. He died in 1690; Audran, Simoneau, and others, engraved a collection of one hundred and twenty-three prints from his designs, and Strutt mentions some prints engraved by himself.

, or sometimes Phagius, whose German name was Buchlein, a protestant minister, and one of the early reformers, was born at Rheinzabern in Germany, 1504, and laid the foundation of his learning in that town under the care of his father, who was a school-master. He was sent to Heidelberg at eleven, and at eighteen to Strasburgh; where not being properly supported, he had recourse to teaching others, in order to defray the expence of his own books and necessaries. The study of the Hebrew becoming fashionable in Germany, he applied himself to it; and by the help of Elias Levita, the learned Jew, became a great proficient in it. In 1527 he took upon him the care of a school at Isne, where he married and had a family. Afterwards, quitting the occupation of a schoolmaster, he entered into the ministry, and became a sedulous preacher among those of the reformed religion. Buffler, one of the senators of Isne, being informed of his perfect knowledge in the Hebrew tongue, and of his natural bias to the arts, erected a printing-house at his own charge, that Fagius might publish whatever he should deem useful to religion in that way; but the event did not answer the expence.

In 1541 the plague began to spread at Isne; when Fagius understanding that the wealthiest of the inhabitants were about to leave the place, without having any regard to the poorer sort, rebuked them openly, and admonished them of their duty; telling them that they should either continue in the town, or liberally bestow their alms before they went, for the relief of those they left behind; and declaring at the same time, that during the time of that calamity he would himself in person visit those that were sick, would administer spiritual comfort to them, pray for them, and be present with them day and night: all which he did, and yet escaped the distemper. At the same season the plague raged in Strasburg, and among many others, proved fatal to the reformer, Wolfang Capito; upon which Fagius was called by the senate to succeed him. Here he continued to preach till the beginning of the German wars, when the elector Palatine, intending a reformation in his churches, called Fagius from Strasburg to Heidelberg, and made him the public professor thefe: but the emperor prevailing against the elector, an obstruction was thrown in the way of the reformation. During his residence here, however, he published many books for the promotion of Hebrew learning, which were greatly approved by Bucer and others, and form the most important of the works he has left.

, a French topographical writer, was born at Castelnaudari in Upper Languedoc, Oct. 30, 1616. after going through a course of studies at Toulouse, he was in 1638 appointed king’s advocate to the presidial of his native city, which office he resigned in 1655 on being chosen syndic to the city of Toulouse, and came to reside in the latter, where he was enabled to cultivate his taste for the belles lettres; and during the discharge of the duties of his office, which he executed with zeal and disinterestedness, the opportunity he had of inspecting the archives suggested to him the design of writing the annals of Toulouse. On making known his intentions, the parliament granted him permission to examine its registers, and the city undertook to defray the expense of printing his work. Having been advanced to the rank of capitoul, or alderman of the city, which office he served for the third time in 1673, he communicated to his brethren a plan of ornamenting their capitolium, or town -hall, with busts of the most distinguished personages who had filled the offices of magistracy, and they having allowed him to make choice of the proper objects, a gallery was completed in 1677 with the busts of thirty persons whom he had selected as meriting that honour. This, and other services which he rendered to the citizens of Toulouse, induced them to confer a handsome pension on him, and likewise to bestow the reversion of the place of syndic on his nephew, who dying before La Faille, they gave it to his grand-nephew. In 1694 the academy of the “Jeux Floraux” elected him their secretary, a situation which he filled for sixteen years with much reputation; for, besides the fame he had acquired as an historian and magistrate, he possessed considerable literary taste and talents, and even in his ninetieth year produced some poetical pieces in which there was more spirit and vivacity than could have been expected at that very advanced period. He died at Toulouse Nov. 12, 1711, in his ninety-sixth year. His “Annales de la ville de Toulouse” were published there in 2 vols. fol. 1687 and 1701. The style, although; somewhat incorrect, is lively and concise. The annals are brought down only to 1610, the author being afraid, if he proceeded nearer to his own times, that he might be tempted to violate the impartiality which he had hitherto endeavoured to preserve. He published also “Traité de la noblesse des Capitouls,” 1707, 4to, a very curious work,. which is said to have given offence to some of the upstart families. To the works of Goudelin of Toulouse, a poet, published in 1678, 12mo, he prefixed a life, and criticism on his poems. Some of his own poetical pieces are in the “Journal de Verdun,” for May 1709.

, an ingenious poet, who flourished: in the reigns of queen Elizabeth and king James the First, was the second son of sir Thomas Fairfax, of Denton, Yorkshire, by Dorothy his wife, daughter of George Gale, of Ascham-Grange, esq. treasurer to the Mint at York. In what year he was born is not related. The family from which he sprang was of a very military turn. His father had passed his youth in the wars of Europe, and was with Charles duke of Bourbon, at the sacking of Rome, in 1527. His engaging in this expedition is said to have g'lYen such offence to sir William Fairfax, that he was disinherited; but this is not reconcileable to the fact of his succeeding to the family estate at Denton, which he transmitted to his descendants. It was in 1577, or, according to Douglas, in 1579, when far advanced in years, that he was knighted by queen Elizabeth. The poet’s eldest brother, Thomas, who in process of time became the first lord Fairfax of Cameron, received the honour of knighthood before Rouen in Normandy, in 1591, for his bravery in the army sent to the assistance of Henry the Fourth of France; and he afterwards signalized himself on many occasions in Germany against the house of Austria. A younger brother of Edward Fairfax, sir Charles, was a captain under sir Francis Vere, at the battle of Newport, fought in 1600; and in the famous three years’ siege of Ostend, commanded al) the English in that town for some time before it surrendered. Here he received a wound in his face, from the piece of a skull of a marshal of France, killed near him by a cannon-ball, and was himself killed in 1604.

While his brothers were thus honourably employed abroad, Edward Fairfax devoted himself to a studious course of life. That he had the advantages of a very liberal education cannot be doubted, from his intellectual acquirements, and the distinction which he soon obtained in the literary world. Indeed, his attainments were such, that he became qualified to have filled any employment, either in church or state. But an invincible modesty, and the love of retirement, induced him to prefer the shady groves and natural cascades of Denton, and the forest of Knaresborough, to the employments and advantages of a public station. Accordingly, having married, he fixed himself at Fuyistone [Fewston], as a private gentleman. His time was not, however, inactively or ingloriously spent. This was apparent in his poetical exertions, and in several compositions in prose, the manuscripts of which were left by him in the library of lord Fairfax, at Denton. The -tare and education of his children, for which he was so well qualified, probably engaged some part of his attention. We are informed, likewise, that he was very serviceable, in the same way, to his brother lord Fairfax; besides which, he assisted him in the government of his family and the management of his atVairs. The consequence of this was, that all his lordship’s children were bred scholars, and well principled in religion and virtue; that his house was famed for its hospitality, and, at the same time, his estate improved. Wiiat Mr. Edward Fairfax’s principles were, appears from the character which he gives of himself, in his book on dæmonology: “For myself,” says he, “I am in religion neither a fantastic puritan, nor a superstitious papist: but so settled in conscience, that I have the sure ground of God’s word to warrant all I believe, and the commendable ordinances of our English church to approve all I practise: in which course I live a faithful Christian, and an obedient subject, and so teach my family.” In these principles he persevered to the end of his days, which took place about 1632. He died at his own house, called Newhall, in the parish of Fuyistone [Fewston], between Denton and Knaresborough, and was buried in the same parish, where a marble stone, with an inscription, was placed over his grave.

, a very active man in the parliaments service during the civil wars, and at length general of their armies, was the eldest son of Ferdinando, lord Fairfax, by Mary his wife, daughter of Edmund Sheffield earl of Mulgrave. He was born at Denton within the parish of Otley, in Yorkshire, in January, 1611. After a proper school education, he studied sometime in St. John’s college, in Cambridge, to. which, in his latter days, he became a benefactor. He appears to have been a lover of learning, though he did not excel in any branch, except it was in the history and antiquities of Britain, as will appear in the sequel. Being of a martial disposition even in his younger years, but finding no employment at home, he went and served in Holland as a volunteer under the command of Horatio lord Vere, in order to learn the art of war. After some stay there (but how long we cannot learn) he came back to England; and, retiring to his father’s house, married Anne, fourth daughter of lord Vere. Here he contracted a strong aversion for the court; either by the instigation of his wife, who was a zealous presbyterian, or eLe by the persuasions and example of his father, who, as Clarendon says, grew “actively and factiously disaffected to the king.” When the king first endeavoured to raise a guard at York for his own person, he was entrusted by his party to prefer a petition to the king, beseeching him to hearken to his parliament, and not to take that course of raising forces, and when his majesty seemed to shun receiving it, Fairfax followed him with it, on Heyworth-moor, in the presence of near 100,000 people, and presented it upon the pommel of his saddle. Shortly after, upon the actual breaking out of the civil wars, in 1642, his father having received a commission from the parliament to be general of the forces in the North, he had a commission under him to be general of the horse. His first exploit was at Bradford in Yorkshire, which he obliged a body of royalists to quit, and to retire to Leeds. A few days after, he and captain Hotham, with some horse and dragoons marching thither, the royalists* fled in haste to York. And the former having advanced to Tadcaster, resolved to keep the pass at Wetherby, for securing the West Riding of Yorkshire, whence their chief supplies came. Sir Thomas Glemham attempted to dislodge them thence; but, after a short and sharp encounter, retired. On this, Will, am Cavendish earl of Newcastle, and Henry Clifford earl of Cumberland, united their forces at York, amounting to 9000 men, and resolved to fall upon Tadcaster: which being judged untenable, the lord Fairfax, and his son sir Thomas, drew out to an advantageous piece of ground near the town: but, alter a six hours fight, were beaten, and withdrew in the night to Selby. Three days after, sir Thomas marched in the night by several towns Inch the royalists lay, and came to Bradford, where he entrenched himself. But having too many soldiers to lie idle, and too few to be upon constant duty, he resolved to attack his enemies in their garrisons. Accordingly, coming before Leeds, he carried that town (Jan. 23, 1642-3) after a hot dispute, and found a good store of ammunition, of which he stood in great want. He next defeated a party of 700 horse and foot at Gisborough, under the command of colonel Slingsby; and then Wakefield and Doncaster yielded themselves to the parliament. But, For these overt acts, William earl of Newcastle, the king’s general, proclaimed sir Thomas and his father traitors, and the parliament did the like for the earl. In the mean time, the lord Fairfax, being denied succour from Hull and the East Riding, was forced to forsake Selby, and retire to Leeds: of which the earl of Newcastle having intelligence, lay with his army on Clifford-moor, to intercept him in his way to Leeds. On this sir Thomas was ordered, by his father, to bring what men he could to join with him at Sherburne, on purpose to secure his retreat. To amuse the earl, sir Thomas made a diversion at Tadcaster, which 'the garrison immediately quitted, but lord Goring marching to its relief, with twenty troops of horse and dragoons, defeated sir Thomas upon Bramham-moor: who also received a second defeat upon Seacroft-moor, where some of his men were slain, and many taken prisoners, and himself made his retreat with much difficulty to Leeds, about an hour after his father was safely come thither. Leeds and Bradford being all the garrisons the parliament had in the North, sir Thomas thought it necessary to possess some other place: therefore with about 1100 horse and foot, he drove, on the 21st of May, the royalists out of Wakefield, which they had seized again; and took 1400 prisoners, 80 officers, and great store of ammunition. But, shortly after, the earl of Newcastle coming to besiege Bradford, and sir Thomas and his father having the boldness, with about 3000 men, to go and attack his whole army, which consisted of 10,000, on Adderton-moor; they were entirely routed by the earl r on the 30th of June, with a considerable loss. Upon that, Halifax and Beverly being abandoned by the parliamentarians, and the lord Fairfax having neither a place of strength to defend himself in, nor a garrison in Yorkshire to retire to, withdrew the same night to Leeds, to secure that town. By his order, sir Thomas stayed in Bradford with 800 foot, and 60 horse, but being surrounded, he was obliged to force his way through: in which desperate attempt, hjs lady, and many Bothers, were taken prisoners. At his coming to Leeds, he found things in great distraction; the council of war having resolved to quit the town, and retreat to Hull, which was sixty miles off; with many of the "king’s garrison in the way, but he got safely to Selby, where there was a ferry, and hard by one of the parliament’s garrisons at Cawood. Immediately after his coming to Selby, being attacked by a party of horse which pursued him, he received a shot in the wrist of his left arm, which made the bridle fall out of liis hand, and occasioned such an effusion of blood, that he was ready to fall from his horse. But, taking the reins in the other hand in which he had his sword, he withdrew himself out of the crowd; and after a very troublesome and dangerous passage, he came to Hull. Upon these repeated disasters, the Scots were hastily solicited to send 20,000 men to the assistance of the parliamentarians, who were thus likely to be overpowered. Lord Fairfax, after his coming to Hull, made it his first business to raise new forces, and, in a short time, had about 1500 foot, and 700 horse. The town being little, sir Thomas was sent to Beverly, with the horse and 600 foot: for, the marquis of Newcastle looking upon them as inconsiderable, and leaving only a few garrisons, was marched with his whole army into Lincolnshire; having orders to go into Essex, and t>lock up London on that side. But he was hastily recalled northward, upon lord Fairfax’s sending out a large party to make an attempt upon Stanford-bridge near York. The marquis, at his return into Yorkshire, first dislodged, from Beverly, sir Thomas, who retreated into Hull, to which the marquis laid siege, but could not carry the place. During the siege, the horse being useless, and many dying every day, sir Thomas was sent with them over into Lincolnshire, to join the earl of Manchester’s forces, then commanded by major-general Cromwell. At Horncastle, or Winsby, they routed a party of 5000 men, commanded by sir John Henderson: and, at the same time, the besieged in Hull making a sally upon the besiegers, obliged them to retire. These two defeats together, the one falling heavy upon the horse, the other upon the foot, kept the royalists all that winter from attempting any thing; and the parliamentarians, after the taking of Lincoln, settled themselves in winter quarters. But sir Thomas had not long the benefit of them; for, in the coldest season of the year, he was commanded by the parliament to go and raise the siege of Nantwich in Cheshire, which lord Byron, with an army from Ireland, had reduced to great extremity. He set forward from Lincolnshire, December 29, and, being joined by sir William Brereton, entirely routed, 911 the 21st of January, lord Byron, who was drawn out to meet them. After that, they took in several garrisons in Cheshire, particularly Crew-house, &c. Sir Thomas, having stayed in those parts till the middle of March, was ordered back by his father into Yorkshire, that by the conjunction of their forces he might be abler to take the field. They met about Ferry-bridge; and colonel Bellasis, governor of York, having advanced to Selby to hinder their junction, they found means, notwithstanding, to join, and entirely defeated him, on the llth of April, 1644. This good success rendered sir Thomas master of the field in Yorkshire, and nothing then hindered him from marching into Northumberland, as he had been ordered by the parliament, to join the Scots, which were kept from advancing southward by the superior forces of the marquis of Newcastle, quartered at Durham. But that stroke having thrown York into the utmost distraction, the inhabitants speedily sent to the marquis to haste back thither; by which means a way was left open for the Scots, who, with cold, and frequent alarms, were reduced to great extremity. They joined the lord Fairfax at Wetherby, on the 20th of April, and, marching on to York, laid siege to that city *, wherein the marquis of Newcastle had shut himself up, being closely pursued, on the way thither, by sir Thomas, and major-general Desley. And, when prince Rupert was advancing out of Lancashire to the relief of that place, they marched with 6000 horse and dragoons, and 5000 foot, to stop his progress: but he, eluding their vigilance, and bringing round his army, which consisted of above 20,000 men, got into York. Whereupon the parliamentarians raised the siege, and retired to Hessey-moor. The English were for fighting, and the Scots for retreating; which last opinion prevailing, they both marched away to Tadcaster, there being great differences and jealousies between the two nations. But the rash and haughty prince, instead of harassing and wearing them out by prudent delays, resolved, without consulting the marquis of New­* fa our account cf Dodsworth (vol. XII. p. 181), will be found some circumstances favourable to sir Thomas Fairfax’s character in the conduct of this. castle, or any of his officers, to engage them, on Marstonmoor, eight miles from York, on the 2d of July: where that bloody battle was fought which entirely ruined the king’s affairs in the north. In this battle, sir Thomas Fairfax commanded the right wing of the horse. The prince, after his defeat, retiring towards Lancashire, and the marquis, in discontent, sailing away to Hamburgh, the three parliament-generals came and sat down again before York, which surrendered the 15th of July: and the North was now wholly reduced by the parliament’s forces, except some garrisons. In September following, sir Thomas was sent to take Helmesley-castle, where he received a dangerous shot in one of his shoulders, and was brought back to York, all being doubtful of his recovery for some time. Some time after, he was more nearly killed by a cannonshot before Pomfret-castle.

Hitherto he had acquitted himself with undaunted bravery, and with great and deserved applause from his party. Had he stopped here, or at such times at least as the king’s concessions were in reason and equity a just ground for peace (which was more than once), he might have been honourably ranked among the rest of those patriots, who took up arms only for the redress of grievances. But his boundless ambition, and his great desire to rule, made him weakly engage, with the utmost zeal, in the worst and most exceptionable parts of the rebellion. When the parliamentarians thought fit to new-model their army, and to lay aside the earl of Essex, they unanimously voted sir Thomas Fairfax to be their general in his room, he being ready to undertake or execute any thing that he was ordered. To him Oliver Cromwell was joined with the title of lieutenant-general, but with intention of being his governor, exercising the superiority of deep art over a comparatively weak mind. Sir Thomas, being thus voted commander-in-chief of the parliament’s army on the 21st of January, 1644-5, received orders from the parliament speedily to come up from the north to London, where he arrived privatcsly, Feb. 18, and, the next day, was brought by four of the members into the house of commons, where he was highly complimented by the speaker, and received his commission of general. The 15th of the same month, an ordinance was made, for raising and maintaining of forces under his command: it having been voted, a few days before, that he should nominate all the commanders in his army, to be taken out of any of the other armies, with the approbation of both houses. March 25, the parliament ordered him 1500l. The 3d of April, he went from London to Windsor, where he appointed the general rendezvous and continued there till the last day of that month, new-framing and modelling the army or rather Cromwell doing it in his name. April 16, he was appointed, by both houses, governor of Hull. In the mean time, Taupton, in Somersetshire, one of the parliament’s garrisons, being closely besieged by the royalists, sir Thomas Fairfax received orders to hasten to its relief, with 8000 horse and foot. He began his march May 1, and by the 7th had reached Blandford in Dorsetshire: but, the king taking the field from Oxford, with strong reinforcements brought by the princes Rupert and Maurice, sir Thomas was ordered by the parliament to send 3000 foot and 1500 horse to relieve Taunton, and himself to return, with the rest of Juis forces, to join Oliver Cromwell and major-general Browne, and attend the king’s motions. The 14th of May he was come back as far as Newbury; where having rested three nights, he went and faced Dennington-castle, and took a few prisoners. Thence he proceeded to lay siege to Oxford, as he was directed by the committee of both kingdoms, and sat down before it the 22d. But, before he had made any progress in this siege, he received orders to draw near the king, who had taken Leicester by storm, May 31, and was threatening the eastern associated counties. Sir Thomas therefore rising from before Oxford, June 5, arrived the same day at Marsh-Gibbon, in Buckinghamshire on the llth he was at Wootton, and the next day at Gilsborough, in Northamptonshire where he kept his head-quarters till the 14th, when he engaged the king’s forces, at the fatal and decisive battle of Naseby, and obtained a complete victory. The king, after that, retiring into Wales, sir Thomas went and laid siege on the 16th to Leicester, which surrendered on the 18th. He proceeded, on the 22d, to Warwick; and thence (with 'a disposition either to go over the Severn towards the king, or to move westward as he should be ordered) he marched on through Gloucestershire towards Marlborough, where he arrived the 28th. Here he received orders from the parliament, to hasten to the relief of Taunton, which was besieged again by the royalists; letters being sent at the same time into the associated comities for recruits, and tfce arrears of pay for his army; but on his arrival at Bland ford, he was informed, that lord Goring had drawn off his horse from before Taunton, and left his foot in the passage to block up that place, marching himself with the horse towards Langport. Sir Thomas Fairfax, therefore, advancing against him, defeated him there on the 10th of July; and the next day^ went and summoned Bridgewater, which was taken by storm on the 22d. He became also master of Bath the 30th of the same month; and then laid close siege to Sherborne-castle, which was likewise taken by storm August 15. And, having besieged the city of Bristol from the 22d of August to the 10th of September, it was surrendered to him by prince Rupert. After this laborious expedition, the general rested some days at Bath, having sent out parties to reduce the castles of the Devises and Berkley, and other garrisons between the west and London; and on the 23d moved from Bath to the Devises, and thence to Warminster on the 27th, where he stayed till October 8, when he went to Lyme in Dorsetshire. From this place he came to Tiverton, of which he became master on the 19th; and then, as he could not undertake a formal siege in the winter season, he blocked up the strong city of Exeter, which did not surrender till the 13th of April following: in the mean time, he took Dartmouth by storm, January 18, 1645-6; and several forts and garrisons at different times. Feb. 16, he defeated thelord Hopton near Torrington. This nobleman retreating with his broken forces into Cornwall, sir Thomas followed him: in pursuit of whom he came to Launceston Feb. 25, and to Bodmin March 2. On the 4th, Mount Edgecornbe was surrendered to him; and Fowey about the same time. At last the parliament army approaching Truro, where lord Hopton had his head-quarters, and he being so hemmed in as to remain without a possibility of escaping, sir Thomas, on the 5th of March, sent and offered him honourable terms of capitulation, which after some delays, lord Hoptoit accepted, and a treaty was signed by commissioners on both sides, March 14 in pursuance of which, the royalists, consisting of above 5000 horse, were disbanded and took an oath never to bear arms against the parliament. But, before the treaty was signed, lord Hopton, and Arthur lord Capel, retired to Scilly, whence they passed into Jersey, April 17, with Charles prince of Wales, sir Kdtvard Hyde, and other persons of distinction. Thus the king’s army in the west being entirely dispersed by the vigilance and wonderful success of general Fairfax, he returned, March 31, to the siege of Exeter, which surrendered to him upon articles, the 13th of April, as already observed: and with the taking of this city ended his western expedition. He then marched, with wonderful speed, towards Oxford, the most considerable garrison remaining in the king’s hands, and arriving on the 1st of May, with his army, began to lay siege to it. The king, who was there, afraid of being enclosed, privately, and in disguise, departed thence on the 27th of April; and Oxford surrendered upon articles, June 24, as did Wallingford, July 22. After the reduction of these places, sir Thomas went and besieged Ragland-castle, in Monmouthshire, the property of Henry Somerset, marquis of Worcester, which yielded Aug. 19. His next employment was to disband major-general Massey’s brigade, which he did at the Devises. About that time he was seized with a violent fit of the ston, unjder which he laboured many days. As soon as he was recovered, he took a journey to London; where he arrived November 12, being met some miles off by great crowds of people, and the city militia. The next day, both houses of parliament agreed to congratulate his coming to town, and to give him thanks for his faithful services and wise conduct: which they did the day following, waiting upon him at his house in Queen-street*. Hardly had he had time to rest, when he was called upon to convoy the two hundred thousand pounds that had been granted to the Scotish army; the price of their delivering up their sovereign king Charles. For that purpose he set out from London, December 18, with a sufficient force, carrying at the same time 50,000l. for his own army. The king being delivered by the Scots to the parliament’s commissioners at Newcastle, Jan. 30, 1646-7, sir Thomas went and met him, Feb. 15, beyond Nottingham, in his way to Holmby; and his majesty stopping his horse, sir Thomas alighted, and kissed his hand; and afterwards mounted, and discoursed with him as they rode along. The 5th of March following, after long debate in parliament, he was toted general of the forces that were to be continued. He came to Cambridge the 12th of the same month, where he was highly caressed and complimented, and created master of arts.

Hitherto, the crafty and ambitious Cromwell had permitted him to enjoy in all respects the supreme command, at least to outward appearance. And, under his conduct, the army’s rapid success, after their new model, had much surpassed the expectation of the most sanguine of their masters, the parliament* The question now was, to disband the majority of them after their work was done, and to employ a part of the rest in the reduction of Ireland. But either of the two appeared to all of them intolerable. For, many having, from the dregs of the people, risen to the highest commands, and by plunderings and violence amassing daily great treasures, they could not bear the thoughts of losing such great advantages. To maintain themselves therefore in the possession of them, Cromwell, and his son-in-law Ireton, as good a contriver as himself, but a much better writer and speaker, devised how to raise a mutiny in the army against the parliament. To this end they spread a whisper among the soldiery, “that the parliament, now they had the king, intended to disband them; to cheat them of their arrears; and to send them, into Ireland, to be destroyed by the Irish.” The army, enraged at this, were taught by Ireton to erect a council among themselves, of two soldiers out of every troop and every company, to consult for the good of the army, and to assist at the council of war, and advise for the peace and safety of the kingdom. These, who were called adjutators, or agitators, were wholly under Cromwell’s influence and direction, the most active of them being his avowed creatures. Sir Thomas saw with uneasiness his power on the army usurped by these agitators, the forerunners of confusion and anarchy, whose design (as he observes) was to raise their own fortunes upon the public ruin; and that made him resolve to lay down his commission. But he was over-persuaded by the heads of the Independent faction to hold it till he had accomplished their desperate projects, of rendering themselves masters not only of the parliament, but of the whole kingdom; for, he joined in the several petitions and proceedings of the army that tended to destroy the parliament’s power. About the beginning of June, he advanced towards London, to awe the parliament, though both houses desired his army might not come within fifteen miles of the same; June 15, he was a party in the charge against eleven of the members of the house of commons; in August, he espoused the speakers of both houses, and the sixty -six members that had fled to the army, and betrayed the privileges of parliament: and, entering London, August 6, restored them in a kind of triumph; for which he received the thanks of both houses, and was appointed constable of the Tower. On the other hand it is said that he was no way concerned in, the violent removal of the king from Holmby, by cornet Joyce, on the 3d of June; and waited with great respect upon his majesty at sir John Cutts’s house near Cambridge. Being ordered, on the 15th of the same month, by the parliament, to deliver the person of the king to such persons as both houses should appoint; that he might be brought to Richmond, where propositions were to be presented to him for a safe and well-grounded peace; instead of complying (though he seemed to do so) he carried his majesty from place to place, according to the several motions of the army, outwardly expressing, upon most occasions, a due respect for him, but, not having the will or resolution to oppose what he had not power enough to prevent, he resigned himself entirely to Cromwell. It was this undoubtedly that made him concur, Jan. 9, 1647-8, in that infamous declaration of the army, of “No further addresses or application to the king; and resolved to stand by the parliament, in what should be further necessary for settling and securing the parliament and kingdom, without the king and against him.” His father dying at York, March 13, he became possessed of his title and estate and was appointed keeper of Pontefract-castle, custos rotulorum of Yorkshire, &c. in his room. But his father’s death made no alteration in his conduct, he remaining the same servile or deluded tool to Cromwell’s ambition. He not only sent extraordinary supplies, and took all pains imaginable for reducing colonel Poyer in Wales, but also quelled, with the utmost zeal and industry, an insurrection of apprentices and others in London, April 9, who had declared for God and king Charles. The 1st of the same month he removed his head-quarters to St. EdmundV bury; and, upon the royalists seizing Berwick and Carlisle, and the apprehension of the Scots entering England, he was desired, May 9, by the parliament, to advance in person into the North, to reduce those places, and to prevent any danger from the threatened invasion. Accordingly he began to march that way the 20th. But he was soon recalled to quell an insurrection in Kent, headed by George Goring, earl of Norwich, and sir William Waller. Advancing therefore against them from London in the latter end of May, he defeated a considerable party of them at Maidstone, June 2, with his usual valour. But the earl and about 500 of the royalists, getting over the Thames at Greenwich into Essex, June 3, they were joined by several parties brought by sir Charles Lucas, and Arthur lord Capel, which made up their numbers about 400; and went and shut themselves up in Colchester on the 12th of June. Lord Fairfax, informed of their motions, passed over with his forces at Gravesend with so much expedition, that he arrived before Colchester June 13. Immediately he summons the royalists to surrender; which they refusing, he attacks them the same afternoon with the utmost fury, but, being repulsed, he resolved, June 14, to block up the place in order to starve the royalists into a compliance. These endured a severe and tedious siege of eleven weeks, not surrendering till August 28, and feeding for about five weeks chiefly on horse-flesh; all their endeavours for obtaining peace on honourable terms being ineffectual. This affair is the most exceptionable part in lord Fairfax’s conduct, if it admits of degrees, for he granted worse terms to that poor town than to any other in the whole course of the war he endeavoured to destroy it as much as possible he laid an exorbitant fine, or ransom, of J2,000l. upon the inhabitants, to excuse them from being plundered; and he vented his revenge and fury upon sir Charles Lucas and sir George Lisle, who had behaved in the most inoffensive manner during the siege, sparing that buffoon the earl of Norwich, whose behaviour had been quite different: so that his name and memory there ought to be for ever detestable. After these mighty exploits against a poor and unfortified town, he made a kind of triumphant progress to Ipswich, Yarmouth, Norwich, St. Edmund’s-bui y, Harwich, Mersey, and Maldon. About the beginning of December he came to London, to awe thatcity and the parliament, and to forward the proceedings against the king quartering himself in the royal palace of Whitehall: and it was by especial order from him and the council of the army, that several members of the house of commons were secluded and imprisoned, the 6th and 7th of that month; he being, as Wood expresses it, lulled in a kind of stupidity. Yet, although his name stood foremost in the list of the king’s judges, he refused to act, probably by his lady’s persuasion. Feb. 14, 1648-9, he was voted to be one of the new council of state, but on the 19th he refused to subscribe the test, appointed by parliament, for approving all that was done concerning the king and kingship. March 31 he was voted general of all the forces in England and Ireland; and in May he inarched against the levellers, who were grown very numerous, and began to be troublesome and formidable in Oxfordshire, and utterly routed them atBurford. Thence, on the 22d of the same month, he repaired to Oxford with Oliver Cromwell, and other officers, where he was highly feasted, and created LL.D. Next, upon apprehension of the like risings in other places, he went and viewed the castles and fortifications in the Isle of Wight, and at Southampton, and Portsmouth; and near Guildford had a rendezvous of the army, which he exhorted to obedience. June 4, he was entertained, with other officers, &c. by the city of London, and presented with a large and weighty bason and ewer of beaten gold. In June 1650, upon the Scots declaring for king Charles II. the juncto of the council of state having taken a resolution to be beforehand, and not to stay to be invaded from Scotland, but to carry first the war into that kingdom; general Fairfax, being consulted, seemed to approve of the design: but afterwards, by the persuasions of his lady, and of the presbyterian ministers, he declared himself unsatisfied that there was a just ground for the parliament of England to send their army to invade Scotland and resolved to lay down his commission rather than engage in that affair and on the 26th that high trust was immediately committed to Oliver Cromwell, who was glad to see him removed, as being no longer necessary, but rather an obstacle to his farther ambitious designs. Being thus released from all public employment, he went and lived quietly at his own house in Nun-Appleton in Yorkshire; always earnestly wishing and praying (as we are assured) for the restitution of the royal family, and fully resolved to lay hold on the first opportunity to contribute his part towards it, which made him always looked upon with a jealous eye by the usurpers of that time. As soon as he was invited by general Monk to assist him against Lambert’s army, he cheerfully embraced the occasion, and appeared, on the 3d of December 1659, at the head of a body of gentlemen of Yorkshire and, upon the reputation and authority of his name, the Irish brigade of 1200 horse forsook Lambert’s army, and joined him. The consequence was, the immediate breaking of all Lambert’s forces, which gave general Monk an easy inarch into England. The 1st of January 1659-60, his lordship made himself master of York; and, on the 2d of the same month, was chosen by the rump parliament one of the council of state, as he was again on the 23d of February ensuing. March '29 he was elected one of the knights for the county of York, in the healing parliament; and was at the head of the committee appointed May 3, by the house of commons, to go and attend king Charles II. at the Hague, to desire him to make a speedy return to his parliament, and to the exercise of his kingly office. May 16 he waited upon his majesty with the rest, and endeavoured to atone in some measure for all past offences, by readily concurring and assisting in his restoration. After the dissolution of the short healing parliament, he retired again to his seat in the country, where he lived in a private manner till his death, which happened November 12, 1671, in the sixtieth year of his age. Several letters, remonstrances, and other papers, subscribed with his name, are preserved in Rushworth and other collections, being published during the time he was general; but he disowned most of them. After his decease, some “short memorials, written by himself,” were published in 1699, 8vo, by Brian Fairfax, esq. but do his lordship no great honour, either as to principle, style, or accuracy. Lord Fairfax, as to his person, was tall, but not above the just proportion, and of a gloomy and melancholy disposition. He stammered a little, and was a bad orator ou the most plausible occasions. As to the qualities of his mind, he was of a good natural disposition; a great lover of learning, having contributed to the edition of the Polygiott, and other large works; and a particular admirer of the History and Antiquities of Great Britain, as appears by the encouragement he gave to Mr. Dodsvrorth. In religion he professed Presbyterianismn, but where he first learned that, unless ia the army, does not appear. He was of a meek and humble carriage, and but of few words in discourse and council; yet, when his judgment and reason were satisfied, he was unalterable; and often ordered things expressly contrary to the judgment of all his council. His valour was unquestionable. He was daring, and regardless of self-interest, and, we are told, in the field he appeared so highly transported, that scarcely any durst speak a word to him, and he would seem like a man distracted and furious. Had not the more successful ambition and progress of Cromwell eclipsed lord Fairfax’s exploits, he would have been considered as the greatest of the parliamentary commanders; and one of the greatest heroes of the rebellion, had not the extreme narrowness of his genius, in every thing but war, obstructed his shining as a statesman. We have already noticed that he had some taste for literature, and that both at York and at Oxford he endeavoured to preserve the libraries from being pillaged. He also presented twenty-nine ancient Mss. to the Bodleian library, one of which is a beautiful ms. of -Cower' s “Confessio Amantis.” When at Oxford we do not find that he countenanced any of the outrages committed there, but on the contrary, exerted his utmost diligence in preserving the Bodleian from pillage; and, in fact, as Mr. Warton observes, that valuable repository suffered less than when the city was in' the possession of the royalists. Lord Orford has introduced lord Fairfax among his “Royal and Noble Authors,” “not only as an historian, but a poet. In Mr. Thoresby’s museum were preserved in manuscript the following pieces:” The Psalms of David;“”The Song of Solomon“” The Canticles;“and” Songs of Moses, Exod. 15. and Deut. 32.“and other parts of scripture versified.” Poem on Solitude.“Besides which, in the same collection were preserved” Notes of Sermons by his lordship, by his lady, and by their daughter Mary,“the wife of the second duke of Buckingham; and” A Treatise on the Shortness of Life.“But, of all lord Fairfax’s works, by far the most remarkable were some verses which he wrote on the horse on which Charles the Second rode to liis coronation, and which had been bred and presented to the king by his lordship. How must that merry monarch, not apt to keep his countenance on more serious occasions, have smiled at this awkward homage from the old victorious hero of republicanism and the covenant” Besides these, several of his Mss. are preserved in the library at Denton, of which Mr. Park has given a list in his new edition of the “Royal and Noble Authors.”

Lord Fairfax, at the usual age, was sent to the university of Oxford to complete his education, and was highly esteemed there for his learning and accomplishments. His judgment upon literary subjects was then, and at other times, frequently appealed to; and his biographer informs us he was one of the writers of the Spectator, but the annotators on that work have not been able to ascertain any of his papers. After some years’ residence in the university, he took a commission in the regiment of horse called the Blues, and remained in it, as is supposed, till the death of the survivor of the two ladies above mentioned; who had usually resided at Leeds Castle. Some time before their decease, a circumstance happened, that eventually occasioned him much uneasiness. He had been persuaded, upon his brother Henry’s arriving at the age of twenty-one, or rather compelled by the ladies Culpepper and Fairfax, under a menace, in case of refusal, of never inheriting the Northern Neck, to cut off the intail, and to sell Denton Hall, and the Yorkshire estates, belonging to this branch of the Fairfax family, which had been in their possession for five or six centuries, in order to redeem those of the late lord Culpepper, that had descended to his heiress, exceedingly encumbered, and deeply mortgaged. This circumstance happened while lord Fairfax was at Oxford, and is said to have occasioned him the greater vexation, as it appeared afterwards, that the estates had been disposed of, through the treachery of a steward, for considerably less than their value; less even than what the timber that was cut down to discharge the purchase money, before the stipulated day of payment came, was sold for. He conceived, therefore, a violent disgust against the -ladies, who, as he used to say, had treated him with such unparalleled cruelty; and ever afterwards expressed the keenest sense of the injury that had been done, as he thought, to the Fairfax family. After entering into possession, he began to inquire into the value and situation of his estates; and he soon discovered that the proprietary lands in Virginia had been extremely mismanaged and under-let. An agent, who at the same time was a tenant, had been employed by the dowager lady Fairfax, to superintend her concerns in that quarter of the world; and he is said to have abused her confidence, and to have enriched himself and family, as is too frequently the case, at the expence of his employer. Lord Fairfax therefore wrote to William Fairfax, esq. his father’s brother’s second son, who held, at that time, a place of considerable trust and emolument under the government in New England; requesting him to remove to Virginia, and to take upon himself the agency of the Northern Neck. With this request Mr. Fairfax readily complied; and as soon as he conveniently could, he removed with his family to Virginia, and settled in Westmoreland county. He there opened an agencyoffice for the granting of the proprietary lands; and as the quit-rent demanded was only after the rate of two shillings for every hundred acres, the vacant lands were rapidly let, and a considerable and permanent income was soon derived from them.

Lord Fairfax, informed of these circumstances, determined to go himself to Virginia, to visit his estates, and the friend and relation to whom he was so greatly obliged. Accordingly, about 1739, he embarked for that continent; and on his arrival in Virginia, he went and spent twelve months with his friend Mr. Fairfax, at his house in Westmoreland county; during which time he became so captivated with the climate, the beauties and produce of the country, that he formed a resolution of returning to England, in order to prosecute a suit, which he had with the crown, on account of a considerable tract of land claimed in behalf of the latter by governor Gooch (which suit was afterwards determined in his favour); and, after making pome necessary arrangements, and settling his family affairs, to return to Virginia, and spend the remainder of his life upon his vast and noble domain there. It is not quite certain how long he remained in England to adjust all these concerns, but he appears to have finally settled in the Northern Neck in 1746, or 1747.

On his return at this time, he went to Belvoir, the seat of his friend and relation Mr. William Fairfax, and remained several years in his family, undertaking and directing the management of his farms and plantations, and amusing himself with hunting and the pleasures of the field. At length, the lands about Belvoir not answering his expectation, and the foxes becoming less numerous, he determined to remove to a fine tract of land on the western side of the Blue Ridge, or Apalachian mountains, in Frederic county, about eighty miles from Belvoir where he built a small neat house, which he called Greenway-court; and laid out one of the most beautiful farms, consisting of arable and grazing lands, and of meadows two or three miles in length, that had ever been seen in that quarter of the world. He there lived the remainder of his life, in the style of a gentleman farmer, or rather of an English country gentleman. He kept many servants, white and black; several hunters; a plentiful, but plain table, entirely in the English fashion; and his mansion was the mansion of hospitality. His dress corresponded with his mode of life, and notwithstanding he had every year new suits of clothes, of the most fashionable and expensive kind, sent out to him from England, which he never put on, was plain in the extreme. His manners were humble, modest, and unaffected; not tinctured in the smallest degree with arrogance, pride, or self-conceit. He was free from the selfish passions, and liberal almost to excess. The produce of his farms, after the deduction of what was necessary for the consumption of his own family, was distributed and given away to the poor planters and settlers in his neighbourhood. To these he frequently advanced money, to enable them to go on with their improvements; to clear away the woods, and cultivate the ground; and where the lands proved unfavourable, and not likely to answer the labour and expectation of the planter or husbandman, he usually indemnified him for the expence he had been at in the attempt, and gratuitously granted him fresh lands of a more favourable and promising nature. He was a friend and father to all who held and lived under him; and as the great object of his ambition was the peopling and cultivating of that beautiful country of which he was the proprietor, he sacrificed every other pursuit, and made every other consideration subordinate, to this great point

Lord Fairfax had been brought up in revolution principles, and had early imbibed high notions of liberty, and of the excellence of the British constitution. He devoted a considerable part of his time to the public service. He was lord lieutenant and custos rotulprum of the county of Frederic; presided at the county courts held at Winchester, where during the sessions he always kept open table: and acted as surveyor and overseer of the highways and public roads. His chief if not sole amusement was hunting and in pursuit of this exercise he frequently carried his hounds to distant parts of the country; and entertained every gentleman of good character and decent appearance, who attended him in the field, at the inn or ordinary, where he took up his residence for the hunting season. So unexceptionable and disinterested was his behaviour, both public and private, and so generally was he beloved and respected, that during the late contest between Great Britain and America, he never met with the least insult or molestation from either party, but was suffered to go on in his improvement and cultivation of the Northern Neck; a pursuit equally calculated for the comfort and happiness of individuals, and for the general good of mankind.

In 1751, Thomas Martin, esq. second son of his sister Frances, came over to Virginia to live with his lordship; and a circumstance happened, a few years after his arrival, too characteristic of lord Fairfax not to be recorded. After general Braddock’s defeat in 1755, the Indians in the interest of the French committed the most dreadful massacres upon all our back settlements. Their incursions were every where stained with blood; and slaughter and devastation marked the inroads of these cruel and merciless savages. Every planter of name or reputation became an object of their insidious designs; and as lord Fairfax had been pointed out to them as a captain or chief of great renown, the possession of his scalp became an object of their sanguinary ambition, and what they would have regarded as a trophy of inestimable value. With this view they made daily inroads into the vicinage of Greenwaycourt; and it is said that not less than 3000 lives were sacrificed to their cruel barbarity between the Apalachian and Alleghenny mountains. The most serious apprehensions were entertained for the safety of lord Fairfax and the family at Greenway-court. In this crisis of danger his lordship, importuned by his friends and the principal gentry of the colony to retire to the inner settlements for security, is said to have addressed his nephew, who now bore the commission of colonel of militia, nearly in the following manner: “Colonel Martin, the danger we are exposed to, which is undoubtedly great, may possibly excite in your mind apprehension and anxiety. If so, I am ready to take any step that you may judge expedient for our common safety. I myself am an old man, and it is of little importance whether 1 fall by the tomahawk of an Intlian, or by disease and old age: but you are young, and, it is to be hoped, may have many years before you. I will therefore submit it to your decision, whether we shall remain where we are, taking every precaution to secure ourselves against the ravages of the enemy, or abandon our habitation, and retire within the mountains, that we may be sheltered from the danger to which we are at present exposed. If we determine to remain, it is possible, notwithstanding our utmost care and vigilance, that we may both fall victims if we retire, the whole district will immediately break up and all the trouble and solicitude which 1 have undergone to settle this fine country will be frustrated, and the occasion perhaps irrecoverably lost.” Colonel Martin, after a short deliberation, determined to remain, and as affairs in that quarter soon took a more favourable turn, the danger gradually diminished, and at length, entirely disappeared.

Lord Fairfax lived to extreme old age at Greenwaycourt, universally beloved, and died as universally lamented, in January or February 1782, in the ninety-second year of his age. He was buried at Winchester, where he had so often and so honourably presided as judge of the court. He bequeathed Greenway-court to his nephew colonel Martin; and his barony descended to his only surviving brother Robert Fairfax, to whom he had before consigned Leeds Castle, and his other English estates. This Robert, seventh lord Fairfax, died at Leeds Castle in 1791, and bequeathed that noble mansion, and its appendages, to his nephew the reverend Denny Martin, who has since taken the name of Fairfax. The barony or title, by regular descent, is now vested in the reverend Bryan Fairfax, the present and eighth lord Fairfax, third son of William Fairfax, esq. above mentioned. His claim on the barony was confirmed, in 1800, by the house of peers.

, a very celebrated engraver, was born in London in the early part of the seventeenth century. He was the pupil of Peake, the printer and printseller, who was afterwards knighted, and worked with him three or four years. At the breaking out of the civil war, Peake espoused the cause of Charles I.; and Faithorne, who accompanied his master, was taken prisoner by the rebels at Basing-house, whence he was sent to London, and confined in Aldersgate. In this uncomfortable situation he exercised his graver; and a small head of the first Villiers, duke of Buckingham, in the style of Mallan, was one of his first performances. The solicitations of his friends in his favour at last prevailed; and he was released from prison, with permission to retire on the continent. The story of his banishment for refusing to take the oath to Oliver Cromwell, would have done him no discredit, had it been properly authenticated, but that does not appear to be the case. Soon after his arrival in France, he found protection and encouragement from the abbe* de Marolles, and formed an acquaintance with the celebrated Nanteuil, from whose instructions he derived very considerable advantages. About 1650, he returned to England, and soon after married the sister of a person who is called “the famous” captain Ground. By her he had two sons, Henry, who was a bookseller, and William, an engraver in mezzotinto.

He now opened a shop opposite the Palsgrave -head tavern without Temple-bar, where he sold not only his own engravings, but those of other English artists, and imported a considerable number of prints from Holland, France, and Italy. He also worked for the booksellers, particularly Mr. Royston, the king’s bookseller, Mr. Martin, his brother-in-law, in St. Paul’s church-yard, and Mr. William Peake, a stationer and printseller on Snow-hill, the younger brother of his old master. About 1680, he retired from his shop, and resided in Printing-house-yard: but he still continued to work for the booksellers, and painted portraits from the life in crayons, which art he learned of Nanteuil, during his abode in France. He also painted in miniature; and his performances in both these styles were much esteemed. These portraits are what we now find with the inscription “W. Faithorne pinxit” He appears to have been well paid for his engravings, of which lord Orford has given a very full list. Mr. Ashmole gave him seven pounds for the engraving of his portrait, which, if not a large one, or very highly finished, could not at that time have been a mean price. Unfortunately, however, for him, his son William dissipated a considerable part of his property, and it is supposed that the vexation he suffered from this young man’s misconduct, tended to shorten his days. He died in May 1691, and was buried by the side of his wife in the church of St. Anne, Blackfriars. In 1662 he published “The Art of Engraving and Etching.”

Portraits constitute the greater part of Faithorne’s engravings. He worked almost entirely with the graver in a free clear style. In the early part of his life, he seems to have followed the Dutch and Flemish manner of engraving but at his return from France he had considerably improved it. Some of his best portraits are admirable prints, and finished in a free delicate style, with much force of colour; but he did not draw the human figure correctly, or with good taste, and his historical plates by no means convey a proper idea of his abilities. His son scraped portraits in mezzotinto, and probably might have acquired a comfortable subsistence, but he neglected his business before he had attained any great degree of excellence, and died about the age of thirty.

is ranked among the Sicilian historians of the twelfth century, but his personal history is involved in obscurity. Muratori makes him a Sicilian, but Mongitori says he was only educated in Sicily, and that he was more of a Norman than a Sicilian, although he lived many years in the latter kingdom. The editors of the “L'Art de verifier les Dates” are of opinion that the true name of Falcandus is Fulcandus, or Fducanlt. According to them, Hugues Foucault, a Frenchman by birth, and at length abbot of St. Denys, had followed into Sicily his patron Stephen de la Perche, uncle to the mother of William II. archbishop of Palermo, and great chancellor of the kingdom. Yet Falcandus has all the feelings of a Sicilian and the title of alumnus which he bestows on himself, appears to indicate that he was born, or at least, according to Mongitori, was educated in that island. Falcandus has been styled the Tacitus of Sicily, and Gibbon seems unwilling to strip him of his title: “his narrative,” says that historian, “is rapid and perspicuous, his style bold and elegant, his observation keen; he had studied mankind, and feels like a man.” There are four editions of his history, one separate, Paris, 1550; a second in the Wechels’ collection of Sicilian histories, 1579, folio; a third in Carusio’s Sicilian library and a fourth in the seventh volume of Muratori’s collection. Falcandus appears to have been living about 1190. His history embraces the period from 1130 to 1169, a time of great calamity to Sicily, and of which he was an eye-witness.

, a historian of Benevento, of the twelfth century, was notary and secretary to pope Innocent II. and was also a judge or magistrate of Benevento. He wrote a curious chronicle of events strikingly told, but in a bad style, which happened from 1102 to 1140. Mirseus says that Falco’s readers are as much impressed as if they had been present at what he relates. This chronicle was first printed by Ant. Caraccioli, a priest of the order of regular clerks, along with three other chroniclers, under the title “Antiqui chronologi quatuor,” Naples, 1626, 4to. It has since been reprinted in Muratori’s and other collections.

, an ingenious poet, was born about 1730, and was the son of a poor but industrious barber at Edinburgh, all of whose children, with the exception ofour author, were either deaf or dumb. William received such common education as might qualify him for some inferior employment, and appears to have contracted a taste for reading, and a desire for higher attainments than his situation permitted. In the character of Arion, unquestionably intended for his own, he hints at a farther progress in study than his biographers have been able to trace

As Falconer wanted much of that complementary time of service, which might enable him to arrive at the commission of Lieutenant, his friends advised him to exchange the military for the civil department of the royal navy; and accordingly, in the course of 1763, he was appointed purser of the Glory frigate of 32 guns. Soon after he married a young lady of the name of Hicks, the daughter of the surgeon of Sheerness Yard. With this lady, who had considerable taste, he appears to have lived happily, although his circumstances were reduced for want of employment. That this was the case appears from a whimsical incident related by his biographer. “When the Glory was laid up in ordinary at Chatham, commissioner Hanway, brother to the benevolent Jonas Hanway, became delighted with the genius of its purser. The captain’s cabin was ordered to be fitted up with a stove, and with every addition of comfort that could be procured; in order that Falconer might thus be enabled to enjoy his favourite propensity, without either molestation or expence.”

“In person,” says Mr. Clarke, “Falconer was about five feet seven inches in height of a thin light make, with a dark weather-beaten complexion, and rather what is termed hard-featured, being considerably marked with the small-pox his hair was of a brownish hue. In point of address, his manner was blunt, awkward, and forbidding but he spoke with great fluency and his simple yet impressive diction was couched in words which reminded his hearers of the terseness of Swift. Though he possessed a warm and friendly disposition, he was fond of controversy, and inclined to satire. His observation was keen and rapid; his criticisms on any inaccuracy of language, or expression, were frequently severe; yet this severity was always intended eventually to create mirth, and not by any means to show his own superiority, or to give the smallest offence. In his natural temper he was cheerful, and frequently used to amuse his messmates by composing acrostics on their favourites, in which he particularly excelled. As a professional man he was a thorough seaman; and, like most of that profession, was kind, generous, and benevolent. He often assured governor Hunter, that his education had been confined merely to reading English, writing, and a 4ittle arithmetic; notwithstanding which he was never at a loss to understand either French, Spanish, Italian, or even German.”

In the use of imagery, Falconer displays original powers. His Sun-set, Midnight, Morning, &c. are not such as have descended from poet to poet. He beheld these objects under circumstances in which it is the lot of few to be placed. His images cannot, therefore, be transferred or borrowed; they have an appropriation which must not be disturbed, nor can we trace them to any source but that of genuine poetry. Although we may suspect that he had studied the Æneid, there are no marks of servile imitation, while he has the high merit of enriching English poetry by a new train of ideas, and conducting the imagination into an undiscovered country.

With such views it was impossible to exclude a language which is uncouth only where it is not understood, and which as being the language of those heroes who have elevated the character of their country beyond all precedent and all comparison, merits higher veneration than the technical terms of common mechanics; nor, upon this account, ought the Shipwreck to involve the blame which attaches to the “Cyder” of Philips, or the “Fleece” of Dyer. No art can give dignity to such subjects, nor did they demand the aid of poetry to render them more useful or more pleasing. Falconer’s subject was one of the most sublime inflictions of Providence. He described it for those who might be destined to behold it, and he knew that if among sailors he found no acute critics, he would find intelligent and sympathizing readers. When therefore we consider his whole design, the objection may admit of some apology even from those who will yet regret that a poet of such genuine skill should have narrowed his fame by writing for a class.

, a Roman poetess, who flourished about 395, under the emperor Honorius, was a native of Horta, or Hortanum, in Etruria. There is still extant by her, a cento from Virgil, giving the sacred history from the creation to the deluge; and the history of Christ, in verses selected from that poet, introduced by a few lines of her own. Authors have sometimes confounded her with Anicia Falconia Proba, the mother of three consuls: and some have said she was that Valeria Proba, who was the wife of Adelfius, a proconsul. Her poem was first published with Ausonius, at Venice, 1472, under the title “Probae Falconiae, cento ^Virgilianus, seu Centimetrum de Christo, versibus Virgilianis compaginatum.” The last edition is that of Wolfius in the “Mulierum Grxcarum Frag.” Hamb. 1734, 4to.

, a voluminous compiler of historical documents, was born in Franconia in 1682, and died in 1760. In 1724 he was appointed director of the university of Erlangen, but turning catholic, he entered into the service of the bishop of Eichstadt, and after the death of that prelate, obtained the patronage of the margrave of Anspach. Among other compilations of a similar kind, without taste or arrangement, but which may be useful to future historians, are his “Antiquities of Nordgau in the bishopric of Eichstadt,” 3 vols. fol.

, a native of the West of England, who may be termed the inventor of circulating libraries, was, at the beginning of the last century, pastor of a congregation of protestant dissenters in Salisbury, where he had a number of pupils for near twenty years. Professing a creed very different from, the opinions of Calvin, as appears by his numerous publications, he incurred the displeasure of persons of that persuasion, and a controversy arose in which clergymen of the establishment and the dissenters had an equal share. It turned on the divine prescience, the freedom of the human will, the greatness of the divine love, and the doctrine of reprobation. Driven from a comfortable settlement to the great metropolis, where he acquired no new one as a teacher, Mr. Fancourt, about 1740 or 1745, established the first circulating library for gentlemen and ladies, at a subscription of a guinea a year for reading; but in 1748 extended it to a guinea in all, for the purchase of a better library, half to be paid at the time of subscribing, the other half at the delivery of a new catalogue then in the press, and twelve pence a quarter beside, to begin from Michaelmas 1754, to the librarian. Subscriptions were to be paid without further charge to the proprietors, but to pay only from the time of subscribing; out of which quarterly payments were to be deducted the rent of the rooms to receive the books, and accommodate subscribers, a salary to the librarian to keep an open account, and to circulate the books; a stock to buy new books and duplicates as there was occasion; the expence of providing catalogues, and drawing up writings for settling the trust. This trust was to be vested in twelve or thirteen persons chosen by ballot out of the body of proprietors; and the proposer, Mr. Fancourt himself, was to be the first librarian, and to continue so as long as he discharged his office with diligence and fidelity. Every single subscriptionentitled the subscriber to one book and one pamphlet at a time, to be changed ad libitum for others, and kept ad Libitum, if not wanted by other subscribers. Mr. Fancourt advertised himself also in these proposals as a teacher of Latin, to read, write, and speak it with fluency in a year’s time or less, at twelve guineas a year, one guinea a month, or twelve pence an hour, allowing five or six hours in a week. The great hypercritic of Mr. Fancourt’s design was the late Dr. C. Mortimer. Not to trace the poor librarian through every shifting of his quarters, he fixed at last at the corner of one of the streets in the Strand, where, encumbered with a helpless and sick wife, turned out of fashion, and outplanned by a variety of imitators, and entangled with a variety of plans, not one of which could extricate him from perplexities, this poor man, who may be said to have first circulated knowledge among us, sunk under a load of debt, unmerited reproach, and a failure of his faculties, brought on by the decay of age, precipitated by misfortunes. His library became the property of creditors, and he retired in humble poverty to Hoxton-square, where some of his brethren relieved his necessities till the close of his life, in his ninetieth year, June 8, 1768. As a preacher, though neither what is now called popular, nor pastor of a London congregation, he was occasionally called upon to fill up vacancies, and is said to have preached with a considerable degree of manly eloquence.

He published three or four occasional sermons, besides his tracts against Calvinistic principles, which were answered by Messrs. Morgan, Norman, Bliss, Millar, and Eliot, all, or mostly, dissenting ministers, and defended in various pamphlets by the author.

, surnamed Strabo, was consul at Rome in 161 B. C. with Valerius Messala. The law called Fannia was made during his consulate, for regulating the expences of feasts, and empowering the pretors to drive the rhetoricians and philosophers from Rome. This law prohibited more than ten asses to be spent at a common feast, and an hundred at the most solemn, such as those of the Saturnalia, or of the public games; which seems almost incredible, when it is considered that a sheep at that time cost ten asses, and an ox an hundred, according to the opinion of several learned men. Caius Fannius, his son, distinguished himself by his eloquence, and was consul 120 B. C. He opposed the enterprizes of Caius Gracchus, and made a speech against him, which is praised by Cicero. Caius Fannius, cousin-german of this latter, was questor 139 B. C. and pretor ten years after; served under Scipio Africanus the younger in Africa; and, in Spain, under Fabius Maximus Servilianus. He was the disciple of Panetius, a celebrated stoic philosopher; married the youngest daughter of Lelius, and wrote some annals, which are much praised by Cicero.

He was elected one of the representatives of the university of Cambridge in the parliament which met the 8th of May 1661, and was soon after sworn a privy counsellor of Ireland. Having by his residence in foreign courts qualified himself for public employments abroad, he was sent envoy extraordinary to Portugal, with a dormant commission to the ambassador, which he was to make use of as occasion should require. Shortly after, he was appointed ambassador to that court, where he negotiated the marriage between his master king Charles II. and the infanta donna Catharina, daughter of king John VI. and returned to England towards the end of the same year. It appears that he was again sent ambassador to that crown in 1661, and was, upon his return to England the following year, sworn of his majesty’s privy-council. His integrity, abilities, and industry, became so well known in Portugal, that he was recommended and desired by that crown to be sent to Spain as the fittest person to bring about an accommodation between Spain and Portugal. In the beginning of 1664 he was sent ambassador to Philip IV. king of Spain^ and arrived, February the 29th, at Cadiz, where he was saluted in a manner unexampled to others, and received with several circumstances of particular esteem. It appears from one of sir Richard’s letters, that this extraordinary respect was paid him not only upon his own, but also upon his master the king of England’s account. He says, “I had not been three hours on shore (at Cadiz) when an extraordinary messenger arrived from Madrid with more particular orders than formerly, from his catholic majesty, importing that our master’s fleet, when arrived, and his ambassador, should be pre-saluted from the city in a manner unexampled toothers, and which should not be drawn into example hereafter. Moreover (and this so likewise), that I and all my company must be totally defrayed, both here and all the way up to Madrid, upon his catholic majesty’s account; with several other circumstances of particular esteem for our royal master, above all the world beside.” From a passage in another letter of his it is evident, that the hope the Spaniards entertained, of having Tangier and Jamaica restored to them by England, was, “that which made his arrival impatiently longed for, and so magnificently celebrated.” During his residence at this court, however, after all that apparent good will, he experienced such frequent mortifications as ministers use to meet with in courts irresolute and perplexed in their own affairs, and had made a journey to Lisbon upon the earnest desire of Spain, and returned without effect. ^On a sudden, when the recovery of Philip IV. grew desperate, a project for a treaty was sent to the ambassador, containing more advantages of trade to the nation, and insisting upon fewer inconvenient conditions than had ever been in any* of the former, and urging the immediate acceptation or rejection of it, on account of the king’s illness, “which,” they declared, “might make such an alteration in counsels, that, if it were not done in his life-time, they knew not what might happen ' after.” The ambassador, surprised with this overture, compared what was offered with what he was to demand by his instructions; and what was defective in those particulars he added to the articles presented to him, with such farther additions, as, upon his own observation and conference with the merchants, occurred to him; which being agreed to, he signed the treaty, with a secret article respecting Portugal, and sent it to England. The treaty was no sooner brought to the king, and perused in council, but many faults were found with it, and in the end the king concluded that he would not sign it; and the ambassador was recalled.

Although much of his life was spent in active business, he found leisure to produce the following works: 1. An English translation in rhyme of Guarini’s “II Pastor Fido, or the Faithful Shepherd,” 1646, 4to. 2. A translation from, English into Latin verse of Fletcher’s “Faithful Shepherdess,” 1658. 3. In the octavo edition of “The Faithful Shepherd,” are inserted the following poems of our author; An Ode on his majesty’s Proclamation in 1630, commanding the gentry to reside upon their estates in the country; an English translation of the fourth book of Virgil’s Aneid Odes of Horace, translated into English; and a summary Discourse of the Civil Wars of Rome. 4. He translated from Portuguese into English, Canpens’ “Lusiad, or Portugal’s Historical Poem,” 1655, folio. 5. After his decease were published two pieces in 4to, 1671 r “luerer per solo querer,” “To love only for love’s sake,” a dramatical romance, represented before the king and queen of Spain and “Fiestas de Aranjeuz,” Festival at Aranjeuz. Both written in Spanish by Antonio de Mendoza, upon celebrating the birth-day of Philip VI. in 1623, at Aranjuez; and translated by our author in 1654, during his confinement. 6. His correspondence was published in 1701, in one volume, 8vo, under this title: “'Original Letters of his excellency sir Richard Fanshawe during his embassy in Spain and Portugal; which, together with divers letters and answers from the chief ministers of state in England, Spain, and Portugal, contain the whole negotiations of the treaty of peace between those three crowns.” The publisher received these letters from the hands of a daughter of sir Richard, who had them in her possession. He also composed other things, remaining in manuscript, which he wrote in his younger years, but had not tha leisure to complete. Even some of the preceding printed pieces have not all the perfection which our ingenious author could have given them: for, as his biographer observes, “being, for his loyalty and zeal to his master’s service, tossed from place to place, and from country to country, during the unsettled times of our anarchy, some of his manuscripts falling by misfortune into unskilful hands, were printed and published without his consent or knowledge, and before he could give them his last finishing strokes.” But that was not the case with his translation of “II Pastor Fido,” which was published by himself, and procured him much reputation.

, was born in 1644, at the castle of Valgorge, in Vivarais. He was captain of the guards to the duke of Orleans, and his son, who was regent. His gaiety, and sprightly wit, made him the delight of the best companies. He left a few songs, and other poetical pieces, which have been printed with those of his friend the abb de Chaulieu, and separately, with his Memoirs, 2 vols. small 12mo. They are full of wit and delicacy; but we are told he had attained the age of sixty before he made any poetical etibrt, and that then his inspirer was rather Cupid or Bacchus than Apollo, He also wrote the words of an opera, called “Panthea.” His “Memoirs” are written with great freedom and openness, and show the dislike which their author, and all his party, had to the government. We do not find when they were first published, but an English edition bears date 1719. The Author died at Paris, 1712.

In 1528, he had the same success in promoting the reformation in the city of Aigle, and soon after in the bailU wick of Morat. He went afterwards to Neufchatel in 1529, and disputed against the Roman catholic party with so much strength, that this city embraced the reformed religion, and established it entirely Nov. 4, 1530. He was sent a deputy to the synod of the Waldenses, held in the valley of Angrogne. Hence he went to Geneva, where he laboured against popery: but the grand vicar and the other clergy resisted him with so much fury, that he was obliged to retire. He was called back in 1534 by the inhabitants, who had renounced the Roman catholic religion; and was the chief person that procured the perfect abolition of it the next year. He was banished from Geneva with Calvin in 1533, and retired to Basil, and afterwards to Neufchatel, where there was great probability of a large evangelical harvest. From thence he went to Metz, but had a thousand difficulties to encounter; and was obliged to retire into the abbey of Gorze, where the count of Jurstemberg protected him and the new converts. But they could not continue there long; for they were besieged in the abbey, and obliged at last to surrender, after a capitulation. F. rel very happily escaped, though strict search was made alter him, having been put in a cart among the sick and infirm. He took upon him his former functions of a minister at Neufchatel, whence he took now and then a journey to Geneva. When he went thither in 1553, he was present at Servetus’s execution. He went again to Geneva in 1564, to^take his last leave of Calvin, who was dangerously ill. He took a second journey to Metz in 1565, being invited by his ancient flock, to witness the success of his lubours, but returned to Neufchatel, and died there Sept. 13, or, as Dupin says, Dec. 3, in the same year.

, one of the most celebrated historians and poets of his nation in the seventeenth century, was born March 18, 1590, at Sonto near Caravilla in Portugal, of a noble family, both by his father’s and mother’s side. His father’s name was Arnador Perez d'Eiro, and his mother’s Louisa Faria, but authors are not agreed in their conjectures why he did not take his father’s name, but preferred Faria, that of his mother, and Sousa, which is thought to have been his grandmother’s name. In his infancy he was very infirm, yet made considerable progress, even when a puny child, in writing, drawing, and painting. At the age of ten, his father sent him to school to learn Latin, in which his proficiency by no means answered his expectations, owing to the boy’s giving the preference to the Portuguese and Spanish poets. These he read incessantly, and composed several pieces in verse and prose in both languages, but he had afterwards the good sense to destroy his premature effusions, as well as to perceive that the Greek and Roman classics are the foundation of a true style, and accordingly he endeavoured to repair his error by a careful study of them. In 1604, when only in his fourteenth year, he was received in the Tank of gentleman into the household of don Gonzalez de Moraes, bishop of Porto, who was his relation, and afterwards made him his secretary; and during his residence with this prelate, which lasted ten years, he applied himself indefatigably to his studies, and composed some works, the best of which was an abridgment of the historians of Portugal, “Epitome de las historias Portuguesas, desde il diluyio hasta el anno 1628,” Madrid, 1628, 4to. In this he has been thought to give rather too much scope to his imagination, and to write more like an orator than a historian. In 1612 he fell in love with a lady of Porto, whom he calls Albania, and who was the subject of some of his poems; but it is doubtful whether this was the lady he married in 1614, some time after he left the bishop’s house, on account of his urging him to go into the church, for which he had no inclination. -He remained at Porto until 1618, when he paid his father a visit at Pombeiro. The year following he went to Madrid, and into the service of Peter Alvarez Pereira, secretary of state, and counsellor to Philip the III. and IV. but Pereira did not live long enough to give him any other proof of his regard than by procuring to be made a knight of the order of Christ in Portugal. In 1628 he returned to Lisbon with his family, but quitted Portugal in 1631, owing to his views of promotion being disappointed. Returning to Madrid, he was chosen secretary to the marquis de Castel Rodrigo, who was about to set out for Rome as ambassador at the papal court. At Rome Faria was received with great respect, and his merit acknowledged; but having an eager passion for study, he visited very few. The pope, Urban VIII. received him very graciously, and conversed familiarly with him on the subject of poetry. One of his courtiers requested Faria to write a poem on the coronation of that pontiff, which we find in the second volume of his poems. In 1634, having some reason to be dissatisfied with his master, the ambassador, he quitted his service, and went to Genoa with a view to return to Spain. The ambassador, piqued at his departure, which probably was not very ceremonious, wrote a partial account of it to the king of Spain, who caused Faria to be arrested at Barcelona. So strict was his confinement, that for more than three months no person had access to him; until Jerome de Villa Nova, the prothonotary of Arragon, inquired into the affair, and made his innocence known to the king. This, however, had no other effect than to procure an order that he should be a prisoner at large in Madrid; although the king at the same time assured him that he was persuaded of his innocence, and would allow him sixty ducats per month for his subsistence. Faria afterwards renewed his solicitations to be allowed to remove to Portugal, but in vain; and his confinement in Madrid, with his studious and sedentary life, brought on, in 1647, a retention of urine, the torture of which he bore with great patience. It occasioned his death, however, on June 3, 1640. He appears to have merited an excellent character, but was too little of a man of the world to make his way in it. A spirit of independence probably produced those obstacles which he met with in his progress; and even his dress and manner, we are told, were rather those of a philosopher than of a courtier. Besides his History of Portugal, already mentioned, and of which the best edition was published in 1730, folio, he Wote, 1. “Noches claras,” a collection of moral and political discourses, Madrid, 1623 and 1626, 2 vols. 12mo. 2. “Fuente de Aganipr, o Rimes varias,” a collection of his poems, in 7 vols. Madrid, 1644, &c. 3. “Commentarios sobra las Lusiadas de Luis de Camoens,” an immense commentary on the Lusiad, ibid. 1639, in 2 vols. folio. He is said to have began it in 1614, and to have bestowed twentyfive years upon it. Some sentiments expressed here had alarmed the Inquisition, and the work was prohibited. He was permitted, however, to defend it, which he did in, 4. * Defensa o Information por'los Commentaries, &c.“Madrid, 1640 or 1645, folio. 5.” Imperio de la China, &e.“and an account of the propagation of religion by the Jeuits, written by Semedo: Faria was only editor of this work, Madrid, 1643, 4to. 6.” Nobiliario del Concle D. Petro de Barcelos,“&c. a translation from the Portuguese, with notes, ibid. 1646, folio. 7.” A Life of Don Martin Bapt. de Lanuza,“grand justiciary of Arragon,” ibid. 1650, 4to. 8. “Asia Portuguesa,” Lisbon, 1666, &c. 3 vols. folio. 9. “Europa Portuguesa,” ibid. 1678, 2 vols. folio. 10. “Africa Portuguesa,” ibid. 1681, folio. Of this we have an English Edition by John Stevens, Lond. 1695, 3 vols. 8vo. 11. “America Portuguesa.” All these" historical and geographical works have been considered as correct and valuable. Faria appears to have published some other pieces of less importance, noticed by Antonio.

, an English divine, was born at Sunning in Berks, 1596. He was admitted scholar of Trinity college, Oxford, in 1612, and elected fellow in 1617. Three years after, he took a master of arts degree; about which time entering into orders, he became a celebrated preacher in those parts, an eminent tutor in the college, and, as Wood says, an example fit to be followed by all. In 1634, being then bachelor of divinity, he was made vicar of Bray near Maidenhead in Berks, and soon after divinity-reader in the king’s chapel at Windsor. He con^ tinued at the first of these places, though not without some trouble, till after the civil commotions broke out; and then he was ejected, and reduced with his wife and family to such extremities, as to be very near starving. Lloyd says that his house was plundered by Ireton, in mean revenge, because Mr. Faringdon had reproved him for some irregularities when at Trinity college. At length sir John Robinson, alderman of London, related to archbishop Laud, and some of the parishioners of Milk-street, London, invited him to be pastor of St. Mary Magdalen in that city, which he gladly accepted, and preached with great approbation from the loyal party. In Io47, he published a folio volume of these sermons, and dedicated them to his patron Robinson, “as a witnesse or manifesto,” says he to him, “of my deep apprehension of your many noble favours, and great charity to me and mine, when the sharpnesse of the weather, and the roughnesse of the times, had blown all from us, and well-neer left us naked.”

, an English artist of great promise, the fourth son of the rev. William Farington, B. D. rector of Warrington, and vicar of Leigh in Lancashire, was born in 1754, and received his first instructions in the art from his brother Joseph, one of the present royal academicians; but his inclinations leading him to the study of historical painting, he acquired farther assistance from Mr. West. He was for some time employed by the late alderman Boy dell, for whom he executed several very excellent drawings from the Houghton collection. He studied long in the royal academy, and obtained a silver medal in 1779; and in 1780, obtained the golden medal for the best historical picture, the subject of which was the cauldron scene in Macbeth. In 1782 he left England, and went to the East Indies, being induced to undertake that voyage by some advantageous offers. In India he painted many pictures; but his principal undertaking was a large work, representing the Durbar, or court of the nabob, at Mershoodabad. Whilst employed on this work, he imprudently exposed himself to the night air, to observe some ceremonies of the natives, in order to complete a series of drawings begun for that purpose, when he was suddenly seized with a complaint, which, in a few days, unfortunately terminated his life in 1788.

, a learned divine among the-protestant dissenters, was born in 17 14, at a village near Shrewsbury, where his parents resided, and being early designed for the dissenting ministry, received the first part of his grammatical learning in a school in Llanegrin, nearTowyn, Merionethshire, which had been founded by two of his progenitors. From tiiis place he was sent to perfect his classical education under the tuition of Dr. Owen of Warrington and in 1730, began his academical studies at Northampton, under the care of Mr. (afterwards Dr.) Doddridge, being one of the doctor’s earliest pupils. After Mr. Farmer had finished his academical course, he became chaplain to William Coward, esq. of Waltham-Stowe, Essex, and preacher in a meeting-house which had been lately erected by that gentleman, whose name is of great note^ among the dissenters, on account of the large bequests which he made for the education of young men for the ministry, and for other beneficent purposes. Mr. Coward was remarkable for the peculiarities and oddities of his temper; and in this respect many pleasant stories are related concerning him. Amongst his other whimsies, his house was shut up at an uncommon early hour, we believe at six in the winter, and seven in the summer; and whoever, whether a visitant or a stated resident, trespassed upon the time, was denied admission. Mr. Farmer having one evening been somewhat too late, was of course excluded. In this exigence he had recourse to a neighbouring family, that of William Snell, esq. a solicitor, in which he continued more than thirty years, during the lives of Mr. and Mrs. Snell, by whom he was treated more like an equal than an inferior. Here he enjoyed a long series of peaceful leisure, which he employed in collecting a large fund of sacred and profane literature, and in his duties as a pastor. His congregation, which, when he accepted the charge of it, was very small, gradually became one or the most wealthy dissenting societies in or near the city of" London.

Mr. Farmer’s first appearance as an author was in a discourse on the suppression of the rebellion of 1745. It was preached on the day of public thanksgiving appointed upon that occasion in 1746, and printed in the same year. This was the only sermon that we recollect his having ever committed to the press. His abilities, though they might have been usefully displayed in that way, led him to those novel opinions on which his temporary fame was founded. Iiv 1761, he published “An Inquiry into the nature and design of Christ’s Temptation in the Wilderness” the general intention of which is to show, that this part of the evangelical history is not only to be understood as a recital of visionary representations, but that the whole was a divine vision, premonitory of the labours and offices of our Lord’s future ministry. An interpretation so new and singular, could not pass unnoticed. In 1762 there appeared a pamphlet against the Inquiry, entitled “Christ’s Temptations, real facts: or, a Defence of the Evangelic History; shewing that our Lord’s temptations may be fairly and reasonably understood as a narrative of what was really transacted.” A second edition of Mr. Farmer’s treatise was soon called for; in which the subject received additional illustration from a considerable number of new notes. Besides this, he published in 1764, an appendix to the “Inquiry,” containing some farther observations on the point in debate, and an answer to objections. Another tract, the publication of which was occasioned by the “Inquiry,” was entitled “The Sovereignty of the Divine Administration vindicated, or a rational Account of our blessed Saviour’s remarkable Temptation in the Wilderness; the Possessed at Capernaum, the Demoniacs at Gadara, and the Destruction of the Swine: with free Remarks on several other important passages in the New Testament.” This was a posthumous piece, which had been written before Mr. Farmer’s work appeared, by Mr. Dixon, who had been a dissenting minister, first at Norwich, and afterwards at Bolton in Lancashire. Mr. Dixon proposes a figurative or allegorical interpretation of our Lord’s temptation. A third edition, with large additions, of Mr. Farmer’s “Inquiry” was published in 1776. In 1771, he published “A Dissertation on Miracles, designed to shew that they are arguments of a divine interposition, and absolute proofs of the mission and doctrine of a Prophet,” 8vo. Not long -after the appearance of the “Dissertation,” a notion was propagated, that Mr. Farmer had made considerable use of a treatise of Le Moine l s on the same subject, without acknowledging it; and it was asserted, that his book had the very same view with Mr. Le Moine’s, and was a copy of his work.Mr. Farmer therefore endeavoured to vindicate himself in a pamphlet, published in 1772, entitled “An Examination of the late rev. Mr. Le Moine’s Treatise on Miracles,” in which he enters into a particular discussion of that performance, and a defence of himself; but the accusation continued to be repeated, particularly by a writer in th? London Magazine.

Mr. Farmer’s last work appeared in 1783, and was entitled “The general prevalence of the worship of Human Spirits in the ancient lieathen Nations asserted and proved.” In this work, which had liule success, there arc a number of notes referring to Mr. Fell, and which shew Mr. Farmer’s sensibility to the attack that had been made upon him by that writer. Indeed, says his panegyrist, we cannot approve of the oblique manner in which some of these notes are composed. It would have been far preferable in our author, either not to have taken any notice of Mr. Fell at all, or to have done it in a more open and manly way. Mr. Fell was not backward in his own vindication. This appeared in 1785, in a publication entitled “The Idolatry of Greece and Rome distinguished from that of other heathen nations: in a letter to the reverend Hugh Farmer.” At the same time that in this tract ample retaliation is made upon Mr. Farmer for his personal severities, it appears to us to contain many things, which, if he had continued to publish on the subject, would have been found deserving of consideration and reply.

As to his general character, we are told that he was particularly excellent in the pulpit, and that his sermons were rational, spiritual, evangelical, and not unfrequcntly pathetic; that he had an admirable talent, without trimming, of pleasing persons of very different sentiments, and that when he was speaking of the doctrines of the gospel, there was a swell in his language that looked as if he was rising to a greater degree of orthodoxy* in expression than some persons might approve; but it never cam6 to that point. In conversation he was lively and brilliant to an uncommon degree; and, like Doddridge, he sometimes went far enough in his complimentary language to persons present. He was likewise very backward in readily declaring his sentiments, when asked them, concerning particular topics, living writers, or recent publications. Any question of this kind not un frequently produced from him, what has been ascribed to the quakers, another question in return. He appears, however, to have been no philosopher, for we are told that it was probably some feeling of his last work’s not having met with the attention he expected, which dictated the order concerning the burning of his manuscripts. He had great generosity of disposition, and in his distributions to charitable designs and objects went to the utmost extent of his property.

, D. D. a learned critic and distinguished scholar, was the descendant of a family long seated at Ratcliffe Culey. a hamlet within the parish of Shepey, in the county of Leicester. His grandfather (who died in 1727, aged sixty-three) is described on his tomb in St. Mary’s church at. Leicester as “John Farmer of Nuneaton, gent.” His father, who was largely engaged in Leicester in the business of a maltster, married in 1732-3, Hannah Knibb, by whom he had five sons and four daughters. He died in 1778, at the age of eighty, and his widow in 1808, at the advanced age of ninetyseven. The subject of this article was their second son, and was born in Leicester, Aug. 23, 1735. He received the early part of his education under the rev. Gerrard Andrewes (father of the present dean of Canterbury) in the free grammar-school of Leicester, a seminary in which many eminent persons were his contemporaries. About 1753 he left the school with an excellent character for temper and talents, and was entered a pensioner at Emamiei college, Cambridge, when Dr. Richardson, the biographer or the English prelates, was master, and Mr, Bickham and Mr. Hubbard were tutors. Here Mr. Farmer applied himself chiefly to classical learning and the belles lettres, with a predilection for the latter, in which, in truth, he was best qualified to shine. He took his degree of B. A. in 1757, ranked as a senior optime, and gained the silver cup given by Ernanuel college to the best graduate of that year, which honorary reward is still preserved with great care in his family. His only Cambridge' verses were a poem on laying the foundation-stone of the public library in 1755, and a sonnet on the late king’s death in 1760.

In 1766 Mr. Farmer published his justly celebrated “Essay on the Learning of Shakspeare,” a thin octavo volume, which completely settled a much litigated question, contrary to the opinions of many eminent writers, in a manner that carried conviction to the mind of every one who had either carefully or carelessly reflected on the subject. It may in truth be pointed out as a masterpiece, whether we consider the sprightliness and vivacity with xvliich it is written, the clearness of the arrangement, the force and variety of the evidence, or the compression of scattered materials into a narrow com pass; materials which inferior writers would have expanded into a large volume. A second edition of this valuable performance was called for in 1767, in which are a few corrections of style; and a third was printed in 1789, without any additions, except a note at the end, accounting for his finally abandoning his intended publication of the Antiquities of Leicester. It was afterwards added to the prolegomena of Steevens’s Shakspeare, 1793, 15 vols. and in the two subsequent editions of 21 vols. by Mr. Reed in 1803, and Mr. Harris in 1812.

On the death of Dr. Barnardiston, master of Bene't college, Dr. Farmer was, on June 27, 1778, unanimously elected proto-bibliothecarius, or principal librarian of the university, to which he was well entitled from his literary character, and in which office he afforded easy access to the public library to men of learning of all parties, an obligation which some have not repaid by the kindest regard for his memory. Not so the late Mr. Gilbert Wakefield, who, besides other grateful notices, says, in p. 94 95 of his Life, that he is “acquainted with striking instances of liberality in Dr. Farmer towards those of whose integrity he was convinced, however opposite their sentiments” a character, which, although Mr. Wakefield is here speaking of the mastership of the college, may be applied to Dr. Farmer throughout the whole progress of his life.

Dr. Farmer had now attained the utmost of his wishes; and although both an English and an Irish bishoprick were offered to him, he declined them, for which various reasons have been assigned. One is certainly erroneous. It has been said “that in early life he had felt the power of love, and had suffered such a disappointment as had sunk deep in his mind, and for a time threatened his understanding. From that period, though he retained his faculties entire, he acquired some peculiarities of manner, of which he was so far conscious, as to be sensible that they would hardly become the character of a bishop; being likewise strongly attached to dramatic entertainments (which, if we mistake net, the English bishops never witness), and delighting in clubs where he could have rational conversation without state or ceremony of any kind, he very wisely preferred his residentiaryship to the highest dignity in the church.” What is here said as to his habits being incompatible with the character of a bishop, cannot be denied; but these habits were partly natural, from indolence and a love of ease, and partly acquired by a seclusion from polished society. The lady to whom Dr. Farmer is said to have been attached, was the eldest daughter of sir Thomas’ Hatton, with whom he became acquainted while curate of Swavesey. Cole says, sir Thomas refused his consent, and this refusal appears to have been given in 1782, when Dr. Farmer was in his forty-seventh year, and if, as Cole affirms, the lady was then only twenty-seven or twenty-eight years of age, she must have been an infant when Dr. Farmer became acquainted with her father. The whole, however, may be only one of Cole’s gossiping stories; and whether so or not, Dr. Farmer, neither at this or any previous time, exhibited any symptoms of-“disappointed love.” It is more rational to suppose, with his last biographer (Mr. Nichols), that when he arrived at that situation, as to fortune, which gave him a claim to the object of his affections, he found, on mature reflection, that his habits of life were then too deeply rooted to be changed into those of domestic arrangements with any probable chance of perfect happiness to either party. As to his promotion to a bishopric, it may yet be added, that although few men have been more beloved by an extensive circle of friends than Dr. Farmer, there was not, perhaps, one of them who did not applaud his declining that station, or who did not think, with all their respect for him, that he would not have appeared to advantage in it. It is not as a Divine that Dr. Farmer was admired by his contemporaries, or can be known to posterity.

Few circumstances of Dr. Farmer’s life remain to be noticed. His latter years were nearly equally divided between Emanuel college and the residentiary-house in Ameu Corner. His town residence was highly favourable to his love of literary society, and for many years he was a member of different clubs composed of men of letters, by whom he was much esteemed. He died, after a long and painful illness, at the lodge of Emanuel college, Sept. 8, 17^7, and was buried in the chapel. His epitaph in the cloisters was written by Dr. Parr, who, in another place, and while he was living, said of him, “His knowledge is various, extensive, and recondite, with much seeming negligence, and perhaps in later years some real relaxation; he understands more, and remembers more, about common and uncommon subjects of literature, than many of those who would be thought to read all the day, and meditate half the night. In quickness of apprehension, and acuteuess of discrimination, I have not often seen his equal. Through many a convivial hour have I been charmed with his vivacity and upon his genius I have reflected in many a serious moment with pleasure, with admiration but not without regret, that he has never concentrated and exerted all the great powers of his mind in some great work, upon some great subject. Of his liberality in patronizing learned men 1 could point out numerous instances. Without the smallest propensities to avarice, he possesses a large income; and without the mean submissions of dependence, he is risen to high station. His ambition, if he has any, is without insolence his munificence is without ostentation his wit is without acrimony and his learning without pedantry.” The value of this elegant character is its liberality, for Dr. Parr avows that “upon some ecclesiastical, and many political matters,” there could be no coincidence of opinion. From rooted principle and ancient habit, Dr. Fanner was a tory, and Dr. Parr is a whig; it must be a third character, grown out of the corruption of all principle, that would injure the fair fame of Dr. farmer by attributing his rise in the world to clerical or political Subserviency.

Besides the very liberal and faithful discharge of his duties as master of his college, Dr. Farmer may be considered as a benefactor to the town of Cambridge, for by his exertions every improvement and convenience introduced for the last thirty years of his life, were either originally proposed, or ultimately forwarded and carried into execution by him. The plan for paving, watching, and lighting the town, after many ineffectual attempts, was accomplished in his second vice-chancellorship, greatly to the satisfaction of all parties. As a magistrate, he was active and diligent; and on more than one Occasion of riots, displayed great firmness of mind in dangerous conjunctures. In his office of residentiary of St. Paul’s, if he was not the first mover, he was one of the most strenuous advocates for introducing the monuments of our illustrious heroes and men of talents into the metropolitan cathedral.

Soon after this, having now no inducement to remain at Dublin, he went to London, where, in 1696, the celebrated actor Wilks prevailed upon him to write a play, and, knowing his humour and abilities, assured him, that he was considered by all as fitter to furnish compositions for the stage, than to act those of other writers. Another encouragement, which suffered him to exercise his genius at leisure, he owed to the earl of Orrery, a patron as well as a master of letters, who conferred a lieutenant’s commission upon him in his own regiment in Ireland, which Farquhar held several years, and gave several proofs both of courage and conduct. In 1698, his first comedy, called “Love in a Bottle,” appeared on the stage; and for its sprightly dialogue and busy scenes, was well received by the audience. In 1700 he produced his “Constant Couple, or, Trip to the Jubilee,” it being then the jubilee year at Rome, when persons of all countries flocked thither, for pardons or amusements. In the character of sir Harry Wildair, our author drew so gay and airy a character, so suited to Wilks’s talents, and so animated by his gesture and vivacity of spirit, that the player gained almost as much reputation as the poet. Towards the end of this year, Farquhar was in Holland, probably upon his military duty: and he has given a very facetious description of those places and people, in two of his letters, dated from the Brill and from Leyden: in a third, dated from the Hague, he very humourously relates how merry he was there, at a treat made by the earl of Westmoreland; while not only himself, but king William, and others of his subjects, were detained there by a violent storm. There is also among his poems, an ingenious copy of verses to his mistress upon the same subject. This mistress is supposed to have been Mrs. Oldfield, whom he first recommended to the stage. In 1701 he was a spectator, if not a mourner, at Dryden’s, funeral; for the description he has given of it in one of his letters, affords little indication of sorrow.

Encouraged by the great success of his last play, he wrote a continuation of it, in 1701, called, “Sir Harry Wildair, or, The Sequel of the Trip to the Jubilee:” in which Mrs. Oldfield obtained as much reputation, and was as greatly admired in her part, as Wiiks was m his. In 1702 he published his “Miscellanies, or, collection of poems, letters, and essays,” which contain a variety of humourous and pleasant sallies of fancy. It is said, that some of the letters were published from copies returned to bun. at his request, by Mrs. Oldfield, There is at the end of them, “A discourse upon Comedy, in reference to the English stage;” and in one of the letters, ' The Picture,“containing a description and character of himself, from which we learn that he was very ingenuous, very good-natured, and very thoughtless. In 1703 he brought out another lively comedy called” The Inconstant, or, the way to win him:" but the fashion now turning towards Italian and French operas, this comedy, although not inferior, was received more coldly than the former. Farquhar was married this year, and, as was at first reported, to a great fortune; which indeed he expected, but was miserably disappointed. The lady had fallen in love with him, and so violent was her passion, that she resolved to have him at any rate: and as she knew he was too much dissipated to fall in love, or to think of matrimony, unless advantage was annexed to it, she first caused a report to be spread of her being a great fortune, and then had him persuaded that she was in love with him. He married her: and though he found himself deceived, his circumstances embarrassed, and his family increasing, he never once upbraided her for the imposition, but behaved to her with all the delicacy and tenderness of an indulgent husband.

Very early in 1704, a farce called “The Stage-coach,” in the composition of which he was jointly concerned with another, made its first appearance, and was well received. His next comedy, named “The Twin-Rivals,” was played in 1705; and in 1706, his comedy, called “The Recruiting Officer.” ' He dedicated this “to all friends round the Wrekin,” a noted hill near Shrewsbury, where he had been to recruit for his company; and where, from his observations on country life, the manner in which Serjeants inveigle clowns to enlist, and the loose behaviour of the officers towards the milk-maids and country girls, he collected matter sufficient to form a comedy which still holds its place on the stage. His last comedy was “The Beaux Stratagem,” of which he did not live to enjoy the full success. The characters in this play were all said to have been taken from originals then living in or near the city of Litchfield; and the last of them, Thomas Bond, a servant in the family of sir Theophilus Biddulph, died in 1759. He was the Scrub. This perhaps of all his pieces has remained longest, and is oftenest acted on the stage. Towards the close of his short life, he was unhappily oppressed some debts; and this obliged him to make application to a courtier, who had formerly made him many professions of friendship. His pretended patron advised him to convert his commission into the money he wanted, and pledged his honour that in a short time he would provide him another. This circumstance appearing favourable, and unable to bear the thoughts of want, he sold his commission: but when he renewed his application, and represented his distressed situation, his noble patron had forgot his promise, or rather, perhaps, had never the least intention to fulfil it. This distracting disappointment so preyed upon his mind, as to occasion his death, April, 1707, before he was thirty years of age. Soon after, the following letter to Mr. Wilks was found among his papers: “Dear Bob, I have not any thing to leave thee to perpetuate my memory but two helpless girls look upon them sometimes, and think of him that was to the last moment of his life, thine, George Farquhan” This recommendation, which resembled the celebrated testament of Eudamidas, was duly regarded by Wilks; and when the girls became of an age to be put out into the world in business, he procured a benefit for each of them, to supply the necessary resources.

Of his family, his wife died in circumstances of the utmost indigence: one of his daughters was married' to an inferior tradesman, and died soon after. The other in 1764 was living, in indigent circumstances, without any knowledge of refinement in sentiments or expences; she seemed to take no pride in her father’s fame, and was in every respect fitted to her humble station.

, of Pavia, an artist who flourished about 1518, was a pupil or imitator of Lionardo da Vinci, and the most successful of all his imitators, Luino perhaps excepted, if he be judged by the only picture, which, without hesitation, may be ascribed to him. This picture, which belonged to the gallery of prince Braschi, was carried by the French to that of the Louvre, and represents, in a groupe of natural size, the Madonna with the. infant on her lap: the mother in quiet repose, with bent eyes, and absorbed in meditation; her simple attitude is contrasted by the lively one of the child, who seems to take refuge at her neck and breast from some external object. The picture is inscribed “Bernardinus Faxolus de Papia fecit, 1518.”

, knight, and knight-banneret, a valiant and renowned general, governor, and nobleman in France, during our conquests in that kingdom, under king Henry IV. V. and VI. of England, and knight-companion of the most noble order of the garter, has been supposed, from the title of his French barony, and from his name being so often corruptly mentioned in the French histories^ owing to his long residence, and many engagements in the wars there, to have been born in France, at least of French extraction. Others, allowing him to have been a native of England, have no less erroneously fixed hist birth-place in Bedfordshire; but it is well known that he was descended of an ancient and famous English family in the county of Norfolk, which had flourished there and in other parts of the kingdom, in very honourable distinction, before the conquest: and from a train of illustrious ancestors, many of them dignified with the honour of knighthood, invested with very eminent employments, and possessed of extensive patrimonies. But one of the principal branches being seated at Castre in Fleg near Great Yarmouth in that county, which estate descending to these ancestors, he afterwards adorned with a noble family seat, it is presumed he was born therej or in Yarmouth. His father was John Fastolff, esq. of that town, a man of considerable account, especially for his public benefactions, pious foundations, &c. His mother was Mary, daughter of Nicholas Park, esq. and married to sir Richard Mortimer, of Attleburgh; and this their son was born in the latter end of king Edward the Illd’s reign. As he died at the age of eighty, in 1459, his birth could not happen later than 1378. It may fairly be presumed he was grounded as well in that learning and other accomplishments which afterwards, improved by his experience and sagacity, rendered him so famous in war and peace, as in those virtuous and religious principles which governed his actions to the last. His father dying before he was of age, the care of his person and estate were committed to John duke of Bedford, who was afterwards the most wise and able regent of France we ever had there; and he was the last ward which that duke had: others, indeed, say that he was trained up in the Norfolk family, which will not appear improbable when we consider that it was not unusual in those times for young noblemen whilst under wardship to be trained under others, especially ministers of state, in their houses and families, as in academies of behaviour, and to qualify them for the service of their country at home pr abroad. But if he was under Thomas Mowbray duke pf Norfolk, while he enjoyed that title, it could be but one year, that duke being banished the kingdom by king Richard II. in 1398, though his younger son, who was restored to that title many years after, might be one of sir John FastoltFs feoffees. And it is pretty evident that he was, but a few years after the banishment of that duke, in some considerable post under Thomas of Lancaster, after^ wards duke of Clarence, and second son of the succeeding king Henry IV. This Thomas was sent by his father so early, according to some writers, as the second year of his reign, which was in 1401, lord lieutenant of Ireland. And it is not improbable that Fastolff was then with him; for we are informed by William of Wyrcestre, that in the sixth, and seventh years of the said king Henry, that is, in 1405 and 1406, this John Fastolff, esq. was continually with, him. And the same lord lieutenant of Ireland was again there in 1408, 10 Henry IV. and almost to the beginning of the next year, when it is no less probable that Fastolff was still with him; for, in the year last mentioned, we find that he was married in that kingdom to a rich young widow of quality, named Milicent, lady Castlecomb, daughter of Robert lord Tibetot, and relict of sir Stephen Scrope, knight; the same, perhaps, who is mentioned, though not with the title of knighthood, by sir P. Leycester, to have been the said lord lieutenant’s deputy of Ireland, during most of the intervals of his return to England; which deputy-lieutenant died in his office the same year. This marriage was solemnized in Ireland on the feast of St. Hilary, 1408, and Fastolff bound himself in the sum of 1000l. to pay her 100l. a year, for pin-money during life; and she received the same to the 24th year of king Henry VI. The lands in Wiltshire and Yorkshire which came to Fastolff by this marriage with the said lady, descended to Stephen Le Scrope, her son and heir. We may reasonably believe that this marriage in Ireland engaged his settlement in that kingdom, or upon his estate in Norfolk, till his appointment to the command of some forces, or to some post of trust under the English regency in France, soon after required his residence in that kingdom. For, according to the strictest calculation we can make from the accounts of his early engagements in France, the many years he was there, and the time of his final return, it must be not long after his marriage that he left either England or Ireland for that foreign service; being employed abroad by Henry IV. V. and VI. in the wars in France, Normandy, Anjou, Mayne, and Guyenne, upwards of forty years; which agrees very well with what Caxton has published, in his concise, yet comprehensive character of him, little more than twenty years after his death, where he speaks of his “exercisyng the warrys in the royame of Fraunce and other countrees, &c. by fourty yeres enduryng.” So that, we cannot see any room, either in the time or the temper, in the fortunes or employments of this knight, for him to have been a companion with, or follower and corrupter of prince Henry, in his juvenile and dissolute courses; nor, that Shakspeare had any view of drawing his sir John Falstaff from any part of this sir John Fastolff’s character; or so much as pointing at any indifferent circumstance in it that can reflect upon his memory, with readers conversant in the true history of him. The one is an old, humourous, vapouring, and cowardly, lewd, lying, and drunken debauchee, about the prince’s court when the other was a young and grave, discreet and valiant, chaste and sober, commander abroad continually advanced to honours and places of profit, for his brave and politic atchievements, military and civil; continually preferred to the trust of one government or other of countries, cities, towns, &c. or as a genera^ and commander of armies in martial expeditions while abroad; made knight-banneret in the field of battle; baron, in France, and knight of the garter in England and, particularly, when finally settled at home, constantly exercised in acts of hospitality, munificence, and chanty; a founder of religious buildings, and other stately edifices ornamental to his country, as their remains still testify; a generous patron of worthy and learned men, and a public benefactor to the pious and the poor. In short, the more we compare the circumstances in this historical character, with those in that poetical one, we can find nothing discreditable in the latter, that has any relation to the former, or that would mislead an ignorant reader to mistake or confound them, but a little quibble, which makes some conformity in their names, and a short degree in the time wherein the one did really, and the other is feigned to live. And, in regard to the prince of Wales, or our knight’s being engaged in any wild or riotous practices of his youth, the improbabilities may also appear from the comparison of their age, and a view of this prince’s commendable engagements till that space of time in which he indulged his interval of irregularities, when the distance of our knight will clear him from being a promoter of, or partaker in them. For it is apparent, that he had been intrusted with a command in France some time before the death of king Henry IV. because, in 1413, the rery first year of his son, who was now grown the reformed, and soon after proved the renowned, Henry V. it appears that Fastolff had the castle and dominion of Veires in Gascoigne committed to his custody and defence: whence it is very reasonably inferred, that he then resided in the said duchy, which at that time was possessed by the English. In June 1415, Fastolff, then only an esquire, was returned, by indenture, with ten men of arms, and thirty archers, to serve the king at his arrival in France. Soon after king Henry was arrived in Normandy, in August following, with above 30,000 men, the English army having made themselves masters of Harfleur, the most considerable port in that duchy, Fastolff was constituted lieutenant thereof, with 1500 men, by the earl of Derby, as Basset in his ms history informs us; but, as we find it in others, the king, upon this conquest, constituted his said uncle Thomas Beaufort, earl of Dorset and duke of Exeter, governor of Harfleur, in conjunction sir John Fastolff; and, having repaired the fortificaplaced therein a garrison of two thousand select men, as Titus Livius numbers them; or of fifteen hundred ien at arms, and thirty-five knights, according to Hall’s account; to which number Monstrelet also adds a thousand archers. Towards the latter end of October, in the year last mentioned, he was dangerously engaged in the evermemorable battle of Agincourt, where it is said that Fastolff, among others, signalized himself most gallantly by taking the duke of Alengon prisoner; though other historians say that duke was slain after a desperate encounter with king Henry himself, in which he cut off the crowned crest of the king’s helmet. The fact is, that, in a succeeding battle, Fastolff did take this duke’s son and successor prisoner. In the same year, 1415, he, with the duke and 3000 English, invaded Normandy, and penetrated almost to Rouen; but on their return, loaded with booty, they were surprised, and forced to retreat towards Harfleur, whither the enemy pursuing them, were totally defeated. The constable of France, to recover his credit, laid siege to Harfleur, which made a vigorous defence under sir John Fastolff and others till relieved by the fleet under the duke of Bedford. He was at the taking of the castle of Tonque, the city of Caen, the castle of Courcy, the city of Sees, and town of Falaise, and at the great siege at Rouen, 1417. For his services at the latter he was made governor of Conde Noreau; and for his eminent services in those victories, he received, before the 29th of January following, the honour of knighthood, and had the manor and demesne of Fritense near Harfleur bestowed upon him during life. In 1418 he was ordered to seize upon the castle and dominion of Bee Crispin, and other manors, which were held by James D'Auricher, and several other knights; and had the said castle, with those lands, granted him in special tail, to the yearly value of 2000 scutes. In 1420 he was at the siege of Monsterau, as Peter Basset has recorded; and, in the next year, at that of Meaulx-en-Brie. About five months after the decease of king Henry V. the town of Meulent having been surprized in January 1422, John duke of Bedford, regent of France, and sir John Fastolff, then grand master of his household, and seneschal of Normandy, laid siege to the same, and re-took it. In 1423, after the castle of Craven t was relieved, our knight was constituted lieutenant for the king and regent in Normandy, in the jurisdictions of Rouen, Evreux, Alengon, and the countries beyond the river Seine: also governor of the countries of Anjou and Maine, and before the battle of Verneuil was created banneret, About three months after, being then captain of Alengon, and governor of the marches thereof, he laid siege to the castle of Tenuye in Maine, as a French historian informs us, which was surrendered to him; and, in 1424, he was sent to oppose the delivery of Alenon to the French, upon a discovery made that a Gascoigner had secretly contracted to betray the same. In September 1425, he laid siege to Beaumont le Vicompt, which surrendered to him. Then also he took the castle of Sillie-Je-Guillem, from which he was dignified with the title of baron: but this, revolting afterwards again to the French, was assaulted by the earl of Arundel, and retaken about seven years after. In the year last mentioned, our active warrior took also St. Ouen D'Estrais, near Laval, as likewise the castle of Gravelle, with other places of strength, from the enemy; for which dangerous and indefatigable service in France he was about the same time elected in England, with extraordinary deference to his merits, knight companion of the order of the garter. In 1426 John lord Talbot was appointed governor of Anjou and Maine, and sir John Fastolff was removed to another place of command, which, in all probability, might be the foundation of that jealousy, emulation, or competition, between them, which never was cordially reconciled. In October 1428, he had a protection granted him, being then going into France; and there he performed an enterprise of such bravery and conduct as is scarcely thought to have been paralleled in ancient or modern history. The English army, at the siege of Orleans, being in great want of provisions, artillery, and other necessaries, sir John Fastolff, with some other approved commanders, was dispatched for supplies by William de la Pole duke of Suffolk, to the regent at Paris; who not only provided him plentifully therewith, but allowed him a strong guard at his return, that he might convey the same safely to the siege. The French, knowing the importance of this succour, united two armies of very superior numbers and force to meet him; but, either in different encounters, or in a pitched battle, as the French thetnselv es allow, he totally overthrew them; slew greater numbers than he had under his command, not to mention the wounded and the prisoners; and conducted his convoy safe to the English camp. And because it was in the time of Lent, and he had, among his other provision, several of his carriages laden with many barrels of herrings, which he applied to form a fortification, the French have ever since called this victory “The battle of herrings.” But as the fortune of war is precarious, the English army was soon after obliged to raise the siege of Orleans, and though they received recruits from the duke of Bedford, they were in no degree strong enough to encounter the French army at Patay. At the battle which happened there in June 1429, many of the English, who were of most experienced and approved valour, seeing themselves so unequal, and the onset of the French so unexpected, made the best retreat they could and, among them who saved themselves, as it is said, was sir John Fastolff vfho, with such as could escape, retired to Corbeil thus avoiding being killed, or, with the great lord Talbot, lord Hungerford, and sir Thomas Ramps ton, taken prisoner of war. Here the French tales, which some English historians have inconsiderately credited, contradict or invalidate themselves; for, after having made the regent most improbably, and without any examination, or defence, divest Fastolff of his honours, they no less suddenly restore him to them, for, as they phrase it, “apparent causes of good excuse; though against the mind of the lord Talbot;” between whom there had been, it seems, some emulous contests, and therefore it is no wonder that Fastolff found him upon this occasion an adversary. It is not likely that the regent ever conceived any displeasure at this conduct, because Fastolff was not only continued in military and civil employments of the greatest concern, but appears more in favour with the regent after the battle of Patay than before. So that, rather than any dishonour here can be allowed, the retreat itself, as it is told, must be doubted. It was but in 1430 that he preferred him to the lieutenancy of Caen in Normandy. In 1432 he accompanied him into France, and was soon after sent ambassador to the council of Basil, and chosen, in the like capacity, to negociate a final or temporary peace with France. And that year, Fastolff, with the lord Willoughby, commanded the army which assisted the duke of Bretagne against the duke of Alen^on. Soon after this he was for a short space in England; for, in 1433, going abroad again, he constituted John Fastolff, of Olton, probably a near relation, his general attorney. In 1434, or the beginning of the year after, sir John was again with the regent of France;'and, in 1435, he was again one of the ambassadors to conclude a peace with France. Towards the latter end of this year the regent died at Rouen, and, as the greatest proof he could give of his confidence in the honour and integrity of sir John Fastolff, he made him one of the executors of his. last will. Richard, duke of York, who succeeded in the regency of France, made Fastolff a grant of an annuity of twenty pounds a year of his own estate, “pro notabili et landdbili servicio, ac bono consilio;” which is sufficient to shew this duke’s sentiments also of his merits. In 1436, and for about four years longer, he seems to have been well settled at his government in Normandy; after which, in 1440, he made his final return home, and, loaclen with the laurels he had gathered in France, became as illustrious in his domestic as he had been in his foreign character. The late Mr. Gough, by whom this article was much enlarged, had an inventory of all the rich jewels, plate, furniture, &c. that he either had, or left in France, at his return to England. In 1450 he conveyed to John Kemp, cardinal archbishop of York, and others, his manor of Castre in Fleg, and several other lands specified in the deed of conveyance. The same year, Nov. 8, the king by writ directed Richard Waller, esq. David John William Needham, and John Ingoldsby, to cause Thomas Danyell, esq. to pay to sir John FastolfF, knight, the lOOl. that he was indebted to him for provisions, and for his ship called the George of Prussia, alias Danyell’s Hulk, which ship the said Danyell took on the sea as a prize, and never had it condemned; so that the king seized it, ordered it to be sold, and sir John to be paid out of it. At length being arrived, in 1459, beyond the age of fourscore years, he says of himself, that he was “in good remembrance, albeit I am gretly vexed with sickenesse, and thurgh age infebelyd.” He lingered under an hectic fever and asthma for an hundred and forty-eight days; but before he departed he made his will on the fifth of November in that year, and died at his seat at Castre the next day after, being the festival of St. Leonard, or the eve before, as appears in the escheats, in the 39th or last year of king Henry the Vlth’s reign, and no less than thirty-six years beyond the extravagant period assigned by Fuller. He was buried with great solemnity under an arch, in a chapel of our lady of his own building, on the south side of the choir at the abbey-church of St. Bennet in the Holm, in Norfolk, which was ruined at the dissolution; and so much was he respected after his decease, that John Beauchamp, lord of Powyke, in his last will dated the 15th of Edward IV. appointed a chantry, more especially for the soul of sir John Fastolff.

Sir John Fastolff had by his will appointed John Paston, esq. eldest son and heir of sir William Paston, the judge, one of his executors; and had given to them all his manors, lands, &c. in trust, to found the college of the seven priests, and seven poor men, in the manor-house at Castre, c. “For the singular trust and love,” says sir John, “that I have to my cousin John Paston before all others, being in every belief that he will execute this my last will.” Edward IV. 1464, for 300 marks, 100 in hand, and the remainder when the foundation takes place, granted John Paston, sen. esq. licence to found the college before mentioned, and his favour and protection against Yelverton, Jenney, and others; but it appears that this John Paston, esq. had entered on this manor of Castre, and was imprisoned in the Fleet of London by Nevill, bishop of Exeter, (on Nov. 3, 1464 ) then chancellor. On his death, in 1466, he left it to his eldest son sir John Paston. July 6, the king granted him a warrant under his hand and privy seal, to take possession of all the lands and inheritance of his late father, or of Agnes his grandmother, or of Margaret his mother, or of William Paston, and Clement Paston, his uncles; also the manor and place of Castre, or of any other estate which his father had, by way of gift, or purchase, of the late sir John Fastolff; which lands had been seized by the king, on evil surmises made to him, against his deceased father, himself and uncles, of all which they were sufficiently, openly, and worshipfully cleared before the king. “So that all yee now being in the said place of Caster, or in any liBihode, late the sir John Paston' s, by way of gift or purchase, of the late sir John Fastolff, that was seized into our hands, avoid the possession of the same, and suffer our truly and well beloved knight, sir John Paston, to enjoy the profits thereof, with all the goods and chattels there, and pay all the issues and profits thereof, as yee did unto his father, at any time in his life.”

February 10, 1474, 13 Edw. IV. an indenture was made between sir William Yelverton, William Jenny, serjeant at law, and William Worcester, executors of sir John on one part, and Thomas Cager and Robert Kytton on the other, whereby the said Robert was appointed surveyor of the lands and tenements in Southwark, and other places in Surrey, late sir John’s, to perform his last will, and also> receiver of the rents; who was to have six marks per annum, and to be allowed, besides all reasonable costs, that he shall do in the defence and keeping out John Paston, esq. and of all others claiming by him. Anthony lord Scales, at another time, took possession of it in the name of king Edward IV. under pretence that Paston was the king’s villan (though absolutely false), all which proved a great destruction to the goods and effects in the same; but sir John Paston, through the favour and protection of king Edward IV. had afterwards possession. Another misfortune also happened to this seat or castle about the same time, owing to the negligence of a girl, who in making a bed set fire to it by her candle, and did considerable damage. Sir John Fastolff had a house at Norwich in Pokethorp opposite St. James’s church, called Fastolff’s place; in the windows of which Mr. Blomefield saw several paintings of saints and scripture worthies, and two knights fighting, which he imagined represented sir John and his French prisoner. He likewise built a splendid seat in Yarmouth, and a palace in Southwark.

As sir John Falstoff’s valour made him a terror in war, his humanity made him a blessing in peace: all we can find in his retirement, being elegant, hospitable, and generous, either as to the places of his abode, or those persons and foundations on which he showered his bounty. At his death he possessed lands and estates in Norfolk, Suffolk, Yorkshire, and Wiltshire. He was a benefactor to both the universities; bequeathing a considerable legacy to Cambridge, for building the schools of philosophy and Jaw, for which the first order under their chancellor Laurence, bishop of Durham, is dated in June 1458; and, at Oxford, he was so bountiful to Magdalen college, through the affection he had for his friend William Wainfleet, the founder thereof two years before, that his name is commemorated in an anniversary speech; and though the particulars of his bounty are not now remembered, because he enfeoffed the said founder in his life-time, yet it is known, that the boar’s head in Southwark, now divided into tenements, yielding one hundred and fifty pounds yearly, together with Caldecot manor in Suffolk, were part of the lands he bestowed thereon; and Lovingland in that county is conceived also to have been another part of his donation. There had been an ancient free chapel of St. John the Baptist in the manor house at Castre, the ancient seat of his family, as early as the reign of Edward I. Sir John intended to have erected a college for seven monks or secular priests (one of whom to be head), and seven poo? men; and to endow it with 120 marks rent charge, out of several manors which he gave or sold to his cousin John Paston, senior, esq. charged with this charity. Mr. Paston laboured to establish this pious foundation till his death, 6 Ed. IV. as did his son sir John Paston, knight, but whether it was ever incorporated and fully settled, bishop Tanner doubts, as there is no farther mention of it in the rolls or the bishop of Norwich’s registry. Only in the valuation, 26 Hen. VIII. there is said to have been in Castrehall a chantry of the foundation of sir John Fastolff, knight, worth tl. 135. 4d. per annum. 6 Ed. IV. from receipts it appears that the priests had in money, besides their diet, 40l. per annum, and the poor men 40$. per annum each. The foundation was certainly not completed till after his decease; for William Worcester, in a letter to Margaret Paston in 1466, tells her he had communed with her son whether it should not be at Cambridge in case it shall not be at Castre, neither at St. Benet’s (in the Holme), and that the bishop of Winchester (Wainflete) was disposed to found a college in Oxford for his sayd mayster to be prayed for, yet with much less cost he might make some other memorial in Cambridge.

, a worthy printer of no mean celebrity, is rather recorded in this work for the goodness of his heart, than from his excellence as an author. It is, however, no small degree of praise to say of him, that he was the first man who carried his profession to a high degree of credit in Ireland. He was the confidential printer of dean Swift; and enjoyed the friendship and patronage of the earl of Chesterfield, whose ironical letters to Faulkner, comparing him to Atticus, are perhaps the finest parts of his writings. He settled at Dublin as a printer and bookseller, soon after 1726 (in which year we find him in London under the tuition of the celebrated Bowyer), &nd raised there a very comfortable fortune by his well-known 44 Journal,“and other laudable undertakings. In 1735, he was ordered into custody by the house of commons in Ireland, for having published” A proposal for the better regulation and improvement of quadrille;“an ingenious treatise by bishop Hort; which produced from Swift” The 4egion club.“Having had the misfortune to break his leg, he was satirically introduced by Foote, who spared nobody, in the character of” Peter Paragraph,“in” The Orators, 1762.“He commenced a suit against the mimic; and had the honour of lord Townshend’s interference to arbitrate the difference. He died an alderman of Dublin, Aug. 28, 1775. His style and manner were finely ridiculed in” An Epistle to Gorges Edmund Howard, esq. with notes, explanatory, critical, and historical, by George Faulkner, esq. and alderman,“reprinted in Dilly’s” Reppsitory,“vol. IV. p. 175. But a fairer specimen of his real talents at epistle-writing may be seen in the” Anecdotes of Mr. Bowyer,“or in the second volume of the” Supplement to Swift;" whence it appears that, if vanity was a prominent feature in his character, his gratitude was no less conspicuous.

, lord of Pibrac, by which name he is much better known, was born at Toulouse in 1528, and distinguished himself at the bar in that city. He perfected his knowledge of jurisprudence in Italy, and then returned to be advanced to honours in his own country. In 1560 he was deputed by his native city to the states-general held at Orleans, and there presented to the king its petition of grievances, which he had himself drawn up. By Charles IX. he was sent as one of his ambassadors to the council of Trent, where he eloquently supported the interests of the crown, and the liberties of the Gallican church. In 1565 the chancellor de PHopital, appointed him advocate-general in the parliament of Paris, where he revived the influence of reason and eloquence. In 1570, he was, made a counsellor of state, and two years afterwards, probably constrained by his superiors, wrote his defence of the massacre of St. Bartholomew, published in 4to, and entitled “Ornatissimi cujusdam viri, de rebus Gallicis, epistola, et ad hanc de iisdem rebus responsio” but this barbarous measure was too repugnant to the mildness of Pibrac’s character to be approved by him. For this, after the accession of Henry III. he made the best amends in his power, by proposing and bringing to a conclusion, a treaty of peace between the court and the protestants. While that prince was duke of Anjou, and was elected king of Poland, he attended him as minister in that country; but when the succession to the crown of France, on the death of his brother, tempted Henry to quit that kingdom clandestinely, Pibrac was in danger of falling a sacrifice to the resentment of the people. He afterwards tried in vain to preserve that crown to his master. His services were rewarded by being created one of the chief presidents of the courts of law. He died in 1584, at the age of fifty-six. The story of his falling in love with Margaret wife of Henry IV. is supposed to be chiefly owing to the vanity of that lady, who wished to have the credit of such a conquest. Pibrac published, besides his letter on the massacre, which was in Latin, pleadings and speeches, “Les plaisirs de la vie rustique,” Paris, 1577, 8vo, and a discourse on the sool and the sciences. But the work by which he is best known, is his “Quatrains,” or moral stanzas of four lines, which were first published in 1574. The last edition we know of, is that of 1746. They have been extravagantly admired, and translated into almost all languages, even Greek, Turkish, Arabic, and Persian. They were rendered into English by Sylvester, the translator of du Bartas, in a manner not likely to give an advantageous notion of the original, which, though now antiquated, stiil preserves graces that recommend it to readers of taste. Pibrac was a classical scholar; and to the taste he drew from that source, his “Quatrains” owe much of their excellence. The subjects of some of them he took from the book of Proverbs, which he used to say contained all the good sense in the world.

, an ancient philosopher and orator, was born at Aries in Gaul, flourished under the emperor Adrian, in the second century, and taught both at Athens and Home with high reputation. Adrian had no kindness for him; for such was the nature and temper of this emperor, that, not content with being the first in dignity and power, he would needs be the first in every thing else. This pedantic affectation led him, as Spartian relates, to deride, to contemn, to trample upon the professors of all arts and sciences, whom he took a pleasure in contradicting upon all occasions, right or wrong. Thus one day he reproved Favorinus, with an air of great superiority, for using a certain word; which, however, was a good word, and frequently used by the best authors. Favorinus submitted patiently to the emperor, without making any reply, though he knew himself to be perfectly right: which when his friends objected to, “Shall not I easily suffer him,” says he, “to be the most learned of all men, who has thirty legions at his command” This philosopher is said to have wondered at three things first, that being a Gaul he should speak Greek so well; secondly, that being an eunuch he should be accused of adultery; and thirdly, that being envied and hated by the emperor he should be permitted to live. Many works are attributed to him; among the rest a Greek work of “Miscellaneous History,” often quoted by Diogenes Lærtius, but none of them are now extant.

, who, according to a tradition still current at Halifax, was a good divine, a good physician, and a good lawyer, was born at Southampton, and was prepared for the university, partly there and partly at Winchester-school. From this seminary he was elected probationer fellow of New-college, Oxford, in 1576, and two years afterwards was made complete fellow. On June 5, 1592, he proceeded LL. D. and, as Wood says, was made vicar of Halifax in Yorkshire, Jan. 4, 1593. In August 1608, according to Thoresby, but in March 1618, according to Wood, he was made warden or master of St. Mary Magdalen’s hospital at Ripon. In March 1616, he was collated to the prebend of Driffield, and to the chantership of the church of York. He was also chaplain to the archbishop, and residentiary. He appears to have spent much of his time in the discharge of the duties of the three learned professions. In an epistle to the reader, prefixed to a work we are about to mention, he gives as impediments to its progress, “preaching every Sabbath-day, lecturing every day in the week, exercising justice in the commonwealth, and practising physic and chirurgery.” Amidst all these engagements, however, he produced a large 4to volume, printed at London in 1619, entitled “Antiquitie triumphing over Noveltie; whereby it is proved, that Antiquitie is a true and certain note of the Christian catholicke church and veritie, against all new and upstart heresies, advancing themselves against the religious honour of Old Rome, &g.” This is dedicated to archbishop Matthews, and it appears that it was begun by the author, when he was sixty years old, at the desire, and carried on under the encouragement of the archbishop. Dr. Favour died March 10, 1623, probably at an advanced age, and was buried in Halifax church, where there is an inscription to his memory.

, in Latin Faber, was a profound lawyer and an author; in a few instances, a poet, for some quatrains by him remain among those of Pi brae, and there is a tragedy of his e.ytant, entitled “The Gortlians, or ambition.” He was born in 1557, was promoted as a lawyer in his native town of Bresse, afterwards became governor of Savoy, and was employed in confidential negotiations between that dukedom and France. He might have been further promoted in his own country, but refused. He died in H>24. His works, chiefly on jurisprudence and civil law, form ten volumes in folio, printed from 1658 to 1661. For his son Favre (Claude). See Vaugelas.

, a brave English officer, the descendant of a very ancient family, was born in 1728 at Shipdenhall, near Halifax, in Yorkshire, which, for many centuries, had been in the possession of his ancestors, and is now the property and residence of their lineal descendant. His father dying when he was very young, his education was superintended by an uncle, a very worthy clergyman. He was brought up at a free school in Lancashire, where he was well grounded in classical learning, and became also a remarkable proficient in mathematics. He has very frequently been heard to declare, that, from his earliest youth, he always felt the strongest predilection for the army, which his mother and nearest relations constantly^ endeavoured to dissuade him from; but, finding all their arguments ineffectual, they either bought, or he had an ensigncy given him, in general Oglethorpe’s regiment, then in Georgia; but the war being then going on in Flanders, he gave up his ensigncy, and went there as a volunteer, furnished with letters from the late marquis of Rockingham and Mr. Lascelles (afterwards lord Harewood) to the commander and several others of the officers. This step was at the time frequently taken by young men of spirit of the first rank and fortune, fte entered as a volunteer, but messed with the officers, and was very soon presented with a pair of colours. Some time after, he married a lady of good fortune and family, and, at the pressing entreaties df her friends, he most reluctantly resigned his commission; which he had no sooner done, than he felt himself miserable, and his new relations finding that his propensity to a military life was invincible, agreed to his purchasing an ensigncy in the third regiment of guards. Having now obtained the object of his most anxious wishes, he determined to lose no opportunity of qualifying himself for the highest situations in his favourite profession. With this view he paid the most unremitting attention to his duty, and every hour he could command was given up to the study of the French and German languages, in which (by the assistance of his classical learning) he soon became such a proficient as not only to understand and write both, grammatically and elegantly, but to speak them fluently. When he was a lieutenant in the guards, he translated from the French, “The Reveries; Memoirs upon the Art of War, by field-marshal count Saxe,” which was published in 1757, in 4to, and dedicated “To the general officers.” He also translated from the German, “Regulations for the Prussian cavalry,” which was also published in 1757, and dedicated to major-general the earl of Albemarle, colonel of the king’s own regiment of dragoons. And he likewise translated from the German, “llegulations for the Prussian Infantry,” to which was gelded “The Prussian Tactics,” which was published in 1759, and dedicated to lieutenant-general the earl of Rothes, colonel of the third regiment of foot guards. Having attained the situation of adjutant in the guards, his abilities and unremitting attention soon became conspicuous; and, on the late general Elliot’s being ordered to, Germany in the seven years war, he offered to take him as his aid-de-camp, which he gladly accepted, as it gave him an opportunity of gaining that knowledge which actual service could alone impart. When he served in Germany, his ardour, intrepidity, and attention to all the duties of his situation, were such, that, on the death of general Elliot, he had immediately offers both from the late prince Ferdinand, the commander in chief, and the late marquis of Granby, to be appointed aid-de-camp. By the advice of a noble earl (who hinted to him that the German war would not last for ever) he accepted the offer of the latter, after making due acknowledgements for the honour intended him by the former. In this his new situation his ardour and attention were, if possible, increased, which gained him the friendship of all those attached to lord Granby, particularly of a noble lord who, being fixed upon to bring to England the account of the battle of Warburgh, gave up his appointment to captain Fawcett; an instance of generous friendship which he always spoke of with the most heartfelt gratitude. On his arrival in England, he was introduced by the then great minister to his late majesty king George the Second, who received him most graciously, and not the less so on his giving the whole account in German. Soon after he was promoted to a company in the guards, with the rank of lieutenant-colonel in the army, and became military secretary to, and the intimate and confidential friend of lord Granby. His manners were formed with equal strength and softness; and to coolness, intrepidity, and extensive military knowledge, he added all the requisite talents of a man of business; and the most persevering assiduity, without the least ostentation. Notwithstanding the most unassuming modesty, his abilities were now so generally known, that he was fixed upon as the most proper person to manage and support the interest of his country, in settling many of the concerns of the war in Germany; and by that means necessarily became known to the great Frederic of Prussia, from whom he afterwards had the most tempting offers, which he declined without hesitation, preferring the service of his king and country to every other consideration.

As an original poet, much cannot be said in his favour. His powers were confined to occasional slight and encomiastic verses, such as may be produced witbout great effort, and are supposed to answer every purpose when they have pleased those to whom they were addressed. The epithalamic ode may perhaps rank higher, if we could forget an obvious endeavour to imitate Dryden and Pope. In the elegy on the death of Dobbin, and one or two other pieces, there is a considerable portion of humour, which is a more legitimate proof of genius than one species of poets are disposed to allow. His principal defects are want of judgment and taste. These, however, are less discoverable in his translations, and it was probably a consciousness of limited powers which inclined him so much to translation. In this he every where displays a critical knowledge of his author, while his versification is smooth and elegant, and his expression remarkably clear. He was once esteemed the best translator since the days of Pope, a praise which, if now disallowed, it is much that it could in his own time have been bestowed with justice.

was one of the most celebrated of the Provengal poets or troubadours. He had a fine figure, abundance of wit, and a pleasing address, and was much encouraged by the princes o his time. By representing his comedies, he soon acquired considerable riches, which his vanity and his love of debauchery and expence did not suffer him to keep. From a miserable state of poverty he was relieved by the liberality of Richard Cacur de Lion, who had a strong taste for the Provencal poetry. After the death of this protector, he returned to Aix, where he married a young woman of distinguished wit and beauty; but she did not long survive her marriage with this profligate husband. He died soon after, in 1220, at what age is not exactly known, but certainly early in life. Among the many pieces which he wrote, the following are mentioned: I. A poem on the death of his benefactor, Richard I. 2. “The palace of Love,” imitated afterwards by Petrarch. 3. Several comedies, one of which, entitled “Heregia dels Prestes,” the heresy of the priests, a satirical production against the corruptions of the church, was publicly acted at the castle of Boniface, marquis of Montserrat.

, a priest of Riom, once well known by his singular opinions, entered the congregation of the oratory in 1662, but was obliged to quit it in 1671, being a friend to Cartesianism, which was then a heresy. He preached against the conduct of Innocent XI. towards France, and published a treatise on the Trinity 1696, in which appearing to favour tritheisnr, he was confined at St. Lazare in Paris, but afterwards received orders from the king to retire to his country, where he died 1709. He left “a life of St. Amable,” 12mo; “Remarks on Homer, Virgil, and the poetical style of Scripture,” 2 vols. 12mo; a collection in Latin verse, and French prose, entitled, “Tombeau de M. de Santeuil,” 12mo; '“La Telemacomanie, ou Critique du Telemaque de M. Fenelon,” 12mo, a foolish attack on Fenelon’s celebrated performance. All his works contain singular opinions, great reading and learning, but little taste or judgment. “Le Moines emprunte*s,” 2 vols. 12mo, have been attributed to him, but they are by Haitze.

Amidst Mr. Fearne’s various pursuits of knowledge, he had always a particular attachment to experimental philosophy, which, both at school and at the Temple, he practised occasionally. In this employment, he fancied that he had discdvered the art of dying Morocco leather of particular colours, and after a new process. It appears that the Maroquoniers in the Levant (who are called so from dressing the skin of this goat, named the Maroquiu) keep secret the ingredients which they put into the liquor, which gives it that fine red colour. This secret, or what would answer equally as well, Fearne thought he had discovered, and, like most projectors, saw great profits arising from the discovery. It was his misfortune, however, to form a connection in this scheme, with a needy and expensive partner, which opened his eyes to the fallacy of his hopes; and at the suggestion of his friends, he reverted to his original profession, or what his father intended for such, and sat down to the study of the law with unremitting diligence. He had not been long in chambers, when his habits of study, diligence, and sobriety, were observed by an eminent attorney in the Temple, who wanted an abstract to be made of a voluminous body of papers, so as to bring the matter clearly before counsel. The papers were so intricate, and of such various references, that they required a very clear head, and a man not much taken up with other business, to arrange them. He saw Fearne answered this last description very well; and told him, “That having a great body of papers to arrange, he should be glad to employ him.” Fearne accepted the offer, and performed his task so ably, that his employer not only rewarded him handsomely for his trouble, but from that time gave him a considerable part of his business.

He now began to be known as a young man of very considerable legal erudition, and a promising increase in business encouraged him to relinquish his chambers, and take a house in Breams-buildings, Chancery-lane, where he became very successful as, what is called, a chamber counsel. Before he left the Temple, he had published his very useful “Legigraphical Chart of Landed Property,” and he now derived additional reputation from his more important treatise, entitled “An Essay on the Learning of Contingent Remainders and Executory Devises,” which, although published without his name, was soon traced to its author. Fortune, as it is usually termed, was now before him, but he had no extraordinary ambition for her favours, and, very oddly, contracted his business within a 1 certain compass, by which it might yield him an annual sum which he thought sufficient for his wants. This, estimated by his biographer at 1500l. a year, when he could with ease have acquired 3000l. he spent on a town and country-house, a carriage, &c. with an establishment on a genteel but moderate scale; and the time he denied to increase of business, he employed in his house at Hampstead on mechanical and philosophical experiments. At this retreat he was wrapt up either in some philosophical experiment, or some mechanical invention the first of which he freely communicated to men of similar pursuits and the latter, when, completed, he as liberally gave away to poor artists, or dealers in these articles; and here also he made some op? tical glasses upon a new construction, which have been reckoned improvements he likewise constructed a machine for transposing the keys in music gave many useful hints in the dyeing of cottons, and in a variety of other articles, which equally shewed the enlarged state of his mind, and the liberality of his heart. These he called his dissipations, and with some degree of truth, as they often broke jn upon his profession, and induced him to give up more hours (to bring up for lost time) than was consistent with more beneficial pursuits, or the natural strength of his constitution.

, a learned controversial divine of the church of England, was born at Charlton upon Otmore, near Oxford, March 15, 1582. Fairclough was the name of his ancestors, so spelt by his grandfather, father, and eldest brother, and it appears that he was ordained by the same. Why he afterwards preferred Featley, which is a corruption of Fairclough (or, Faircliff, a place in Lancashire, where the family were originally seated), we know not, nor is it perhaps of much consequence. That the family were reduced, appears from the occupation of his father, who was cook to Dr. Laurence Humphrey, president of Magdalen, and served Corpus Christi college, Oxford, in the same capacity. He had interest enough, however, with his employers, to obtain a good education for the subject of this memoir, who was his second son, and whom we find mentioned first as a chorister of Magdalen college. After having made considerable progress in the school belonging to that college, where, even at twelve years old, his Latin and Greek exercises were noted for their excellence, he was admitted scholar of Corpus Christi college, Dec. 13, 1594, and Sept. 20, 1602, when B. A. was chosen probationer fellow. He commenced M. A. at the usual time, and was always eminent for his academical exercises, nor was he less noted as a disputant and preacher. In 1607 he delivered an oration at the death of Dr. Reinold, president of Corpus, who had been one of his earliest patrons.

In 1619 he preached at Lambeth church, or in the chapel of the palace, seven of the sermons in the “Clavis Mystica,” before the king’s commissioners in ecclesiastical causes^ and on other occasions, and delivered his sentiments with uncommon freedom of spirit, which appears to have been habitual to him. By the direction of archbishop Abbot, who was desirous that De Dominis, archbishop of Spalato, should be gratified with the hearing of a complete divinityact, Mr. Featley, in 1617, kept his exercise for the degree of D. D. under Dr. Prideaux, the regius professor; and many other foreigners were present, with the flower of the English nobility and gentry. The Italian primate was so highly pleased with the performance, that he not only thanked his grace for the entertainment he had procured for him; but, being soon after appointed master of the Savoy, he gave Dr. Featley a brother’s place in that hospital. In the course of this exercise Dr. Prideaux, apprehensive for his reputation before such an auditory, felt the sharpness and acuteness of Featley’s replies, almost to a degree of resentment, but the archbishop effected a reconciliation between two men whose agreement in more important points was of such consequence in those days.

Hitherto the archbishop had bestowed no preferment on. his chaplain; but in 1627, as we are told, “urged by hearing the discontents of the court and city, because his chaplain was kept behind the hangings,” he bestowed on him the rectory of Allhallows, Bread-street, and afterwards the rectory of Acton. Much about the same time, but the year not known, he was appointed provost of Chelsea college, an institution which did not last long. In 1622 he had married Mrs. Joyce Holloway, who was his parishioner, and resided in Kennington-lane. This lady appears to have been considerably older than Dr. Featley, but was a woman of great piety and accomplishments. He concealed his marriage for some time, lest it should interfere with his residence at Lambeth palace; but in 1625 he ceased to be chaplain to the archbishop, and concealment was no longer necessary. The cause of his quitting the archbishop’s service has been represented as “the unfeeling treatment” of that prelate. But of this, his biographers have made too much. The story, in short, is, that Dr. Featley fell sick at Oxford, supposed of the plague, and was obliged to leave the place and go to Lambeth; and when he found that the archbishop had removed to Croydon for fear of the plague, he followed him thither, and the archbishop refused him entrance, and was surely justifiable in every endeavour to prevent the disorder from extending to the place he had chosen as a refuge. The story is told with some confusion of circumstances, but the above is probably the truth. Dr. Featley, however, on recovering from his disorder, which, after all, happened not to be the plague, quitted the archbishop’s service, and removed his books from the palace. It was during the raging of the plague in 1625, or 1626, when the churches were deserted, that he wrote his “Ancilla Pietatis, or Hand-maid to private devotion,” which became very popular; and before 1676, had passed through eight editions. Wood appears to be mistaken in saying, that in this work Dr. Featley makes the story of St. George, the tutelar saint of England, a "mere fiction, and that archbishop Laud obliged him to apologize for this on his knees. Dr. Featley’s words bear no such meaning, but it is probable enough that there was a misunderstanding between Featley and the archbishop, as the former refused to obey the latter in turning the communion-table of Lambeth church altar-wise; and we know that Featley was afterwards a witness against the archbishop, upon the charge of his having made superstitious innovations in Lambeth church.

While the ecclesiastical constitution stood, Dr. Featley was member of several of the convocations; and upon account, as is supposed, of his being a Calvinist, he was in 1642 appointed by the parliament one of the Assembly of Divines. He is said to have continued longer with them than any other member of the episcopal persuasion; but this was no longer than he discovered the drift of their proceedings. That he was not acceptable to the ruling party, appears from his becoming in the same year, a victim to their revenge. In November, the soldiers sacked his church at Acton, and at Lambeth would have murdered him, had he not made his escape. These outrages were followed Sept. 30, 1643, by his imprisonment in Peter-house, in Aldersgate-street, the seizure of his library and goods, and the sequestration of his estate. Charges were preferred against him of the most absurd and contradictory kind, which it was to little purpose to answer. He was voted out of his living. Among his pretended offences were, that he refused to assent to every clause in the solemn league and covenant, and that he corresponded with archbishop Usher, who was with the king at Oxford. During his imprisonment, he amused himself by writing his celebrated treatise, entitled “The Dippers dipt, or the Anabaptists ducked and plunged over head and ears, at a disputation in Southwark.” It is, however, a striking proof of that anarchy of sentiment which disgraced the nation at this period, that he not only dedicates this book to the parliament which had imprisoned him, but exhorts them to employ the sword of justice against “heretics and schismatics,” although himself was n'ow suffering under the latter description by that very parliament. He was better employed soon after in an able vindication of the church of England against the innovators who now bore rule; but his long confinement of eighteen months impaired his health and shortened his days. His situation appears to have been represented to his persecutors, but it was not until six weeks before his death that he obtained leave from the parliament to remove to Chelsea for the benefit of the air. Here he died April 17, 1645, on the very day that he was bound to have returned to his confinement at Peter-house. It was reported that a few hours before his deaih, he prayed for destruction to the enemies of the church and state, in expressions which have been called “irascible and resentful.” How far they were used by him seems doubtful but had he prayed only for the restoration of the constitution in church and state, it might have still, in those times, been imputed to him that the destruction of their enemies was a necessary preliminary and a fair innuendo. He was buried in the chancel of Lambeth church, where his funeral sermon was preached by Dr. Leo or Loe, who had been in habits of intimacy with him for thirty-seven years. Dr. Leo represents him as being “in his nature, meek, gracious, affable, and merciful:” as a writer he was esteemed in his time one of the ablest defenders of the doctrines of the reformation against the papists, and one of the ablest opponents of the anabaptists.

Wood has given a long list of his controversial works, most of which are now little known, and seldom inquired for. Among his writings of another description, however, we may mention, 1. The Lives of Jewell, prefixed to his works, and of Reinolds, Dr. Robert Abbot, &c. which are in Fuller’s “Abel Redivivus.” 2. “The Sum of saving Knowledge,” a kind of catechism, London, 1626. 3. “Clavis Mystica; a Key opening divers difficult and mysterious texts of Holy Scripture, in seventy Sermons,” ibid. 1636, folio. Prynne says that Laud’s chaplain obliterated many passages in them respecting the papists. 4. “Hexatexium; or six Cordials to strengthen the heart of every faithful Christian against the terrors of death,” ibid. 1637, folio. 5. “Several Funeral Sermons, one preached at the funeral of sir Humphrey Lynd,” ibid. 1640, folio. The proper title of this volume is "Θρηνιχος, the House of Mourning furnished, delivered in forty-seven Sermons,“by Daniel Featley, Martin Day, Richard Sibbs, and Thomas Taylor, and other reverend divines; but their respective shares are not pointed out, nor, except in one or two instances, the persons at whose funerals the sermons were preached. 6.” Dr. Daniel Featley revived, proving that the protestant church (and not the Romish) is the on4y ca^ tholic and true church,“ibid. 1660, 12mo. To this is prefixed an account of his life by his nephew John Featley. Dr. Featley also published king James’s” Cygnea Cantio," ibid. 1629, 4to, which contains a scholastic duel between that monarch and our author.

, nephew to the preceding, son of John Fairclough, was a native of Northamptonshire, and educated at All Souls’ college, Oxford, which he is said to have left after taking his first degree in arts, probably to become his uncle’s assistant at Lambeth or Acton. During the rebellion he went to St. Christopher’s in the West Indies, where he arrived in 1643, and had the honour of being the first preacher of the gospel in the infancy of that colony. It appears that he returned about the time of the restoration, and was appointed chaplain to the king, who also in August 1660 presented him to the precentorship of Lincoln, and in September following to the prebend of Milton Ross, in that cathedral. In 1662, he was created D. D. and had from the dean and chapter of Lincoln the vicarage of Edwinton in Nottinghamshire, worth about sixty pounds a year. He died at Lincoln in 1666, and was interred in a chapel in the cathedral. He published one or two of his uncle’s tracts, particularly “Dr. Featley revived, &c.” in which, as already noticed, there is a life of his uncle. Of his own were only published two occasional sermons, and “A divine antidote against the Plague, contained in Soliloquies and Prayers,” London, 1660.

Upon the death of Mary, in 1558, her successor Elizabeth, not unmindful of her obligations to Feckenham, sent for him before her coronation, to consult and reward him; and, as it is said, offered him the archbishopric of Canterbury, provided he would conform to the laws; but this he refused. He appeared, however, in her first parliament, taking the lowest place on the bishop’s form; and was the last mitred abbot that sat in the house of peers. During his attendance there he spoke and protested against every thing tending towards the reformation; and the strong opposition which he could not be restrained from making, occasioned his commitment to the tower in 1560. After nearly three years confinement there, he was committed to the custody of Home bishop of Winchester: but having been old antagonists on the subject of the oath of supremacy, their present connection was mutually irksome, and Feckenham was remanded to the Tower in 1564. Afterwards he was removed to the Marshalsea, and then to a private house in Holborn. In 1571, he attended Dr. John Storie before his execution. In 1578 we find him in free custody with Cox bishop of Ely, whom the queen had requested to use his endeavours to induce Feckenham to acknowledge her supremacy, and come over to the church: and he was at length prevailed on to allow her supremacy, but could never be brought to a thorough conformity. Soon after, the restless spirit of some Roman catholics, and their frequent attempts upon the queen’s life, obliged her to imprison the most considerable among them: upon which Feckenham was sent to Wisbich-castle in the Isle of Ely, where he continued a prisoner to the time of his death, which happened in 1585. As to his character, Camden calls him “a learned and good man, that lived long, did a great-deal of good to the poor, and always solicited the minds of his adversaries to benevolence.” Fuller styles him, “a man cruel to none; courteous and charitable to all who needed his help or liberality.” Burnet says, “he was a charitable and generous man, who lived in great esteem in England.” And Dart concludes his account of him in these words: “though I cannot go so far as Reyner, to call him a martyr; yet I cannot gather but that he was a good, mild, modest, charitable man, and a devout Christian.”

Wood has given us the following catalogue of his works: 1. “A Conference dialogue-wise held between the lady Jane Dudley and Mr. John Feckenham, four days before her death, touching her faith and belief of the sacrament, and her religion, 1554.” In April 1554, he had been sent by the queen to this lady to commune with her, and to reduce her from the doctrine of Christ to queen Mary’s religion, as Fox expresses it. The substance of this conference may be seen also in Fox’s “Acts and Monuments of Martyrs.” 2. “Speech in the house of lords, 1553.” 5. “Two Homilies on the first, second, and third articles of the Creed.” 4. “Oratio funebris in exequiis ducissae Parmse,” &c. that is, “A funeral oration on the Death of the duchess of Parma, daughter of Charles V. and governess of the Netherlands.” 5. “Sermon at the exequy of Joan queen of Spain, 1555.” 6. The declaration of such scruples and staies of conscience, touching the Oath of Supremacy, delivered by writing to Dr. Home, bishop of Winchester, 1566.“7.” Objections or Assertions made against Mr. John Cough’s Sermon, preached in the Tower of London, Jan. 15, 1570.“8.” Caveat emptor:“which seems to have been a caution against buying abbey-lands. He had also written,” Commentaries on the Psalms,“and a” Treatise on the Eucharist,“which were lost among other things. Thus far Wood: but another author mentions, 9.” A Sermon on the Funeral of queen Mary, on “Ecclesiastes iv. 2.”

, a native of Venice, who flourished about the middle of the sixteenth century, established a great reputation at that time by his translations from Greek authors, a task which few, comparatively, were then able to perform. He translated, among others, the sixth book of Paul ^gineta, 1533 Aristotle’s Ethics, Venice, 1541, fol.; “Alexandri Aphrodisiensis Commentarius in primum priorum Analyticbrum Aristotelis,” ibid. 1542, fol. “Ammonii Hermeae Comment, in Isagogen Porphyrii,” ibid. 1545, 8vo “Porphyrius de abstinentia animalium,” ibid. 1547, 4to and “Oecumenius in Acta et Epistolas Catholicas,” Basil, 1552, 8vo. We have no account of his life or death, but he appears to have been a priest of the Benedictine order, and esteemed for his learning.

In 1666, 1667, 1668, and part of 1669, Dr. Fell was vice-chancellor of the university: during which time he used all possible means to restore the discipline and credit of the place; and such was his indefatigable spirit, that he succeeded beyond all expectation. Among his other injunctions was, that persons of all degrees should appear in their proper habits; he likewise looked narrowly to the due performance of the public exercises in the schools, and reformed several abuses that had crept in during a long period of relaxation. He frequently attended in person the disputations in the schools, the examinations for degrees, and the public lectures, and gave additional weight and stimulus to the due performance of these duties. In his own college he kept up the exercises with great strictness, and, aware of the importance of the best education to those who were destined for public life, it was his practice, several mornings in the week, to visit the chambers of the noblemen and gentlemen commoners, and examine their progress in study. No one in his time was more zealous in promoting learning in the university, or in raising its reputation by the noblest foundations. The Sheldonian theatre was built chiefly by his solicitation; and he likewise advanced the press and improving printing in Oxford, according to the public-spirited design of archbishop Laud. He was likewise an eager defender of the privileges of the university, especially while vice-chancellor. In 1675-6 he was advanced to the bishopric of Oxford, with leave to hold his deanery of Christ Church in commendarn, that he might continue his services to his college and the university: and he was no sooner settled in his see, than he began to rebuild the episcopal palace of Cuddesden in Oxfordshire. Holding also the mastership of St. Oswald’s hospital, at Worcester, he re-built that in a sumptuous manner, bestowing all the profits of his income there in augmenting and recovering its estates: and, part of the revenues of his bishopric arising from the impropriation of the dissolved prebend of Banbury, he liberally gave 500l. to repair that church. He likewise established daily prayers at St. Martin’s, or Carfax church, in Oxford, both morning and evening. In a word, he devoted almost his whole substance to works of piety and charity. Among his other benefactions to his college, it must not be forgot, that the best rectories belonging to it were bought with his money: and as he had been so bountiful a patron to it while he lived, and, in a manner, a second founder, so he left to it at his death an estate, for ten or more exhibitions for ever. It is said that he brought his body to an ill habit, and wasted his spirits, by too much zeal for the public, and by forming too many noble designs; and that all these things, together with the unhappy turn of religion which he dreaded under James II. contributed to shorten his life. He.died July 10, 1686, to the great loss of learning, of the whole university, and of the church of England: for he was, as Wood has observed of him, “the most zealous man of his time for the church of England; a great encourager and promoter of learning in the university, and of all public works belonging thereunto of great resolution and exemplary charity; of strict integrity; a learned divine; and excellently skilled in the Latin and Greek languages.” Wood relates one singularity of him, which is unquestionably a great and unaccountable failing, that he was not at all well-atfected to the royal society, and that the noted Stubbes attacked that body under his sanction and encouragement. He was buried in Christ Church cathedral; and over his tomb, which is a plain marble, is an elegant inscription, composed by Aldrich, his successor. He was never married.

It may easily be imagined, that so active and zealous a man as Fell had not much time to write books: yet we find him the author and editor of the following works: 1. “The Life of the most reverend, learned, and pious Dr. Henry Hammond, who died April 25, 1660,” 1660, reprinted afterwards with additions at the head of Hammond’s works. 2. “Alcinoi in Platonicam Philosophiam Introductio, 1667.” 3. “In lauclem Musices Carmen Sapphicum.” Designed probably for some of the public exercises in the university, as it was set to music. 4. “Historia et -Antiquitates Universitatis Oxoniensis,” &c. 1674, 2 vols. fol. This history and antiquities of the university of Oxford was written in English by Antony Wood, and translated into Latin, at the charge of Fell, by Mr. Christopher Wase and Mr. Richard Peers, except what he did himself. He was also at the expence of printing it, with a good character, on a good paper; but “taking to himself,” says Wood, “the liberty of putting in and out several things according to his own judgment, and those that he employed being not careful enough to carry the whole design in their head, it is desired that the author may not be accountable for any thing which was inserted by him, or be censured for any useless repetitions or omissions of his agents under him.” At the end of it, there is a Latin advertisement to the reader, containing an answer to a letter of Hobbes; in which that author had complained of Fell’s having caused several things to be omitted or altered, which Wood had written in that book in his praise. More of this, however, will occur to be noticed in our life of Wood. 5. “The Vanity of Scoffing: in a letter to a gentleman,” 1674, 4to. 6. “St. Clement’s two epistles to the Corinthians in Greek and Latin, with notes at the end,” 1677. 7. “Account of Dr. Richard Allestree’s life:” being the preface to the doctor’s sermons, published by our author. 8. “Of the Unity of the Church:” translated from the original of St. Cyprian, 1681. 9. “A beautiful edition of St. Cyprian’s Works, revised and illustrated with notes,” 1682. 10. “Several Sermons,” on public occasions, 11. The following pieces written by the author of the “Whole Duty of Man,” with prefaces, contents, and marginal abbreviations, by him, viz. “The Lady’s Calling; the Government of the Tongue; the Art of Contentment; the Lively Oracles,” &c. He also wrote the general preface before the folio edition of that unknown author’s works. 12. “Artis. Logicae Compendium.” 13. “The Paraphrase of St. Paul’s Epistles.” There is another piece, which was ascribed to him, with this title; *“The Interest of England stated or, a faithful and just account of the aims of all parties nowprevailing; distinctly treating of the designments of the Roman Catholic, Royalist, Presbyterian, Anabaptist,” &c. 1659, 4to, but it not being certainly known whether he was the author or not, we do not place it among his works. One thing in the mean time Wood mentions, relating to his literary character, which must not be omitted that “from 1661, to the time of his death, viz. while he was dean of Christ-church, he published or reprinted every year a bookjf commonly a classical author, against newyear’s tide, to distribute among the students of his house; to which books he either put an epistle, or running notes, or corrections. These,” says Wood, “I have endeavoured to recover, that the titles might be known and set down, but in vain.” But one of Dr. Fell’s publications, unaccountably omitted in former editions of this work, still remains to be noticed; his edition of the Greek Testament, of which Michaelis has given a particular account. Dr. Fell was the next after Walton, who published a critical edition of the New Testament, which, although eclipsed since by that of Mill, has at least the merit of giving birth to Mill’s edition. It was published in small octavo, at the Sheldon theatre, 1675. It appears from the preface, that the great number of various readings which are printed in the sixth volume of the London Polyglot, apart from the text, had given alarm to many persons, who were ignorant of criticism, and had induced them to suspect, that the New Testament was attended with so much uncertainty, as to be a very imperfect standard of faith. In order to convince such persons of their error, and to shew how little the sense of the New Testament was altered by them, Fell printed them under the text, that the reader might the more easily compare them. This edition was twice reprinted at Leipsic, in 1697 and 1702, and at Oxford in a splendid folio, by John Gregory, in 1703, but without any additions, which might have easily been procured from t'he bishop’s papers; nor are even those which Fell had been obliged to print in an appendix, transferred to their proper places, an instance of very gross neglect. We learn also from Fabricius in his Bibl. Graeca that the excellent edition of Aratus, Oxford, 1672, 8vo, was published by Dr. Fell.

, a dissenting minister of considerable learning, was born, Aug. 22, 1735, at Cockermouth in Cumberland, of poor parents, and was at first brought up to the business of a taylor. He was pursuing this employment in London, when some discerning friends perceived in him a taste for literature, and an avidity of knowledge, which they thought worthy of encouragement; and finding that his principal wish was directed to the means of procuring such education as might qualify him for the ministry among the dissenters, they stepped forward to his assistance, and placed him at the dissenting academy at Mileend, then superintended by Dr. Conder, Dr. Gibbons, and Dr. Walker. Mr. Fell was at this time in the nineteenth year of his age; but, by abridging the hours usually allotted to rest and amusement, and praportionably extending those of application to his studies, and by the assiduous exercise of a quick, vigorous, and comprehensive mind, he made rapid advances in learning, gave his tutors and patrons the utmost satisfaction; and in due time, was appointed to preach to a congregation at Beccles, near Yarmouth. He was afterwards invited to take upon himself the pastoral office in a congregation of Protestant dissenters, at Thaxted, in Essex, where he was greatly beloved by his congregation, and his amiable deportment, and diligence in all the duties of his station, attracted the regard even of his neighbours of the established church. At Thaxted, Mr. Fell boarded and educated a few young gentlemen, and it was also during his residence there, that he distinguished himself by the rapid production of some wellwritten publications, which conduced to establish his character as a scholar. After he had thus happily resided several years at Thaxted, he was unfortunately prevailed upon 'to be the resident tutor at the academy, formerly at Mile-end, when he was educated there, but now removed to Homerton, near London. The trustees and supporters of this academy appear to have been at first very happy that they had procured a tutor peculiarly calculated for the situation; but he had not been there long before differences arose between him and the students, of what nature his biographers have not informed us; but they represent that he was dismissed from his situation without a fair trial and complain that this severity was exerted in the case of “a character of no common excellence a genius of no ordinary size a Christian minister, well furnished with gifts and graces for that office a tutor, who for biblical knowledge, general history, and classic taste, had no superior, perhaps no equal, among any class of dissenters.” This affair happened in 1796, and Mr. Fell’s friends lost no time in testifying their unaltered regard for his character. An annuity of 100l. was almost immediately procured for him, and he was invited to deliver a course of lectures on the evidences of Christianity, for which he was to be remunerated by a very liberal subscription. But these testimonies of affection came too late for his enjoyment of them. Four of his lectures had been delivered to crowded congregations at the Scotch church at Londonwall, when sickness interrupted him, and on Wednesday Sept. 6, 1797, death put a period to his labours. The four lectures he delivered were published in 1798, with eight by Dr. Henry Hunter, who concluded the course, but who does not appear well qualified to fill up Mr. FelPs outline. Mr. Fell’s previous publications, which show that the character given of him by his friends is not overcharged, were 1. “Genuine Protestantism, or the unalienable Rights of Conscience defended: in opposition to the late and new mode of Subscription proposed by some dissenting ministers, in three Letters to Mr. Pickard,” 1773, 8vo. 2. “A Fourth Letter to Mr. Pickard on genuine Protestantism; being a full Reply to the rev. Mr. Toulmin’s Defence of the Dissenters’ new mode of Subscription,” 1774, 8vo. 3. “The justice and utility of Penal Laws for the Direction of Conscience examined; in reference to the Dissenters’ late application to parliament. Addressed to a member of the house of commons,” 1774, 8vo. 4. “Daemoniacs. An enquiry into the Heathen and the Scripture doctrine of Daemons, in which the hypothesis of the rev. Mr. Farmer and others on the subject are particularly considered,” 1779, 8vo. (See Farmer). 5. “Remarks on the Appendix of the Editor of Rowley’s Poems, printed at the end of Observations on the Poem attributed to Rowley by Rayner Hickford, esq.” 8vo, no date (1783). 6. An Essay towards an English Grammar, with a dissertation on the nature and peculiar use of certain hypothetical verbs in the English language,“1784, 12mo. 7.” The Idolatry of Greece and Rome distinguished from that of other Heathen Nations, in a Letter to the rev. Hugh Farmer," 1785, 8vo. Mr. Fell ranks among the orthodox, or calvinistic dissenters; but how far, or whether this had any share in the animosity exerted against him, we are unable to discover, from the obscure manner in which his biographers advert to the disputes in the Homerton academy.

, a licentiate in theology, and professor of poetry at Leipsic, was born at Zwickau in 1638, and distinguished from his infancy for uncommon talents. In his thirteenth year he wrote a poem on “The Passion,” which was much applauded. He was educated under the celebrated Daumius, who prided himself on the great proficiency of his pupil, and when Feller went to Leipsic, recommended him to the principal literati of that city, who found him deserving of every encouragement. Thomasius, one of them, engaged him as tutor to his children, and enhanced the favour by giving him free access to his curious and valuable library. In 1660 Feller took his master’s degree, and with such display of talents, that he was soon after made professor of poetry, and in 1676 was appointed librarian to the university. On this last preferment, he employed much of his time in arranging the library, published a catalogue of the Mss. in 1686, 12mo, and procured that the library should be open one day in every week for the use of the public. His Latin poetry, which he wrote with great facility, recommended him to the notice and esteem of the emperor, of the electors of Saxony and Brandenburgh, the duke of Florence, and other princes. He also wrote many papers in the “Acta Lipsiensia,” and the freedom of some of his criticisms in one or two instances involved him in a controversy with James Gronovius, Eggelingen, Patin, and others. He was unfortunately killed by a fall from a window, which he had approached in his sleep, being as this would imply, a somnambulist. This happened April 4, 1691. Besides the works already mentioned, he published, 1. “Cygni quasimodo geniti, sanctae vitae virorum celebrium Cygnese (Zwickau) natorum.” 2. “Supplementum ad Rappolti commentarium in Horatium.” 3. “Flores philosophici ex Virgilio collecti,” Leipsic, 1681, 8vo. 4. “Notae in Lotichicii eclogatn de origine domus Saxonicae et Palatinae.”

In 1711, Mr. Felton was presented by the second duke of Rutland to the rectory of Whitewell in Derbyshire; and July 4, 1712, he preceded to the degree of doctor in divinity. On the death of Dr. Pearson, in 1722, he was admitted, by the provost and fellows of Queen’s college, principal of Edmund hall. In 1725, he printed a sermon which he had preached before the university, and which went through three editions, and excited no common attention, entitled “The Resurrection of the same numerical body, and its re-union to the same soul; against Mr. Locke’s notion of personality and identity.” His next publication, in 1727, was a tra'ct, written with much ingenuity, entitled “The Common People taught to defend their Communion with the Church of England, against the attempts and insinuations of Popish emissaries. In a dialogue between a Popish priest, and a plain countryman.” In 1728 and 1729, Dr. Felton was employed in preaching eight sermons, at lady Moyer’s lecture, at St. Paul’s, which were published in 1732, under the title of “The Christian Faith asserted against Deists, Arians, and Sociirians.” The sermons, when printed, were greatly augmented, and a large preface was given concerning the light and the law of nature, and the expediency and necessity of revelation. This elaborate work was dedicated to Dr. Gibson, bishop of London. In the title he is by some mistake called late principal of Edmund hall, a situation which he never resigned. In 1736 the duke of Rutland, being chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster, gave him the rectory of Berwick in Elmet, Yorkshire, which he did not long live to enjoy. In 1739 he was seized with a rheumatic disorder; from which, however, he was so far recovered, after a confinement of nearly three months, that he thought himself able to officiate, in his church at Berwick, on Christmas-day, where he preached his last sermon, and with his usual fervour and affection. But having caught cold, which was followed by a defluxion, attended with a violent fever, he died March 1, 1739-40. During the whole of his disorder, he behaved with a resignation and piety becoming a Christian. He was interred in the chancel of the church of Berwick. He left behind him, intended for the press, a set of sermons on the creation, fall, and redemption of man; the sacrifices of Cain and Abel, and the rejection and punishment of Cain, which were published by his son, the rev. William Felton, in 1748, with a preface containing a sketch of his father’s life and character. This work was the result of great attention. The sermons were first composed about 1730, and preached in the parish church of Whitwell in that and the following year. In 1733 he enlarged them, and delivered them again in the same church; and in 1736 when removed to Berwick, he transcribed and preached them at that place. But though he had applied much labour to the subject of the resurrection, he did not think that his discourses on that head, or any other of his university sermons, were fit for re-publication.

, an English prelate, was born at Yarmouth in Norfolk, and admitted of Pembroke-hall, Cambridge, of which college he was chosen fellow Nov. 27, 15H3 Archbishop Whitgift collated him to the rectory of St. Mary le Bow, Jan. 17, 1595-6, being then B. D. and he was some time also rector of St. Antholin’s, London. He was elected master of Pembroke-hall, June 29, 1616; admitted rector of Easton-Magna in Essex, Oct. 23, the same year; and collated to a prebend in St. Paul’s, being then D. D. March 4 following. In 1617, he was promoted to the see of Bristol, to which he was consecrated, Dec. 14. The next year he resigned his mastership, and was nominated to the bishopric of Coventry and Lichfield, but was translated to Ely, March 11, 1618-19. He died Oct. 5, 1626, in the sixty-third year of his age, and was buried under the communion-table in St. Antholin’s church, London; but without any memorial or inscription. He was a very pious, learned, and judicious man, and deserves some notice in this work, as one of those who was employed by king James I. in the new translation of the Bible. There is an excellent picture of him in the gallery of the palace at Ely, which was presented for that purpose to the late bishop Gooch, by Mr. Cole of Milton.

Having finished his mission, he returned to Paris, and was presented to the king: but lived two years afterwards without going to court, being again entirely occupied in the instruction of the new female converts. That he might forward this good work by writings as well as lectures, he published, in 1688, a little treatise, entitled “Education de Filles;” which the author of the Bibliotheque Universelle, calls the best and most useful book written upon the subject, in the French language. In 1688, he published a work “Concerning the functions of the Pastors of the Church;” writtenchiefly against the protestants, with a view of shewing, that the first promoters of the reformation had no lawful call, and therefore were not true pastors. In 1689, he was made tutor to the dukes of Burgundy, Anjou, and Berri; and in 1693, was chosen member of the French academy, in the room of Pelisson deceased. In this situation, he was in favour with all. His pupils, particularly the duke of Burgundy, improved rapidly under his care. The divines admired the sublimity of his talents; the courtiers the brilliancy of his wit. The duke, to the end of his life, felt the warmest regard for his illustrious preceptor. At the same time, Fenelon preserved the disinterestedness of an hermit, and never received or asked any thing either for himself or friends. At last the king gave him the abbey of St. Valery, and, some months after, the archbishopric of Cambray, to which he was consecrated by Bossuet bishop of Meaux, in 1695.

But a storm now arose against him, which obliged him to leave the court for ever; and was occasioned by his book, entitled “An Explication of the Maxims of the Saints concerning the interior life.” This book was published in 1697, and was occasioned by the writings of madam Guyon, who pretended to a very high and exalted devotion. She explained this devotion in some books which she published, and wrote particularly a mystical exposition of Solomon’s Song. Fenelon, whose gentle disposition is said to have been strongly actuated by the lov of God, became a friend of madam Guyon, in whom he fancied he saw only a pure soul animated with feelings similar to his own. This occasioned several conferences between the bishop of Meaux, the bishop of Chalons, afterwards cardinal de Noailles, and Mr. Tronon, superior-general to the congregation of St. Sulpicius. Into these conferences, in which madam Guyon’s books were examined, Fenelon was admitted; but in the mean time began to write very secretly upon the subject under examination, and his writings tended to maintain or excuse madam Guyon’s books without naming her. This examination lasted seven or eight months, during which he wrote several letters to the examiners, which abounded with so many testimonies of submission, that they said they could not think God would deliver him over to a spirit of error. While the conferences lasted, the secret was inviolably kept with regard to Fenelon; the two bishops being as tender of his reputation, as they were zealous to reclaim him. He was soon after named archbishop of Cam bray, and yet continued with the same humility to press the two prelates to give a final sentence. They drew up thirty-four articles at Issi, and presented them to the new archbishop, who offered to sign them immediately; but they thought it more proper to leave them with him for a time, that he might examine them leisurely. He did so, and added to every one of the articles such limitations as enervated them entirely: however, he yielded at last, and signed the articles March 10, 1695. Bossuet wrote soon after an instruction designed to explain the articles of Issi, and desired Fenelon to approve it; but he refused, and let Bossuet know by a friend, that he could not approve a book which condemned madam Guyon, because he himself did not condemn her. It was in order to explain the system of the mystics that he wrote his book already mentioned. There was a sudden and general outcry against it, and the clamours coming to the king’s ear, his majesty expostulated with the prelates for having kept secret from him what they alone knew. The controversy was for some time carried on between the archbishop of Cambray and the bishop of Meaux. But as the latter insisted upon a positive recantation, Fenelon applied to the king, and represented to his majesty, that there were no other means to remove the offence which this controversy occasioned, than by appealing to the pope, Innocent XII. and therefore he begged leave to go himself to Rome. But the king sent him word, that it was sufficient to carry his cause thither, without going himself, and sent him to his diocese in August, 1697. When the question was brought before the consultators of the inquisition to be examined, they were divided in their opinions: but at last the pope condemned the book, with twenty-three propositions extracted from it, by a brief dated March 12, 1699. Yet, notwithstanding this censure, Innocent seems to have disapproved the violent proceedings against the author. He wrote thus to the prelates who distinguished themselves as adversaries to Fenelon: “Peccavit excessu amoris divini, sed vos peceastis defectu amoris proximi.” Some of Fenelon’s friends have pretended, that there was in this affair more courtpolicy than zeal for religion. They have observed, that this storm was raised against him at a time when the king thought of choosing an almoner for the duchess of Burgundy; and that there was no way of preventing him, who had been tutor to the duke her husband, and who had acquitted himself perfectly well in the functions of that post, from being made her almoner, but by raising suspicions of heresy against him. They think themselves sufficiently justified in this opinion, by Bossuet’s being made almoner after Fenelon was disgraced and removed. Be this as it will, he submitted patiently to the pope’s determination, and read his sentence, with his own recantation, publicly in his diocese of Cambray, where he led a most exemplary life, acquitting himself punctually in all the duties of his station. Yet he was not so much taken up with them, nor so deeply engaged in his contemplative devotion, but he found time to enter into the controversy with the Jansenists. He laboured not only to confute them by his writings, but also to oppress them, by procuring a bull from Rome against a book which the cardinal de Noailles, their chief support, had approved: namely, father Quesnel’s “Reflections upon the New Testament.” The Jesuits, who were resolved to humble that prelate, had formed a great party against him, and prevailed with the archbishop of Cambray to assist them in the affair. He accordingly engaged himself: wrote many pieces against the Jansenists, the chief of which is the “Four Pastoral Letters,” printed in 1704, at Valenciennes; and spared no pains to get the cardinal disgraced, and the book condemned, both which were at length effected.

He was a man of great learning, great genius, fine taste, and exemplary manners: yet many have suspected that he was not entirely sincere in his recantation of his “Maxims of the Saints;” a work composed by him with great care, and consisting, in great part, of extracts from the fathers. Yet, if we consider the profound veneration of a pious catholic bishop for the decisions of the church, the modesty and candour of his character, and even his precepts to the mystics, we shall be inclined to acquit him of the charge. He had said to these persons in that very book, “that those who had erred in fundamental doctrines, should not be contented to condemn their error, but should confess it, and give glory to Gocl; that they should have no shame at having erred, which is the common lot of humanity, but should humbly acknowledge their errors, which would be no longer such when they had been humbly confessed.” He has also been accused of ambition for his conduct in. the controversy, with the Jansenists, but the charge rests only on presumptive evidence, and is equally refuted by his general character. In his theology, he seems to give greater scope to feeling than to reason; but if he inclined to mysticism, and thus seemed to deviate from the established system of his church, he does not appear to have made the least approach to protestantism. On the contrary, no one has more forcibly inculcated the danger of putting the scriptures into the hands of the people (a fundamental tenet of popery), than Fenelon has done in his “Letter to the archbishop of Arras.” Submission to the decisions of the holy see is likewise exemplified in his whole conduct as well as in his writings. Indeed, Fenelon seems to have been one of those, who, either from early prepossessions, or from false reasonings upon human nature, or from an observation of the powerful impressions made by authority on the credulity, and a pompous ritual on the senses of the multitude, imagine, that Christianity, in its native form, is too pure and elevated for vulgar souls, and, therefore, countenance and maintain the absurdities of popery, from a notion of their utility.

Fenelon published several works besides his “'Telemachus,” and the “Explanation of the Maxims of the Saints,” already mentioned, which first appeared in 1697. These were, 1. “Dialogues of the Dead,” in two volumes, 12mo, composed for the use of the duke of Burgundy, and intended in general to cure him of some fault, or teach him some virtue. They were produced as the occasions arose, and not laboured, 2. “Dialogues on Eloquence in general, and that of the. Pulpit in particular,” 12mo, published in 1718, after his death. He there discusses the question, whether it is better to preach by memory, or extemporaneously with more or less preparation. The rules of eloquence are also delivered in a neat and easy manner. 3. “Abridgment of the Lives of the ancient Philosophers,” 12 mo, written for the duke of Burgundy, of which an excellent translation, with notes, was lately published by the rev. John Cormack, 1808, 2 vols. 12mo. 4. “A Treatise on the Education of Daughters,” 12mo, an excellent work. 5. “Philosophical Works, or a demonstration of the Existence of God, by proofs drawn from Nature,” 12mo; the best edition is of Paris, 1726. 5. “Letters on different subjects of Religion and Metaphysics,” 1718, 12mo. 6. “Spiritual Works,” 4 vols. 12mo. 7. “Sermons,” printed in 1744, 12mo the character of these discourses is rather pathetic writing than strong reasoning; the excellent disposition of Fenelon appears throughout; but they are unequal and negligent. He preached extemporaneously with facility, and his printed sermons are in the same style. 8. Several works in favour of the bull 41 Unigenitus,“against Jansenism. 9.” Direction for the Conscience of a king,“composed for the duke of Burgundy; a small tract, but much esteemed, published in 1748, and re-published in 1774. There is a splendid French edition of his works in 9 vols. 4to, Paris, 1787 1792; and one of his” OEuvres choices,“1799, 6 vols. 12mo. In 1&07 appeared at Paris a new volume of his” Sermons choisies," 12mo, which is said to do credit to his established reputation.

Sir John Fenn distinguished himself early by his application to the study of our national history and antiquities, for which he had formed great collections, particularly that of Peter Le Neve, for the contiguous counties of Norfolk and Suffolk, from the wreck of that of Thomas Martin, to erect a monument to whose memory in the church where he was buried, he left a large sum of money. Among the rest was a large collection of original letters, written during the reigns of Henry VI. Edward IV. Richard III. and Henry VII. by such of the Paston family and others, who were personally present in court and camp, and were, in those times, persons of great consequence in the county of Norfolk. These letters contain many curious and authentic state anecdotes, relating not only to Norfolk, but to the kingdom in general. Two volumes of them were published in 1787, 4to, and dedicated by permission to his majesty, who rewarded the merit of the editor with the honour of knighthood. Two more volumes appeared in 1789, with notes and illustrations by sir John and a fifth was left nearly ready for the press, which, however, if we mistake not, has not yet been published. Though he contributed nothing to the “Archaeologia” of the Society of Antiquaries, of which he was a fellow, he was a benefactor to them, by drawing up “Three Chronological Tables” of their members, which were printed in a 4to pamphlet, 1734, for the use of the society. His biographer concludes his character with observing, that “if the inquisitive antiquary, the clear, faithful, and accurate writer, be justly valued by literary characters; the intelligent and upright magistrate, by the inhabitants of the county in which he resided; the informing and pleasing companion, the warm and steady friend, the honest and worthy man, the good and exemplary Christian, by those with whom he was cpnnected; the death of few individuals will be more sensibly felt, more generally regretted, or more sincerely lamented.”

, an English navigator in the reign of Elizabeth, was descended from an ancient family in Nottinghamshire, where he had some property. This he sold, as did also his brother Geoffrey, being, it is said, more inclined to trust to their abilities, than the slender patrimony descended to them from their ancestors; and they were among the very few of those who take such daring resolutions in their youth, without living to repent of them in their old age. The inclination of Edward leading him to the choice of a military life, he served some time with reputation in Ireland; but upon sir Martin Frobisher’s report of the probability of discovering a northwest passage into the South seas, he resolved to embark with him in his second voyage, and was accordingly appointed captain of the Gabriel, a bark of twenty-five tons, in which he accompanied sir Martin in the summer of 1577, to the straits that now bear his name, but in their return he was separated from him in a storm, and arrived safely at Bristol, in a third expedition, which proved unsuccessful, he commanded the Judith, one of fifteen sail, and had the title of rear-admiral. The miscarriage of this voyage had not convinced Fenton of the impracticability of the project; he solicited another trial, and it was, after much application, granted him, though the particular object of this voyage is not easily discovered; his instructions from the privy-council, which are still preserved, say, that he should endeavour the discovery of a north-west passage, and yet he is told to go by the Cape of Good Hope to the East Indies, thence to the South seas, and to attempt his return by the supposed north-west passage, and not by any means to think of passing the Straits of Magellan, except in case of absolute necessity. The truth appears to be, he had interest enough to be allowed to try his fortune in the South-seas. He sailed in the spring 1582, with four vessels, and was making to Africa; thence he intended to sail to Brazil, in his course to the straits of Magellan, but having learnt that there was already a strong Spanish fleet there, he put into a Portuguese settlement, where he met with three of the Spanish squadron, gave them battle, and after a severe engagement, sunk their vice-admiral, and returned home in May 1583. Here he was well received, and appointed to the command of a ship sent out against the famous armada in 1588. In some accounts of this action he is said to have commanded the Antelope, in others, the Mary Rose; but his talents and bravery in the action are universally acknowledged, and it is certain he had a very distinguished share in those actions, the fame of which can never be forgotten. Little more is recorded of him, than that he spent the remainder of his days at or near Deptford, where he died in 1603. A monument was erected to his memory in the parish church of Deptford, at the expence of Richard earl of Cork, who had married his niece. According to Fuller, he died within a few days oi' his mistress, queen Elizabeth, and he remarks, “Observe how God set up a generation of military men both by sea and land, which began and expired with the reign of queen Elizabeth, like a suit of clothes made for her, and worn out with her; for providence designing a peaceable prince to succeed her, in whose time martial men would be rendered useless, so ordered the matter, that they all, almost, attended their mistress, before or after, within some short distance, unto her grave.” This, however, was not strictly true, for the celebrated earl of Nottingham, sir Charles Blount, sir George Carew, sir Walter Raleigh, sir William Monson, sir Robert Mansel, and other great officers by sea and land, survived queen Elizabeth.

, an eminent writer and statesman during the reigns of Elizabeth and James I. was brother to the preceding, but the time of his birth does not appear. He was certainly educated liberally, though we cannot tell where; since, while a young man, he gave many proofs of his acquaintance with ancient and modern learning, and of his being perfectly versed in the French, Spanish, and Italian languages. He is well known for a translation from the Italian of “The History of the Wars of Italy, by Guicciardini,” the dedication of which to queen Elizabeth bears date Jan. 7, 1579. This was, however, his last work. He had published before, 1. “Certaine Tragical Discourses written oute of French and Latin,” 1567, 4to, reprinted 1579. Neither Ames nor Tanner appear to have seen the first edition. The work is, says Warton, in point of selection and size, perhaps the most capital miscellany of the kind, a. e. of tragical novels. Among the recommendatory poems prefixed is one from Turberville. Most of the stories are on Italian subjects, and many from Bandello. 2. “An Account of a Dispute at Paris, between two Doctors of the Sorbonne, and two Ministers of God’s Word,”1571, a translation. 3. “An Epistle, or Godly Admonition, sent to the Pastors of the Flemish Church in Antwerp, exhorting them to concord with other Ministers: written by Antony de Carro, 1578,” a translation. 4. “Golden Epistles; containing variety of discourses, both moral, philosophical, and divine, gathered as well out of the remainder of Guevara’s works, as other authors, Latin, French, and Italian. Newly corrected and amended. Mon heur viendra, 1577.” The familiar epistles of Guevara had been published in English, by one Edward Hellowes, in 1574; but this collection of Fenton’s consists of such pieces as were not contained in that work. The epistle dedicatory is to the right honourable and vertuous lady Anne, countess of Oxen ford; and is dated from the author’s chamber in the Blackfriars, London, Feb. 4, 1575. This lady was the daughter of William Cecil lord Burleigh; and it appears from the dedication, that her noble father was our author’s best patron. Perhaps his chief purpose in translating and publishing this work, was to testify his warm zeal and absolute attachment to that great minister.

He was now induced to trust to his abilities for a subsistence, but whatever his difficulties or discouragements, he kept his name unsullied, and never descended to any mean or dishonourable shifts. Indeed, whoever mentioned him, mentioned him with honour, in every period of his life. His first employ he owed to a recommendation to Charles earl of Orrery, whom he accompanied to Flanders, in quality of secretary, and returned with his lordship to England in 1705. Being then out of employment, he became assistant in the school of Mr. Bonwicke, (see Bo?7­Wicki:), at Headley, near Leatherhead, in Surrey; after which he was invited to the mastership of the free grammar school at Sevenoaks, in Kent, and in a few years brought that seminary into much reputation, while he enjoyed the advantage of making easy and frequent excursions to visit his friends in London. In 1710 he was prevailed upon by Mr. St. John (lord Bolingbrokt ) to give up what was called the drudgery of a school, for the worse drudgery of dependence on a political patron, from whom, after all, he derived no advantage. When Steele resigned his place of commissioner in the stamp-office, Fenton applied to his patron, who told him that it was beneath his merit, and promised him a superior appointment; but this, the subsequent change of administration prevented him from fulfilling, and left Fenton disappointed, and in debt. Not long after, however, his old friend the earl of Orrery appointed him tutor to his son, lord Broghill, a boy of seven years old, whom he taught English and Latin until he was thirteen. About the time this engagement was about to expire, Craggs, secretary of state, feeling his own want of literature, desired Pope to procure him an instructor, by whose help he might supply the deficiencies of his education. Pope recommended Fenton, but Craggs’s sudden death disappointed the pleasing expectations formed from this connection.

The latter part of Mr. Fenton' s life was passed in a manner agreeable to his wishes. By the recommendation of Pope to the widow of sir William Trumbull, that lady invited him to be tutor to her son, first at home, and afterwards at Cambridge; and when disengaged from this attendance on her son, lady Trumbull retained Fenton in her family, as auditor of her accounts, an office which was probably easy, as he had leisure to make frequent excursions to visit his literary friends in London. He died July 13, 1730, at East-Hampstead, in Berkshire, lady Trumbull’s seat, and was interred in the parish-church, and his tomb was honoured with an epitaph by Pope. In person, Fenton was tall and bulky, inclined to corpulence, which he did not lessen by much exercise, as he was sluggish and sedentary, rose late, and when he had risen, sat down to his book or papers. By a woman who once waited on him in a lodging, he was told, that he would “lie a-bed, and be fed with a spoon.” Pope says in one of his letters, that he died of indolence and inactivity; others attribute his death to the gout; to which lord Orrery adds, “a great chair, and two bottles of port in a day.” Dr. Johnson observes, that “Of his morals and his conversation, the account is uniform. He was never named but with praise and fondness, as a man in the highest degree amiable and excellent. Such was the character given him by the earl of Orrery, his pupil such is the testimony of Pope; and such were the suffrages of all who could boast of his acquaintance.” There is a story relating to him, which reflects too much honour upon his memory to be omitted. It was his custom in the latter part of his life, to pay a yearly visit to his relations in the country. An entertainment being made for the family by Jiis elder brother, he observed that one of his sisters, who had been unfortunate in her marriage, was absent; and, upon inquiry, he found that distress had made her thought unworthy of an invitation; but he refused to sit at the table until she was sent for and, when she had taken her place, he was careful to shew her particular attention.

, a physician of Messagna, in the territory of Otranto, where he was born, October, or according to Niceron, Nov. 2, 1569, cultivated the study of the Latin and Greek poets at an early age, and wrote elegant verses in both these languages. In 1583 he went to Naples with the intention of going through the courses of philosophy and medicine; but in 1591, all strangers were compelled to leave the place. Ferdinand, returning to his own country, taught geometry and philosophy until 1594) when the viceroy’s edict being revoked, he returned to Naples, pursued a course of medical studies, and receired the degree of doctor in medicine and philosophy. He then repaired to his native place, where he settled himself in practice, and remained to the end of his life, notwithstanding the tempting offers he received from several seats of learning. The duke of Parma, in particular, pressed him to take the professorship of medicine in the university of his city; and the same invitation, was given from the university of Padua. In 1605, he was chosen syndic-general of his country, and acquitted himself with great credit in that office. He died Dec. 6, 1638, in the sixty-ninth year of his age.

, a celebrated Persian poet, and, according to sir William Jones, at the head of all Persian poets, was a native of Tus or Meshed. He was originally a peasant, but his talents procuring him distinction, he was admitted to the court of the sultan Mahmud, who reigned in the city of Gazna, at the close of the tenth and the beginning of the eleventh centuries, and entertained several poets in his palace. Ferdusi, happening to find a copy of an old Persian history, read it with great eagerness, and found it involved in fables, but bearing the marks of high antiquity. The most ancient part of it, and principally the war of Afrasiab and Kosru, or Cyrus, seemed to afford an excellent subject for an heroic poem, which he accordingly began to compose. Some of his episodes and descriptions were shewn to the sultan, who commended them exceedingly, and ordered him to comprize the whole history of Persia in a series of epic poems. The poet obeyed, and after the happiest exertion of his fancy and art for near“thirty years, finished his work, which contained sixty thousand couplets in rhyme, all highly polished, with the spirit of our Dryden, and the sweetness of Pope. He presented an elegant transcript of his hook to Mahmud, who coldly applauded his diligence, and dismissed him. Many months elapsed, and Ferdusi heard no more of his work: he then took occasion to remind the king of it by some little epigrams, which he contrived to let fall in the palace; but, says sir William Jones,” where an epic poem had failed, what effect could be expected from an epigram“At length the reward came, which consisted only of as many small pieces of money, as there were couplets in the volume. The high-minded poet could not brook this insult; he retired to his closet with bitterness in his heart, where he wrote a most noble and animated invective against the sultan, which he sealed up, and delivered to a courtier, who, as he had reason to suspect, was his greatest enemy, assuring him that it was” a diverting tale,“and requesting him to give it to Mahmud,” when any affair of state or bad success in war should make him more uneasy and splenetic than usual." Having thus given vent to his indignation, he left Gazna in the night, and took refuge in Bagdad, where the calif protected him from the sultan Mahmud, who demanded him in a furious and menacing letter. Ferdusi is supposed to have died in the 411th year of the Hegira, or A. D. 1020.

The work of Ferdusi remains entire, a glorious monument of eastern genius and learning; which, if ever it should be understood in its original language, will contest the merit of invention with Homer himself, whatever be thought of its subject, or the arrangement of the incidents. The whole collection of his works is called “Shahnama,” and contains the history of Persia, from the earliest times to the invasion of the Arabs, in a series of very noble poems; the longest and most regular of which is an heroic poem of one great and interesting action, namely the delivery of Persia by Cyrus from the oppressions of Afrasiab, king of the Transoxan Tartary, who, being assisted by the emperors of India and China, had carried his conquests very far, and had become exceeding formidable to the Persians. The poem is longer than the Iliad the characters in it are various and striking the figures bold and animated; and the diction every where sonorous, yet noble; polished, yet full of fire. Of Ferdusi’s satire against the sultan, there is a translation in a “Treatise on Oriental Poetry,” added to the Life of Nader-Shah in French. Sir William Jones said it is not unlike the XagiTts of Theocritus, who, like the impetuous Ferdusi, had dared to expose the vices of a low-minded king.

Mr. Ferguson must be allowed to have been a very uncommon genius, especially in mechanical contrivances and executions, for he executed many machines himself in a very neat manner. He had also a good taste in astronomy, with natural and experimental philosophy, and was possessed of a happy manner of explaining himself in an easy, clear, and familiar way. His general mathematical knowledge, however, was little or nothing. Of algebra he understood but little more than the notation; and he has often told Dr. Hutton he could never demonstrate one proposition in Euclid’s Elements; his constant method being to satisfy himself, as to the truth of any problem, with a measurement by scale and compasses. He was a man of a very clear judgment in any thing that he professed, and of unwearied application to study benevolent, meek, and innocent in his manners as a child humble, courteous, and communicative instead of pedantry, philosophy seemed to produce in him only diffidence and urbanity.

, who at an early period of life obtained a considerable degree of celebrity as a Scotch poet, was born at Edinburgh Sept. 5, 1750, or 1751, and was educated partly in his native city, and partly at Dundee, from whence he was sent to the university of St. Andrew’s, where his diligent application, and probably his turn for poetry, obtained him the patronage of Dr. Wilkie, himself a poet, and author of the “Epigoniad,” but some gross irregularities having procured him to be expelled, he returned to Edinburgh, without resolving on any permanent employment. Having an opulent relation, he visited him in hopes, by his interest, to procure some sinecure place, but at the end of six months, this relation ordered him abruptly to leave his house, and Fergusson returned to Edinburgh, stung with indignation; and as soon as he recovered from a severe illness, brought on by disappointment and the fatigue of his journey, he composed two elegies, one on “The Decay of Friendship,” and the other “Against repining at Fortune.” He was now so destitute, that he submitted to copy papers in a public office, but not liking the employment, and quarrelling with his employer, he soon left the office in disgust.

Hitherto he had lived rather in obscurity; and happy had it been for him, if he had been suffered to remain in that obscurity; but, possessing an inexhaustible fund of wit and good nature, he was viewed with affection by all to whom he was known; and his powers of song, and almost unrivalled talent for mimicry, led him oftener into the company of those who wished for him merely to enliven a social hour, than of such as by their virtue were inclined, or by their influence were able, to procure him a competent settlement for life. The consequence of this was great laxity of manners, and much of his life was disgraced by actions which, in his cooler moments, he reflected on with abhorrence. His conscience indeed was frequently roused, and once so powerfully that all his vivacity forsook him. From this state of gloom, however, he gradually recovered, and, except that a settled melancholy was visible in his countenance, had apparently recovered his health, when one evening befell, and received a violent contusion on the head, which was followed by a delirium that rendered it necessary for his friends to remove him to the lunatic hospital of Edinburgh, where, after two months’ confinement, he died Oct. 16, 1774. He was interred in the Canongate church-yard, where his friends erected a monument to his memory that was afterwards removed to make way for a ipore elegant monument, by his enthusiastic admirer Robert Burns, who resembled him in too many features. Most of Fergusson’s poems were originally published in the “Weekly Magazine,” but have since been collected in a volume, and often printed. The subjects of them are sometimes uncommon, and generally local or temporary. They are of course very unequal. Those in the English language are scarcely above mediocrity; but those in the Scottish dialect have been universally admired by his countrymen; and when it is considered that they were composed amidst a round of dissipation, they may be allowed to furnish complete evidence of his genius and taste.

, an English antiquary, was the son of William Feme, of Temple Belwood, in the isle of Axholme, in Lincolnshire, esq. by Anne his wife, daughter and heir of John Sheffield, of Beltoft; and was sent to Oxford when about seventeen years of age. Here he was placed, as Wood conceives, either in St. Mary’s-hall, or University college: but leaving the university without a degree, he went to the Inner Temple, and studied for some time the municipal law. In the beginning of the reign of James I. he received the honour of knighthood, being about that time secretary, and keeper of the king’s signet of the council established at York for the north parts of England. He probably died about 1610, leaving several sons behind him, of whom Henry, the youngest, was afterwards bishop of Chester, the subject of our next article. In 1586 sir John published “The Blazon of Gentry, divided into two parts, &c.” 4to. This is written in dialogues, and, though in a language uncommonly quaint and tedious, contains critical accounts of arms, principles of precedence, remarks upon the times, &c. which are altogether curious. The nobility of the Lacys, earls of Lincoln, which forms a part of it, was written in consequence of Albert a Lasco, a noble German, coming to England in 1583, and claiming affinity to this family of Lacy, and from this, Feme says, he was induced to open their descents, their arms, marriages, and lives. The discourse is curious, and during the century that elapsed after its publication, before the appearance of Dugdaie’s Baronage, must have been peculiarly valuable.

, or Fernelius, physician to Henry II. of France, was born at Mont-Didier in Picardy, in 1506, or as some say in 1497. He was not very young when he was sent to Paris, to study rhetoric and philosophy; but made so quick a progress, that, having been admitted master of arts after two years’ time, the principals of the colleges strove who should have him to teach logic, and offered him a considerable stipend. He would not accept their offers; but chose to render himself worthy of a public professor’s chair by private studies and lectures. He applied himself therefore in a most intense manner, all other pleasure being insipid to him. He cared neither for play, nor for walking, nor for entertainment, nor even for conversation. He read Cicero, Plato, and Aristotle, and the perusal of Cicero procured him this advantage, that the lectures he read on philosophical subjects were as eloquent as those of the other masters of that time were barbarous. He also applied himself very earnestly to the mathematics.

His works are, 1. “Monalosph atrium partibus constans quatuor, &c.” Paris, 1526. 2. “De Proportionibns, libri duo,” ibid. 1528. 3. “Cosmo-theoria libros duos complexa,” ibid. 1528. 4. “De naturali parte Medicinsr, libri septem,” ibid. 1532. 5. “De vacuandi ratione, liber,” ibid. 1545. 6. “De abditis rerum cau.njs, libri duo, 17 ibid. 1548. This work underwent nearly thirty subsequent editions. 7.” Medicina, ad Henricum II. &c.“1554. This collection has been still more frequently reprinted, with some changes of the title. 8.” Therapeutices universalis, seu medendt rationis libri septem,“Lugduni, 1659. 6.” Consiliorum Medicinalium liber,“Paris, 1532; many times reprinted. 10.” Febrium curandarum methodus generalis,“Francfort, 1577; a posthumous work. 11.” De Luis venereae curatione perfectissima liber,“Antwerp, 1579. dited by Gisselin, a physician of Bruges. Some other parts of his works have been translated, or edited separately since his death. Eloy remarks, that as many thin 0-5 taken from the Arabian writers are found in the works of Fernel, and as the elegant Latinity in which he has repeated them is generally admired, the following bon mot has been applied to him” Fscees Arabuin melle Latinitatis condidit."

, a French lawyer, born at Toulon, in 1645, became an advocate in the parliament of Paris, and died in that city, in 1699. Though a layman, he lived with the rigour of a strict ecclesiastic; and though a lawyer, his works turn chiefly upon subjects of sacred learning. They are full of erudition, but not remarkable for brilliancy or clearness. They are, 1. “A large Commentary on the Psalms,” in Latin, 1683, 4to. 2. “Reflections on the Christian Religion,” 1679, 2 vols. 12mo. 3. “A Psalter,” in French and Latin. 4. Some controversial writings against the Calvinists, and others. 5. “A Letter and Discourse to prove that St. Augustin was a Monk,” an opinion which several learned men have rejected.

Of Nicholas, the subject of this article, we are told that he was a beautiful child, of a fair complexion, and lightcoloured hair. At four years of age he was sent to school, and at five he could read perfectly, or repeat with propriety and grace, a chapter in the Bible, which the parents made the daily exercise of their children. By the brightness of his parts, and the uncommon strength of his memory, he attained with great ease and quickness whatever he set himself to learn; yet was he also remarkably studious. From the early possession of his mind with ideas of piety and virtue, and a love for historical information, the Bible in his very early years became to him the book above all others most dear and estimable; and next to this in his esteem was Fox’s Book of Martyrs, from which he could repeat perfectly the history of his near kinsman, bishop Ferrar. And, when in his riper years he undertook the instruction of the family, he constantly exercised them also in the reading and in the study of these two books. He was particularly fond of all historical relations; and, when engaged in this sort of reading, the day did not satisfy him, but he would borrow from the night; insomuch that his mother would frequently seek him out, and force him to partake of some proper recreation. Hence, even in his childhood, his mind was so furnished with historical anecdotes, that he could at any time draw off his schoolfellows from their play, who would eagerly surround him, and with the utmost attention listen to his little tales, always calculated to inspire them with a love of piety and goodness, and excite in them a virtuous imitation.

Young Ferrar was good-natured and tender-hearted to the highest degree; so fearful of offending any one, that, upon the least apprehension of having given displeasure, he would suddenly weep in the most submissive manner, and appear extremely sorry. His temper was lovely, his countenance pleasing; his constitution was not robust, but he was active, lively, and cheerful. Whatsoever he went about, he did it with great spirit, and with a diligence and discretion above his years. When it was time to send him to some greater school, where he might have a better opportunity to improve himself in the Latin tongue, his parents sent him and his brother William to Euborn, near Newbery, in Berkshire, the house of Mr. Brooks, an old friend, who had many other pupils, who was a religious and good man, but a strict disciplinarian. While preparations were making for this journey, an event took place which made the deepest and most lively impression upon the mind of young Nicholas, and strongly marks his character and the bent of his disposition. He was but six years of age, and being one night unable to sleep, a fit of scepticism seized his mind, and gave him the greatest perplexity and uneasiness. He doubted whether there was a God and, if there was, what was the most acceptable mode of serving him In extreme grief he rose at midnight, cold and frosty and went down to a grass-plat in the garden, where he stood a long time, sad and pensive, musing and thinking seriously upon the great doubt which thus extremely perplexed him. At length, throwing himself on his face upon the ground, and spreading out his hands, he cried aloud, “Yes, there is, there must be a God; and he, no question, if I duly and earnestly seek it of him, will teach me not only how to know, but how to serve him acceptably. He will be with me all my life here, and at the end will hereafter make me happy.” His doubts now vanished, his mind became easy, and he returned to his apartment; but the remembrance of what he felt on this occasion made him ever after strongly commiserate all who laboured under any religious doubt or despair of mind. And, in the future course of his life, he had repeated opportunities to exert his benevolence to those who experienced similar unhappiness.

In 1598 he was sent to Euborn school, where in Latin, Greek, and logic, he soon became the first scholar of his years. He strengthened his memory by daily exercise; he was a great proficient in writing and arithmetic, and attained such excellence in short-hand as to be able to take accurately a sermon or speech on any occasion. He was also well skilled both in the theory and practice of vocal and instrumental music. Thus accomplished, in his fourteenth year, his master, Mr. Brooks, prevailed with his parents to send him to Cambridge, whither he himself attended him, and admitted him of Clare-hall, presenting him, with due commendation of his uncommon abilities, to Mr. Augustin Lindsell, the tutor, and Dr. William Smith, then master of the college. His parents thought proper, notwithstanding the remonstrance of some friends against it, to admit him a pensioner for the first year, as they conceived it more for his good to rise by 'merit gradually to honour. In this situation, by excellent demeanour and diligent application to his studies, he gained the affections and applause of all who knew him, performing all his exercises with distinguished approbation. His attention and diligence were such, that it was observed his chamber might be known by the candle that was last put out at night, and the first lighted in the morning. Nor was he less diligent In his attendance at chapel, so that his piety and learning went on hand in hand together. In his second year he became fellow-commoner. In 1610 he took his degree of B. A. At this time he was appointed to make the speech on the king’s coronation day, (July 25) in the college hall; and the same year he was elected fellow of that society, His constitution was of a feminine delicacy, and he was very subject to aguish disorders; yet he bore them out in a great measure by his temperance, and by a peculiar courageousness of spirit which was natural to him. His favourite sister, married to Mr. Collet, lived at Bourn Bridge, near Cambridge, and as the air of Cambridge was found not well to agree with him, he made frequent exctirsioas to her house, where he passed his time in the pursuit of his studies, and in the instruction of his sister’s children. But his tutor, Mr. Lindsell, Mr. Ruggle (author of the Latin comedy called Ignoramus), and others of the fellows, having now apprehension of his health, carried him to Dr. Butler, the celebrated physician of Cambridge, who conceived a great affection for him, but finding the disorder baffled all his skill, could only recommend a spare diet and great temperance; and upon his relapsing, in the autumn of 1612, the doctor prescribed as the last re^ medy, that in the spring he should travel.

On the first Sunday of every month they always had a communion, which was administered by the clergyman of the adjoining parish; Mr. Nicholas Ferrar assisting as deacon. All the servants who then received the communion, when dinner was brought up, remained in the room, and on that day dined at the same table with Mrs. Ferrar and the rest of the family. When their early devotions in the oratory were finished, they proceeded to church in the following order: First, the three school-masters, in black gowns and Monmouth caps. Then, Mrs. Ferrar’s grandsons, clad in the same manner, two and two. Then, her son Mr. John Ferrar, and her son-in-law Mr. Collet, in the same dress. Then, Mr. Nicholas Ferrar, in surplice, hood, and square cap, sometimes leading his mother. Then 3Vlrs. Collet, and all her daughters, two and two. Then all the gervants, two and two. The dress of all was uniform. Then, on Sundays, all the Psalm children, two and two, or children who were taught to repeat the Psalms from memory.

As they came into the church, every person made a low obeisance, and all took their appointed places. The masters and gentlemen in the chancel; the youths knelt on the upper step of the half-pace; Mrs. Ferrar, her daughters, and all her grand-daughters, in a fair island seat. Mr. Nicholas Ferrar at coming in made a low obeisance a few paces farther, a lower and at the half-pace a lower still then went into the reading-desk, and read the morning service according to the book of Common Prayer. This service over, they returned in the same order, and with the same solemnity. This ceremonial was regularly observed every Sunday, and that on every common day was nearly the same. They rose at four at five went to the oratory to prayers; at six, said the Psalms of the hour for every hour had its appointed Psalms, with some portion of the Gospel, till Mr. Ferrar had finished his Concordance, when a chapter of that work was substituted in place of the portion of the Gospel. Then they sang a short hymn, repeated some passages of scripture, and at half past six went to church to mattins. At seven said the Psalms of the hour, sang the short hymn, and went to breakfast. Then the young people repaired to their respective places of instruction. At ten, to church to the Litany. At eleven to dinner. At which season were regular readings in rotation from scripture, from the Book of Martyrs, and from short histories drawn up by Mr. Ferrar, and adapted to the purpose of moral instruction. Recreation was permitted till one; instruction was continued till three church at four, for evensong supper at five, or sometimes six diversions till eight. Then prayers in the oratory and afterwards all retired to their respective apartments." To preserve regularity in point of time, Mr. Ferrar invented dials in painted glass in every room: he had also sun-dials, elegantly painted with proper mottos, on every side of the church; and he provided an excellent clock to a sonorous bell.

Four of Mr. Collet’s eldest daughters being grown up to woman’s estate, to perfect them in the practice of good housewifery, Mr. Ferrar appointed them, in rotation, to take the whole charge of the domestic ceconomy. Each had this care for a month, when her accounts were regularly passed, allowed, and delivered over to the next in succession. There was also the same care and regularity required with respect to the surgeon’s chest, and the due provision of medicines, and all things necessary for those who were sick, or hurt by any misfortune. A convenient apartment was provided for those of the family who chanced to be indisposed, called the infirmary, where they might be attended, and properly taken care of, without disturbance from any part of the numerous family. A large room was also set apart for the reception of the medicines, and of those who were brought in sick or hurt, and wanted immediate assistance. The young ladies were required to dress the wounds of those who were hurt, in order to give them readiness and skill in this employment, and to habituate them to the virtues of humility and tenderness of heart. The office relative to pharmacy, the weekly inspection, the prescription, and administration of medicines, Mr. Ferrar reserved to himself, being an excellent physician; as he had for many years attentively studied the theory and practice of medicine, both when physic fellow at Clare Hall, and under the celebrated professors at Padua. In this way was a considerable part of their income disposed of.

In order to give some variety to this system of education, he formed the family into a sort of collegiate institution, of which one was considered as the founder, another guardian, a third as moderator, and himself as visitor of this little academy. The seven virgin daughters, his nieces, formed the junior part of this society, were called the sisters, and assumed the names of, 1st, the chief; 2d. the patient; 3d, the chearful 4th, the affectionate; 5th, the submiss 6th, the obedient; 7th, the moderate. These all had their respective characters to sustain, and exercises to perform suited to those characters. For the Christmas season of 1631 he composed twelve excellent discourses, five suited to the festivals within the twelve days, and seven to the assumed name and character of the sisters. These were enlivened by hymns and odes composed by Mr. Ferrar, and set to music by the music-master of the family, who accompanied the voices with the viol or the lute.

We shall notice only one other part of this strange system, which was their nightly watchings. It was agreed that; there should be a constant double night-watch, of men at one end of the house, and of wome.n at the other. That each watch should consist of two or more persons. That the watchings should begin at nine o'clock at night, and end at one in the morning. That each watch should, in those four hours, carefully and distinctly say over the whole book of Psalms, in the way of Autiphony, one repeating one verse, and the rest the other. That they should then pray for the life of the king and his sons. The time of their watch being ended, they went to Mr. Ferrar’s door, bade him good-morrow, and left a lighted caudle for him. At one he constantly rose, and betook himself to religious meditation, founding this practice on the passage, “At midnight will I rise and give thanks;” and some other passages of similar import. Several religious persons, both in the neighbourhood, and from distant places, attended these watchings; and amongst these the celebrated Mr. Richard Crashaw, fellow of Peterhouse, who was very intimate in the family, and frequently came from Cambridge for this purpose, and at his return often watched in Little St. Mary’s church, near Peterhonse. It is some*­what more singular that a late worthy prelate, Dr. Home, has given his sanction, if not to the severity, at least to a moderate observation, of this mode of psalmody, in the following words, *on a part of his commentary on the 134th Psalm:

This extraordinary course of life pursued at Gidding, the strictness of their rules, their prayers, literally without ceasing, their abstinence, mortifications, nightly watchings, and various other peculiarities, gave birth to censure in some, and inflamed the malevolence of others, but excited the wonder and curiosity of all. So that they were frequently visited with different views by persons of all denominations, and of opposite opinions. They received all who came with courteous civility; and from those who were inquisitive they concealed nothing, as indeed there was not any thing either in their opinions, or their practice, in the least degree necessary to be concealed. Notwithstanding this, they were by some abused as Papists, by others as Puritans. Mr. Ferrar himself, though possessed of uncommon patience and resignation, yet in anguish of spirit complained to his friends, that the perpetual obloquy he endured was a sort of unceasing martyrdom. Added to all this, violent invectives and inflammatory pamphlets were published against them. Amongst others, not long after M. Ferrar' s death, a treatise was addressed to the parliament, entitled, “The Arminian Nunnery, or a brief description and relation of the late erected monastical place, called the Arminian Nunnery at Little Gidding in Huntingdonshire: humbly addressed to the wise consideration of the present parliament. The foundation is by a company of Ferrars at Gidding,” printed by Thomas Underhill, 1641.

Among other articles of instruction and amusement in this monastery, Mr. Ferrar engaged a bookbinder who taught his art to the whole family, females as well as males, and what they called pasting-printing, by the use of the rolling-press. By this assistance he composed a full harjnony or concordance of the evangelists, adorned with many beautiful pictures, which required more than a year for the composition, and was divided into 150 heads or chapters. This book was so neatly done by pieces pasted together from different copies of the same type, as to have the appearance of having been printed in the ordinary way. The employment of the monks, in transcribing books, before the aera of printing, must have surely given rise to such a waste of time, as any printing-press could have executed in a month, what cost a year’s labour in this patch-work way. The book, however, was so much admired that the king desired to see it, and had another made like it, which, we are told, was bound by Mary Collett, one of Ferrar’s nieces, “all wrought in gold, in a new and most elegant fashion.”

The life of this extraordinary, and in most respects, amiable man, will be considered in different lights according to the views and objects of the reader. His early abilities, his travels, and the attention deservedly paid to his very singular talents and acquisitions at a period when the powers of the mind are scarcely matured, will excite our respect and admiration. His very active and able conduct in support of the Virginia company, realizes the expectations which his earlier abilities had raised, and displays a scene in which we must equally admire his spirit, temper, and judgment. To see openings so brilliant, talents so varied and useful, knowledge of such importance, buried in a cloister, disappoints the eager hopes, and leads us to indulge a spirit of invective against institutions, once perhaps defensible, but in a better aera of refinement at least “useless,” and often unjust to society. His biographer, Dr. Peckard, seemed indignant at the appellation of “useless enthusiast,” which Mr. Gough applied in his British Topography and that eminent antiquary afterwards allowed that it was certainly unjust so far as regarded the institution at Little Gidding; for to assist their neighbours in medicine, in advice, and in every thing in their power, was one of their objects. But he asks if the charge of enthusiasm was not well founded, and if in a comparative view “useless,” was a term wholly improper? To give medicine occasionally, to advise, or bestow alms, within a limited circle, were not the sufficient employments of a mind equally able and comprehensive, stored with the wisdom of antiquity, experienced in business, and matured by travel and exercise. In the way in which his devotional exercises were conducted, we must perhaps find something to blame. His too literal interpretation of some passages in scripture, which led him to rise at one in the morning, must not only have been ultimately injurious to his own constitution, but, by depriving the constitution of repose at the time best and most naturally adapted to it, must have rendered the body and mind less fit for those social duties which are the great objects of our existence. The frequent watchings of the rest of the family were equally exceptionable, and the ceremonies which he used only as marks of reverence might be interpreted by his weaker dependents as signs of adoration. It is the broken and the contrite heart, not the frequently-bent knee, that God seems to require: it is the bowing down of the spirit, rather than the body, that he will not despise. If we look at the result of this retirement, the works composed by Mr. Ferrar, we shall find nothing very advantageous to the credit of this institution.

, the martyred bishop of St. David’s in the sixteenth century, was an ancestor of the preceding, and born in Halifax parish, Yorkshire, probably at Ewood. He became, when a young man, a canon regular of the order of St. Austin, but in what priory or abbey is uncertain. Having partly received his academical education in Cambridge, he retired to a nursery for the canons of St. Austin, i.t Oxford, called St. Mary’s-college (where Erasmus had before studied), and here we find him in 1526, and also in Oct. 1533, when as a member of the said college, he was admitted to the reading of the sentences, having a little before been opponent in divinity. About the same time he became chaplain to archbishop Cranmer, after whose example he married, a practice at that time disallowed among the popish clergy, and in the time of queen Mary, made the ground of a criminal charge. Dodd, who treats him with more respect than some protestant biographers, adopts from Wood the account, that he was among the first of the university of Oxford that received a tincture of Lutheranism, in which he was confirmed by Thomas Garret, curate of Honey-lane in London, who provided him with books for that purpose, and that in the year above-mentioned he was chosen prior of a monastery of his order, called Nostel, or St. Oswald’s, in Yorkshire, which he surrendered to the commissioners upon the dissolution in 1540, being gratified with a pension of 100l. per annum.

This pension he enjoyed until his promotion to the see of St. David’s, to which he was consecrated Sept. 9, 154-8. He was the first bishop consecrated upon the bare nomination of the king, according to the statute which for that purpose was published in the first year of his (Edward VI.) reign. He had just before been one of the king’s "visitors in a royal visitation, and was at the same time appointed one of the preachers for his great ability in that faculty. As a bishop, Browne Willis says, he became a most miserable dilapidator, yielding up every thing to craving courtiers, and Wood speaks of him with all the rancour of a disciple of Gardiner. The fact, however, seems to be that when he first visited his diocese, he found, among other corruption^and dilapidations, that Thomas Young, the chaunter (afterwards archbishop of York), had pulled down the great hall in the palace for the sake of the lead, which he sold, and that he and Rowland Merick, one of the canons, and afterwards bishop of St David’s, had stripped the cathedral of plate and ornaments, which they likewise sold for their own benefit. On this Dr. Ferrar issued out his commission to his chancellor for visiting the chapter, as well as the restof the diocese, and a mistake in the drawing up of this commission appears to have given the bishop’s enemies the first advantage they had over him. The chancellor, tp whom he left the form of it, drew it up in the old popish words, in which the king’s supremacy was not sufficiently acknowledged, although the bishop professed to visit in the king’s name and authority. This, Young and Merick, with the bishop’s register, George Constantine, whom he had promoted, availed themselves of, not only to resist the commission, but to accuse the bishop of a pr&munire. The prosecution consequent on this, preventing him from, paying the tenths and first-fruits, afforded them another advantage, and he was imprisoned. They also exhibited fifty-six articles and informations against him, of the most frivolous kind, all which he fully answered; but the debt to the crown remaining unpaid, he was detained in prison until queen Mary’s reign, when he was attacked on the score of heresy, and on Feb. 4, 1555, was brought, in company with Hooper, Bradford, and other martyrs, before Gardiner, bishop of Winchester, who, after treating him with brutal contempt, sent him on the 14th of the same month to his diocese, where he was to be tried by his successor, Morgan, whose interest it was that he should be condemned. The principal charges against him were, his allowing the marriage of priests, denying the corporal presence in the sacrament, affirming that the mass is not a sacrifice propitiatory for the quick and dead, declaring that the host ought not to be elevated or adored, and asserting thai man is justified by faith alone. All these Morgan pronounced to be damnable heresies, degraded Dr. Ferrar from his ecclesiastical functions, and delivered him to the secular power. In consequence of this sentence, he was burned at Carmarthen, on the south side of the marketcross, March 30, 1555. It was remarkable, that one Jones coming to the bishop a little before his execution, lamented the painfulness of the death he had to suffer; but was answered, that if he once saw him stir in the pains of his burning, he should then give no credit to his doctrine. And what he said he fully performed, for he stood patiently, and never moved, till he was beat down with a staff.

, of the same family with the famer, was born at Milan in 1607. He went through Is studies in the Ambrosian college, and after he had conpleted a course of philosophy and divinity, applied himself entirely to polite literature, in which he made so grat progress, that cardinal Frederic Borromeo procured hn a professorship of rhetoric in that college, when he vis but one and twenty years old. Six years after, the ipublic of Venice invited him to Padua, to teach eloquene, politics, and the Greek ianguage, in that university, whih was then extremely in its decline; but Ferrari restoredit to its former flourishing state. The republic rewarded hn by enlarging his pension every six years, which from fre hundred ducats was at last raised to two thousand. Afer the death of Ripamonte, historiographer of the city of Milan, Ferrari was appointed to write the history of tat city; and a pension of two hundred crowns was settledm htm for that purpose. He began, and composed eilit books; but finding he could not have access to the necssary materials in the archives of Milan, he desisted, id left what he had done to his heir, on condition thathe should not publish it. His reputation procured him f esents and pensions from foreign princes. Christimof Sweden, in whose honour he had made a public disccrse upon her mounting the throne, presented him withagden chain, and honoured him with her letters; and Louis IV. of France gave him a pension of five hundred crown for seven years. He died in 1682, aged seventy-five. He was remarkable for the sweetness, sincerity, and affability of his temper; and had so happy a way of mitigating persons exasperated against each other, that he acquire the title of “the Reconciler, or Pacificator.”

, an eminent artist of Valdugia, was born in 1484. He is by Vasari called “Gaudenzio Milanese.” Some have supposed him a scholar of Perugino, but Lomazzo, who was a nurseling of his school, names Scotto and Luini as his masters. His juvenile works prove what Vasari says, that he had profited by those of Lionardo da Vinci. He went young to Rome^ and is said to have been employed in the Vatican by Raffaello; and there, it is probable, that he acquired that style of design and tone of colour which eclipsed what before him had been done in Lombardy. He possessed a portentous feracity of ideas, equal to that of Giulio, but far different; instead of licentious excursions over the wilds of mythology, he attached himself to sacred lore, to represent the majesty of Divine Being, the mysteries of religion, and emotions of piety, and succeeded to a degree which acquired him the name of “eximie pius” from a Novarese synod. Strength was his element, which he expressed less by muscles forcibly marked, than by fierce and terrible attitudes, as in the Passion of Christ, at the grazie of Mu Jano, where he had Titian for a competitor; and in the Fall of Paul, at the conventuals of Vercelli, which approaches that of M. Angelo, at the Paolina; in the expression of character and mind, he is inferior perhaps only to Raffaelo; and at St. Cristoforo of Vercelli has shewn himself master of angelic grace, With a full and genial vein of colour, Gaudenzio unites an evidence which admits of no hesitation, and attracts the eye in the midst of other works. His tone is determined by the subject, as his carnations by character; but his draperies and parerga are commended more by caprice and novelty, than simplicity and grandeur. Whether it were modesty, situation, ignorance, or envy, that defrauded powers so eminent, of the celebrity often lavished on minor talents, is not now to be determined. Ferrari was little known, and less favoured by Vasari, whom the blind herd of dilettanti on either side of the Alps generally follow in their search of excellence in art. He is supposed to have died in 1550. There was another of the name John Andrew Ferrari, or De Ferrara, who was born at Genoa, in 1599, and was a disciple of Bernard Castelli; but, in order to obtain a more extensive knowledge in his profession, he studied afterwards for some time under Bernardo Strozzi. His application was attended with success, for he at last attained to such a degree of excellence, that he was equally expert in painting history, landscape, fruit, animals, and flowers; and those subjects he finished in a small size, but with extraordinary beauty and exactness, so that few of the princes or nobility of his time were satisfied without possessing some of his compositions. Benedetto Castiglioue was his disciple. He died in 1669.

But although he made so great a figure in the diversions of a court, he preserved at the same time his credit with all the learned world, and was no idle spectator of political affairs. This appears from the history of the reign of Mary, which though inserted in the chronicle, and published under the name of Richard Grafton, was actually written by Ferrars as Stow expressly tells us. Our author was an historian, a lawyer, and a politician, even in his poetry as appears from pieces of his, inserted in the celebrated work entitled * The Mirror for Magistrates,“&c. The first edition of this work was published in 1559, by William Baldwin, who prefixed an epistle before the second part of it, wherein he signifies, that it had been intended to reprint” The Fall of Princes,“by Boccace, as translated into English by Lidgate the monk; but that, upon communicating his design to seven of his friends, all of them sons of the Muses, they dissuaded him from that, and proposed to look over the English Chronicles, and to pick out and dress up in a poetic habit such stories as might tend to edification. To this collection Ferrars contributed the following pieces: 1.” The Fall of Robert Tresilian, Chief Justice of England, and other his fellows, for misconstruing the Laws, and expounding them to serve the Prince’s affections.' 7 2. “The Tragedy, or unlawful murder of Thomas of Woodstock, duke of Gloucester.' 13.” Tragedy of king Richard II.“4.” The Story of dame Eleanor Cobham, dutchess of Gloucester,“much altered and augmented in the second edition of 1587, in which are added, to the four already mentioned, 5.” The Story of Humphrey Plantagenet, duke of Gloucester, protector of England.“6.” The Tragedy of Edmund duke of Somerset." A farther account will be given of this work when we come to the article Sackville.

, or Farrars, a Warwickshire gentleman of good family, bred at Oxford, a poet likewise, and much in the good graces of Henry VIII. Wood calls him a very ingenious man; and says, that he wrote several tragedies and comedies, none of which are extant. He died in the year 1564.

, a Dominican, born at Valentia, in Spain, made a very distinguished figure among the divines of the seventeenth century. After teaching divinity for some time at Burgos, he was appointed first professor at Rome, where he remained for eighteen years and then was made prior of Salamanca and three years after prefect, or regent of the students. He died in 1682. His works consist of a “Commentary on the sum of St. Thomas,” 'which appeared at Salamanca and Rome, 1675 1696, in 8 vols. folio. They were at one time held in great estimation for perspicuity and precision.

, of Vicenza, a poet and historian in the fourteenth century, was one of those who Contributed to revive good taste in Europej and to banish barbarism. He wrote a history of his own times, from 1250 to 1318, in seven books, which was inserted by Muratori., in the ninth volume of the writers on the history of Italy. A Latin poem by him, on the actions of Can de la Scala, or Scaliger, is also extant. He is said to have produced many other works in prose and verse; but there is no account of his life extant.

, of Vincenza, was a Benedictine monk, and eminent as an antiquary. In 1672 he published, at Verona, his “Musae Lapidariae,” in folio, which is a colledlion, though by no means complete or correct, of the verses found inscribed on ancient monuments. Burman the younger, in his preface to the “Anthologia Latino,” seems to confound this Ferreti with him who flourished in the fourteenth century, speaking of his history of his own times. The exact periods of this author’s birth and death are not known.

, was a celebrated grammarian of antiquity, who abridged a work of “Verrius Flaccus de signih'catione verborum,” as is supposed, in the fourth century. Flaccus’s work had been greatly commended by Pliny, Aulus Gellius, Priscian, and other ancient writers, but Festus in his abridgment took unwarrantable liberties; for he was not content with striking out a vast number of words, but pretended to criticize the rest, in a manner, as Vossius has observed, not favourable to the reputation of Flaccus. Another writer, however, in the eighth century, afterwards revenged this treatment of Flaccus, by abridging Festus in the same way. This was Paul the deacon, who so maimed and disfigured Festus, that it was scarce possible to know his work, which lay in this miserable state till, a considerable fragment being found in the library of cardinal Farnese, some pains were taken to put it again into a little order. The first, or princeps editio, is without a date, but supposed to have been printed in 1470, which, was followed by one with the date of 1471. Since that time there have been various editions by Scaliger, Fulvius Ursinus, Aldus Minucius, and others; but the most complete is the Delphin edition of Paris, 1681, in 4to, published by Dacier, or perhaps the reprint of it by Le Clero, Amst. 1699. It is also among the “Auctores Latinae Linguae,” collected by Gothofredus in 1585, and afterwards reprinted with emendations and additions at Geneva, in 1622. Scaliger says that Festus is an author of great use to those who would attain the knowledge of the Latin tongue with accuracy.

, an eminent painter, was born at Rome in 1589, and educated under Lodovico Civoli, a famous Florentine painter. As soon as he quitted the school of Civoli, he went to Mantua; where the paintings of Julio Romano afforded him the means of becoming a great painter, and from them he derived his colouring, and the boldness of his characters. Cardinal Ferdinand Gonzaga, afterwards duke of Mantua, discovering the merit of Fetti, retained him at his court, furnished him with means of continuing his studies, and at last employed him in adorning his palace. Few painters, according to a modern connoisseur, have possessed a greater freedom of pencil, a more harmonious style of colouring, or a greater knowledge of expression than Fetti. If he painted a head of character, he entered into the detail of it with such spirit, that it produced an astonishing relief; and that too without the least hardness, so judiciously are the tints varied. It is the same* with his large composition* the light and shade are ingeniously balanced the figures are grouped with so much art, and the general disposition is so well observed, that they produce the most striking and harmonious effects. His pictures are scarce, and mucb Bought alter. He painted very little for churches. Goingto Venice, he abandoned himself to disorderly courses, which put an end to his life in its very prime, in 1624, when he was only in his thirty-fifth year. The duke of Mantua regretted him exceedingly, and sent for his lather and sister, whom he took care of afterwards. The sister, who painted well, became a nun, and exercised her talent in the convent, which she adorned with several of her works. Other religious houses in Mantua, were also decorated with her paintings.

, Or Giudo Fabricius Boderianus, was born of a noble family in the territory of Boderie, in Lower Normandy, in 1541. He acquired great knowledge in the Oriental languages, and had, with his brother Nicholas, the principal part in the edition of the Polyglott of Antwerp, though that honour is usually given to the learned Arias Montanus. Le Fevre was secretary to the duke d'Alengon, brother of king Henry 111. and composed several works in French, verse and prose, but in a style so vulgar and confused, that none of them are read. He died 1598. Nicholas le Fevre de la Boderie, his brother, was also very ingenious; he died after 1605. Anthony le Fevre de la Boderie, another brother, distinguished himself in the reigns of Henry IV. and Louis XIII. by his skill in negociations, and his embassies to Rome, the Low Countries, and England, where he was loaded with presents. He discovered the marechal de Biron’s correspondence at Brussels, and rendered important services to Henry IV. He died 1615, aged sixty, and left “Traitc de la Noblesse, traduit de Tltalien de Jean-Baptiste Nenna,” printed 1583, 8vo. His “Letters on Negociations” were published 1749, 5 vols. 12mo, and he is also supposed to have been among the authors of the “Catholicon.” He married the sister of the marquis de Feuquieres, governor of Verdun, by whom he had two daughters; one died very young, the other married M. Arnauld d'Andilli 1613, who by her obtained the estate of Pomponne, and la Briotte.

, or Jacobus Fabku, Stapulensis, a man of genius and learning, was born at Estaples, in Picardy, about 1440; and was one of those who contributed to revive polite literature in the university of Paris. He became, however, suspected of Lutheranism, and was obliged to give way to the outrage of certain ignorant zealots, who suffered him not to rest. He then retired from Paris to Meaux, where the bishop was William Briconnet, a lover of the sciences and learned men; but the persecution raised by the Franciscans at Meaux obliging the bishop, against his inclination, to desert Faber, the latter was forced to retire to Blois, and from thence to Guienne. Margaret queen of Navarre, sister to Francis I. honoured him with her protection, so that he enjoyed full liberty at Nerac till his death, which happened in 1537, when he was little short of a hundred.

Some very singular things are related of his last hours. Margaret of Navarre was very fond of Faber, and visited him often. He and other learned men, whose conversation greatly pleased the queen, dined with her one day; when, in the midst of the entertainment, Faber began to weep. The queen asking the reason, he answered, That the enormity of his sins threw him into grief; not that he had ever been guilty of debaucheries, but he reckoned it & very great crime, that having known the truth, and taught it to persons who had sealed it with their blood, he had had the weakness to keep himself in a place of refuge, far from the countries where crowns of martyrdom were distributed. The queen, who was eloquent, comforted him; yet he was found dead a few hours after going to bed, which, considering his very advanced age, was not very extraordinary. He wrote several works in divinity, besides those above-mentipned, particularly an edition of the Psalter, in five languages, Paris, 1509, fol. “Traite de, Duplici, et unica Magdalena,” 4to “Agones martyruia mensis Januarii,” fol. without date of place or year, but of the beginning of the sixteenth century; a French version of the Bible, Antwerp, 1530, fol. very scarce, known by the name of the Emperor’s Bible, from the printer’s name. This translation, say the catholics, was the foundation of those which the protestants and doctors of Louvahi have published.

, of Villebrune, where he was born in 1732, was a man of considerable classical learning, and the author of many useful translations into the French language. Of his personal history we are only told, that he was a doctor of medicine, professor of oriental languages in the French college, one of the forty members of the French academy, and keeper of the national library, in which he succeeded Chamfort. He was not much attached to the principles which occasioned the French revolution, and was proscribed by the French directory for having written a pamphlet in which he maintained that France ought to be governed by a single chief. After residing occasionally in several places, he was made professor of natural history at la Cbarente; and when the central school, as it was called, was shut up, he taught mathematics and humanity in the college. The iast ten yearsof his life were spent at Angouleme, where he died Oct. 7, 1809. His character was lively, and his temper sometimes impetuous and unguarded, which made him many enemies in the literary world. He was, however, a man of indefatigable study, and was a master of fourteen languages ancient and modern. His reading was most extensive, but not well digested, and such was his love of variety, that he seldom adhered to any one subject long enough to produce a work in which it was completely discussed. He was, however, a valuable assistant to scholars employed on any arduous undertaking; and among others, is said to have contributed to the two editions of Strabo lately printed at Utrecht and Oxford, by examining manuscripts for the editors. Among his translations are, a valuable one of Athenreus, and the only one France can boast of since that of the abbd Marolles fell into disrepute. He translated also Hippocrates’ s Aphorisms; Epictetus Cebes’s Table; “Silius Italicus,” of whom also he published an edition of the original, in 1781, containing various readings from four Mss. and from Laver’s edition of 1471, never before collated by any editor. Yet in this he is sometimes rash in his conjectures, and pettishly intemperate in noticing his predecessors. Le Fevre’s other translations are, the “Memoirs of Ulloa,” and “Cervantes’s Tales,” from the Spanish “Carli’s American Letters” from the Italian Zimmerman “On Experience,” and on the “Epidemic Dysentery,” &c. from the German “Rosen’s treatise on Infants,” from the Swedish and the works of Armstrong and Underwood on the same subject, from the English. He published some other works relative to the arts, sciences, and politics, the titles of which are not given in our authority; and left complete, or nearly so, a translation of Aretseas, which he undertook at the request of the School of health of Paris.

, or Nicolaus Faber, a very ingenious, learned, and pious man, was born at Paris, June 2, 1544, or according to Perrault, July 4, 1543; and liberally educated by his mother, his father dying in his infancy. During the course of his studies, as he was cutting a pen, a piece of the quill flew into his eye, and gave him such excessive pain, that hastily lifting up his hand to it, he struck it out with the knife. Having finished his application to the languages, he was sent to study the civil law at Tholouse, Padua, and Bologna. He did not come back till he had travelled through Italy: and he resided eighteen months in Rome, about 1571, where he cultivated a friendship with Sigonius, Muretus, and other learned men. He there acquired his taste for the investigation of antiquities, and brought away with him many curiosities. Upon hi$ return to France, he applied himself wholly to letters, and would hear no mention of marriage. His mother and brother dying in 1581, he lived with Peter Pithoeus, with whom he was very intimate; and having no occupation but study, he employed himself in reading the ancients, in correcting them by Mss. of which he had a great number in his own library, and in writing notes upon them. He laboured particularly on Seneca the rhetorician, whom he published in 1587, with a learned preface and notes, an. edition which we do not find mentioned by Dibdin oc Clarke. He applied himself also to studies of a different kind, to the mathematics particularly; in which he succeeded so well, that he discovered immediately the defect in Scaliger’s demonstration of the quadrature of the circle. When Henry the Fourth of France became at length the peaceable possessor of the crown, he appointed Faber preceptor to the prince of Conde. During this important trust, he found time to labour upon some considerable works; and composed that fine preface to the fragments of Hilary, in which he discovered so many important facts relating to the history of Arianism, not known before. After the death of Henry IV. he was chosen, by the queen, preceptor to Louis XIII. He died in 1611, or according to Perrault, Nov. 4, 1612.

Though he laboured intensely all his life, he was one of those learned men who are not ambitious of the character of author, but content with studying for themselves and their friends. He applied himself in his youth to the belles lettres and history, which he never neglected. Civil law, philosophy, and morality, were afterwards his occu^ jnition: and at the latter part of life, he spent his time chiefly among ecclesiastical antiquities. As he kept up a correspondence with all the learned of Europe, when he heard of any person about to publish an author, or to compose a work of his own, he was ever ready to assist him with Mss. and to furnish him with memoirs, but without suffering any mention to be made of his name, though his injunctions upon this point were not always observed. His own works, which were but few, were collected after his death by John le Begue, his friend, and printed at Paris, 1614, in a small volume, 4to. They consist of biblical criticism, questions on morals, and philological pieces in Latin and French.

, or Tanaquil Faber, a very learned man, father of madame Dacier, was born at Caen in Normandy in 1615. His father determined to educate him to learning, at the desire of one of his brothers, who was an ecclesiastic, and who promised to take him into his Jiouse under his own care. He had a genius for music, and early became accomplished in it but his uncle proved too severe a preceptor in languages he therefore studied Latin with a tutor at home, and acquired the knowledge of Greek by his own efforts. The Jesuits at the college of La Fleche were desirous to detain him among them, and his father would have persuaded him to take orders, but he resisted both. Having continued some years in Normandy, he went to Paris; where, by his abilities, learning, and address, he gained the friendship of persons of the highest distinction. M. de Noyers recommended him to cardinal Ue Richelieu, who settled on him a pension of 2000 livres, to inspect all the works printed at the Louvre. The cardinal designed to have made him principal of the college which he was about to erect at Richelieu, and to settle on him a farther stipend: but he died, and Mazarine, who succeeded, not giving the same encouragement to learning, the Louvre press became almost useless, and Faber’s pension was very ill paid. His hopes being thus at an end, he quitted his employment; yet continued some years at Pans, -pursuing his studies, and publishing various works. Some years after he declared himself a protestant, and became a professor in the university of Saumur; which place he accepted, preferably to the professorship of Greek at Nimeguen, to which he was invited at the same time. His great merit and character soon drew to him from all parts of the kingdom, and even from foreign countries, numbers of scholars, some of whom boarded at his house. He had afterwards a contest with the university and consistory of Saumur, on account of having, unguardedly and absurdly, asserted in one of his works, that he could pardon Sappho’s passion for those of her own sex, since it had inspired her with so beautiful an ode upon that subject. Upon this dispute he would have resigned his place, if he could have procured one elsewhere: and at last, in 1672, he was invited upon advantageous terms to the university of Heidelberg, to which he was preparing to remove, when he was seized with a fever, of which he died Sept. 12, 1672. He left a son of his own name, author of a small tract “De futilitate Poetices,” printed 1697 in 12mo, who was a minister in Holland, and afterwards lived in London, then went to Paris, where he embraced the Romish religion; and two daughters, one of whom was the celebrated madam Dacier, and another married to Paul Bauldri, professor at Utrecht. Huet tells, that “he had almost persuaded Faber to reconcile himself to the church of Rome,” from which he had formerly deserted; “and that Faber signified to him his resolution to do so, in a letter written a few months before his death, which prevented him from executing his design.” Voltaire,' if he may be credited, which requires no small degree of caution, says he was a philosopher rather than a Hugonot, and despised the Calvinists though he lived among them.

Huet, bishop of Avranches, assures us that our author was well skilled in the Greek and Roman, and all the ancient learning. Niceron observes, that “his Latin style is fine and delicate, without any points or affectation; every thing is expressed very happily in it. He had likewise a good genius for Greek and Latin poetry; and his verses are worthy of the better ages. His French style has not the graces of his Latin. He knew well enough the rules of our language, but he did not truly understand the true genius and natural propriety of it. As he lived in the Province, that is, almost out of the world, he wrote by study than custom, and he has not always observed the French turn and idiom. Besides, he spoiled his style by a vicious affectation, endeavouring to mix the serious of Balzac with the hutnour and pleasantry of Voiture. Notwithstanding these defects, what he has written in our language will still please; and if his translations have not all the elegance possible, they support themselves by their accuracy, and the learned remarks which accompany them.” Mr. William Baxter, in the dedication of his edition of Anacreon, styles him “futilis Callus,” and affirms that our author in his notes upon that poet every where trifles, and with all his self-conceit and vanity has shewn himself absolutely unfit for that task. In another place he writes thus: ' Nugatur etiam Tanaquillus Faber, ut solet;“and at last he styles him,” Criticaster Callus." Some modern critics have not been much more favourable to his critical talents.

, was a learned physician of the order of St. Benedict, born in Spain, who died in 1765. By his writings many have thought that he contributed as much towards curing the mental diseases of his compatriots and reforming the vitiated taste of his countrymen, by introducing liberal notions in medicine and philosophy, as the great Michel Cervantes had done those of a preceding age, by his incomparable history of Don Quixote. In the “Teatro Critico, sopra los Errores communes,” which he published in fourteen volumes, are many severe reflections against the ignorance of the monks, the licentiousness of the clergy, ridiculous privileges, abuse ef pilgrimages, exorcisms, pretende-d miracles, &c. &c. by which he made a formidable host of enemies, and would certainly have been also a martyr, had the numerous calls of vengeance been listened to by those in power. The learned part of the nation, however, undertook his defence, and he escaped the grasp of the inquisition; and, notwithstanding the freedom he had taken with the faculty, the medical college at Seville conferred on him the degree of doctor, and honoured him with a seat at their board. M. Bourgoing observes, that Dr. Feyjoo, or Feijoo, was one of those writers who treated this conjectural art in the most rational manner, but he is certainly far from consistent, and sometimes lays down a doctrine which he is obliged afterwards to abandon. A considerable part of tis “Teatro Critico” was translated into French by D'Hermilly, in 12vols. 12mo; and several of his Essays have been published at various times in English, the largest collection of which is entitled “Essays or Discourses, selected from the works of Feyjoo, and translated from the Spanish, by John Brett, esq.” 1780, 4 vols. 8vo. The best are those on subjects gf morals and criticism.

As a philosopher, much cannot now be said in favour of Ficinus, and the high encomiums to which he appeared entitled in the fifteenth century, will not all bear the test of modern criticism. His works afford abundant proofs how deeply he was influenced by the reveries of judicial astrology. His principal want was vigour and accuracy of judgment, with which if he had been furnished, he would have avoided the superstitious attachment manifested by him to the “Platonismus Alexandrinus,” than which, Brucker observes, no philosophical reveries could possibly be more ridiculous; and he would have evinced more sagacity in detecting the sophisms of this sect. He was devoid also of the more splendid and exterior graces of a well cultivated understanding; his style is pronounced inelegant, and his language confused. He was a Platonist even in his correspondence, and some of his letters are enigmatical and mysterious. Brucker also accuses him of being of a timid and servile spirit, which would naturally lead him to accommodate his version to the judgment of his patron. He entertained the notion which prevailed among the Christian fathers, that the doctrine of Plato was, in some sort, of divine origin, and might be fairly construed into a perfect agreement with that of divine revelation. From these causes, Ficinus is very far from adhering with strictness to his author’s meaning; in many instances he rather expresses his own cpnceptions than those of Plato, and often gives his interpretation a bias towards the A lexandrian or Christian doctrine, for which he has no sufficient authority in the original. On the whole, Brucker is of opinion, that Ficinus was rather an industrious than a judicious translator, and that his version of Plato should be read with caution. The chief part of his works are contained in the Paris edition of 1641, in 2 vols, folio, amongst which those of most merit are the versions of Plato and Plotinus. Of some of his works there are very early editions, now of great rarity.

, an English divine, and laborious writer, was born of reputable parents, at Hunmanby near Scarborough in Yorkshire in 1671. In his education he was much encouraged by his uncle the rev. Mr. Fiddes of Brightwell in Oxfordshire, who was as a father to him. After being instructed at a private school at Wickham in that neighbourhood, he was admitted of Corpus Christi, and then of University college, in Oxford; where by his parts and address he gained many friends. He did not, however, continue there; but, after taking a bachelor of arts degree in 1693, returned to his relations, and married, in the same year, Mrs. Jane Anderson, a lady of good family and fortune. In 1694, he was ordained priest by Dr. Sharp, archbishop of York; and not long after, presented to the rectory of Halsham in that county, of about 90l. per annum. Halsham, being situated in a marsh, proved the occasion of much ill health to Fiddes and his family; and he had the misfortune, while there, to be suddenly so deprived of his speech, as never after to be able to utter words very articulately, unless his organs were strengthened with two or three glasses of wine, which, as he was a mun of great temperance, was to him an excess. His diocesan, however, dispensed with his residence upon his benefice for the future; on which he removed to Wickham, and continued there some months. Being no longer able to display his talents in preaching, which before were confessedly great, and having a numerous family, he resolved to devote himself entirely to writing. For this purpose, he went to London in 1712; and, by the favour of dean Swift, was introduced to the earl of Oxford, who received him kindly, and made him one of his chaplains. The dean had a great esteem for Fiddes, and recommended his cause with the warmth and sincerity of a friend. The queen soon after appointed him chaplain to the garrison at Hull, and would probably have provided handsomely for him, had not death prevented her. Losing his patrons upon the change of the ministry in 1714, he lost the above mentioned chaplainship; and the expences of his family i icreasing, as his ability to supply them lessened, he was obliged to apply himself to writing with greater assiduity than ever. Yet he continued in high esteem with contemporary writers, especially those of his own party; and was encouraged by some of the most eminent men of those times. By the generosity of his friend and relation Dr. Radcliffe, the degree of bachelor of divinity was conferred upon him by diploma, Feb. 1, 1713, and in 1718 he was honoured by the university of Oxford with that of doctor, in consideration of his abilities as a writer. He died at the house of his friend Anstis at Putney, in 1725, aged fifty ­four years, leaving behind him a' family consisting of a wife and six children. His eldest daughter was married to the rev. Mr. Barcroft, curate of St. George’s, Hanover-square, who abridged Taylor’s “Ductor Dubitantium.” Dr. Fiddes was buried in Fulham churchyard, "near the remains of bishop Compton, to whom he had been much obliged.

His first publication appears to have been, 1. “A prefatory Epistle concerning some Remarks to be published on Homer’s Iliad: occasioned by the proposals of Mr. Pope towards a new English version of that poem, 17 14,” 12mo. It is addressed to Dr. Swift. It would seem to have been his intention to write a kind of moral commentary upon Homer; but, probably for want of encouragement, this never appeared. The first work by which he distinguished himself in any considerable degree, was, 2. “Theologia Speculativa: or the first part of a body of divinity under that title, wherein are explained, the principles of Natural and Revealed Religion, 1718,” folio. This met with a favourable reception from the public: yet when Stackhouse, a man certainly not of much higher talents, afterwards executed a work of a similar nature, he endeavoured to depreciate the labours of his predecessor. Dr. Fiddes’s second part is entitled “Theologia Practica, wherein are explained the duties of Natural and Revealed Religion;” and was published in 1720, folio. The same year also he published in folio, 3. “Fifty-two practical Discourses on several subjects, six of which were never before printed.” These, as well as his Body of Divinity, were published by a subscription, which was liberally encouraged at Oxford. But the work which gained him the most friends, and most enemies, was, 4. “The Life of Cardinal Wolsey, 1724,” in folio, dedicated to the chancellors, vice-chancellors, doctors, and other members of the two universities; and encouraged by a large subscription. This work was attacked with great severity in “The London Journal,” and the author charged him with being a papist; who repelled this accusation in, 5. “An Answer to Britannicus, compiler of the London Journal, 1725,” in two letters; in the first of which he endeavours to obviate the charge of popery; in the second, to show his impartiality in the life of this cardinal. Dr. Knight, in the “Life of Erasmus,” published a little after our author’s death, attacked him in the severest terms, accusing him of speaking irreverently of Erasmus, “probably,” says he, “because he had by his writings favoured the reformation.” Dr. Fiddes, he says, vilifies the reformation, depreciates the instruments of it, and palliates the absurdities of the Romish church. He declares also that the life was written at the solicitation of bishop Atterbury, on the occasion of the dispute in which he was then engaged with archbishop Wake: and that Atterbury supplied him with materials, suggested matter and method, entertained him at his deanery, procured him subscribers, and “laid the whole plan for forming such a life as might blacken the reformation, cast lighter colours upon popery, and even make way for a popish pretender.” Fiddes, indeed, had given occasion for part of this surmise, by saying that “a very learned prelate generously offered to let me compile the life of cardinal Wolsey in his house.” Suspicion was likewise heightened by the eulogium he made on Atterbury, a little before his deprivation. Though it may be difficult to determine how far this author was at the bottom an enemy to the reformation, yet in his Life of Wolsey, his prejudices in favour of the ancient religion are unquestionably strong, and in these he shared with some contemporaries of no inconsiderable fame. Asa collection of facts, however, the work is highly valuable, and he has the merit (whatever that may be esteemed) of placing the life and character of Wolsey in a more just light than any preceding writer. As the munificent founder of Christ church, he could not avoid a certain reverence for Wolsey, nor, if Atterbury assisted him, can we wonder at that prelate’s disposition to think well of so great a benefactor to learning, who would have proved a still greater benefactor, had he not been sacrificed to the avarice and caprice of his royal master.

Agreeably to the will of her father, she gave her hand to Jo. Maria Mapellius of Vicenza, a learned physician, in her connexion with whom she experienced various reverses. In 1521 she became a widow. In her ninetieth year she was appointed to preside over a religious society of her own sex at Venice, and died in 1558, or as some say in 1567. She had composed a work “De Scientiarum Ordine,” frequently mentioned in her letters, but it was never published. Thomasinus wrote her life, prefixed to her “Epistolse et Orationes Posthumae,” Padua, 1636, 8vo.

, an eminent English divine, was born Oct. 15, 1561, in the parish of Hempsted in the county of Hertford, of an ancient family of good repute in that county. The estate which came to him from his father and grandfather had been in the family many years before, and it is recorded as somewhat singular that out of his grandfather’s house, there had died but three owners of this estate in 160 years. He received his first education in the free school of Berkhampstead, and was afterwards admitted of Magdalen-hall, Oxford; and such was the character he left behind him, that his chambers and study there were shewn, for a long time after he quitted them. But according to Wood’s account, he was first admitted of Magdalen college in the year 1577, and proceeded A. B. before he went to Magdalen-hall, where he took his master’s degree, and was esteemed the best disputant in the schools. After some time spent in the study of divinity, he read the catechetical lecture in Magdalen-hall, which, though a private lecture, was in his hands rendered so inieresting as to be much frequented by the whole university. Dr. John Reynolds, though greatly his senior, and either then or soon after Margaret professor, and president of Corpus Christi college, was a constant auditor. Field was well skilled in school divinity, and a frequent preacher while he lived in Oxfordshire, and is said to have been very instrumental in preventing the increase of nonconformity in the university. His father had provided a match for him, as being his eldest son; but his not taking orders being made an indispensable requisite, he thought fit to decline the choice, and returned to Oxford and after he had spent seven years there, he became divinity reader in Winchester cathedral.

About 1610 the king bestowed on him the deanery of Gloucester, where he never resided long, but in order to preach four or 6ve times a year to a full auditory who respected and loved him. The greatest part of his time he spent at his parsonage, and the winter at Windsor, where his house in the cloister was the resort of all who were eminent for learning, to enjoy his conversation, and profit by his sentiments on ecclesiastical affairs, and on the parties and sects which divided the Christian world. Dr. Barlow, dean of Wells, and Dr. Crakenthorp were among his correspondents. He rejoiced when any man noted for learning was made prebendary of Windsor; and often visited sir Henry Savile at Eton college, and other eminent persons in that neighbourhood. He often preached before the king, who, the first time he heard him, said, “Is his name Field This is a field for God to dwell in” and Fuller, in the same punning age, calls him “that learned divine,whose memory swelleth like a field which the Lord hath blessed.” In the king’s progress through Hampshire, in 1609, the bishop of Winchester appointed him among those who were to preach before him; and in 1611, the king having a mind to hear the prebendaries of Winchester in their order, the dean wrote to him first, and he preached oftener than any of them, and to crowded audiences. The king, who delighted to discourse with him on points of divinity, proposed to send him into Germany to compose the differences between the Lutherans and Calvinists, but, for whatever reason, this appointment did not take place; and not long before his death, the king would have made him bishop of Salisbury, and gave him a promise of the see of Oxford on a vacancy. Bishop Hall tells us, that about the same time he was to have been made dean of Worcester. On Oct. 27, 1614, he lost his wife, who left him six sons and a daughter. After continuing a widower about two years, he married the only daughter of Dr. John King, prebendary of Windsor and Westminster, widow of Dr. John Spenser, some time president of Corpus Christi college, Oxford, but with her he lived not much above a month. She however bred up his only daughter, and married her to her eldest son, of which match there were three sons and five daughters. Dr. Field had reached the beginning of his fifty-sixth year, when, on Nov. 15, 1616, he died of an apoplexy, or some imposthume breaking inwardly, which suddenly deprived him of all sense and motion. He was buried in the outer chapel of St. George at Windsor, below the choir. Over his grave was laid a black marble slab, with his figure in brass, and under it an inscription on a plate of the same metal, recording the deaths of him and his first wife. His whole life was spent in the instruction of others, both by precept and example. He was a good and faithful pastor, an affectionate husband and parent, a good master and neighbour; charitable to the poor, moderate in his pursuits, never aiming at greatness for himself or his posterity; he left to his eldest son very little more than what descended to him from his ancestors. He had such a memory that he used to retain the substance of every book he read; but his judgment was still greater. Although he was able to penetrate into the most subtle and intricate disputes, he was more intent on composing than increasing controversies. He did not like disputes about the high points of predestination and reprobation, yet appears rather to have inclined to the Calvinistic views of these matters. When he first set about writing his books “Of the Church,” his old acquaintance Dr. Kettle dissuaded him, telling him that when once he was engaged in controversy, he would never live quietly, but be continually troubled with answers and replies. To this he said, “I will so write that they shall have no great mind to answer me;” which proved to be nearly the case, as his main arguments were never refuted. This work was published at London in 1606, folio, in four books, to which he added a fifth in 1610, folio, with an appendix containing a defence of each passage of the former books that were excepted against, or wrested to the maintenance of Romish errors. All these were reprinted at Oxford in 1628, folio. This second edition is charged hy the Scots in their “Canterburian’s Self-conviction,” 1641, folio, with additions made by bishop Laud. The purport and merit of this work has reminded some of the judicious Hooker, between whom and Dr. Field there was a great friendship. Dr. Field published also a sermon on St. Jude, v. 3, 1604, 4to, preached before the king at Windsor; and, a little before his death, had composed great part of a work entitled “A view of the Controversies in Religion, which in these last times have caused the lamentable divisions in the Christian world” but it was never completed, though the preface was written by the author, and is printed at large in the Life of him by his Son, together with some propositions laid down by him on election and reprobation. This Life was published from the original by John Le Neve, author of the “Monumenta Anglicana,” in 1617, 8vo, and from a copy of it interleaved with ms notes by the author, and by bishop Kennet, Mr. Gough, in whose possession it was, drew up a life for the new edition of the Biographia Britannica, which, with a very few omissions, we have here copied. It only remains to be mentioned that Dr. Field was nominated one of the fellows of Chelsea college in 1610, by king James, who, when he heard of his death, expressed his regret, and added, “I should have done more for that man” His son, who wrote his life, was the Rev. Nathaniel Field, rector of Stourton in the county of Wilts. Another son, Giles, lies buried, under a monumental inscription, against the east wall of New college Ante-chapel. He died in 1629, aged twenty-one.

, beyond all comparison the first novel-writer of this country, was born at Sharpham Park in Somersetshire, April 22, 1707. His father, Edmund Fielding, esq. was the third son of John Fielding, D. D. canon of Salisbury, who was the fifth son of George earl of Desmond, and brother to William third earl of Denbigh, nephew to Basil the second earl, and grandson to William, who was first raised to the peerage. Edmund Fielding served under the duke of Maryborough, and towards the close of king George the First’s reign, or the accession of George II. was promoted to the rank of a lieutenant-general. His mother was daughter to the first judge Gould, and aunt to sir Henry Gould, lately one of the judges of the common pleas. This lady, besides Henry, who seems to have been the eldest, had four daughters, and another son named Edmund, who was an officer in the sea-service. Afterwards, in consequence of his father’s second marriage, Fielding had six half-brothers, George, James, Charles, John, William, and Basil. Of these nothing memorable is recorded, except of John, who will be the subject of a subsequent article as will also Sarah, the sister of Henry Fielding. His father died in 1740. Henry Fielding received the first rudiments of his education at home, under the care of the rev. Mr. Oliver, for whom he seems to have had no great regard, as he is said to have designed a portrait of him in the very humorous yet unfavourable character of parson Tralliber, in his “Joseph Andrews.” From this situation he was removed to Eton school, where he had an opportunity of cultivating a very early intimacy and friendship with several young men who afterwards became conspicuous personages in the kingdom, such as lord Lyttelton, Mr. Fox, Mr. Pitt, sir Charles Hanbury Williams, &c. who ever through life retained a warm regard for him. But these were not the only advantages he reaped at that great seminary of education; for, by an assiduous application to study, and the possession of strong and peculiar talents, he became, before he left that school, uncommonly versed in Greek authors, and a master of the Latin classics. Thus accomplished, at about eighteen years of age he left Eton, and went to Leyden, where he studied under the most celebrated civilians for about two years, when, the remittances from England not coming so regularly as at first, he was obliged to return to London.

General Fielding’s family being very greatly increased by his second marriage, it became impossible for him to make such appointments for this his eldest son as he could have wished; his allowance was therefore either very ill paid or entirely neglected. This unhappy situation soon produced all the ill consequences which could arise from poverty and dissipation. Possessed of a strong constitution, a lively imagination, and a disposition naturally but little formed for Œconomy, Henry Fielding found himself his own master, in a place where the temptations to every expensive pleasure are numerous, and the means of gratifying them easily attainable. From this unfortunately pleasing situation sprang the source of every misfortune or uneasiness that Fielding afterwards felt through life. He very soon found that his finances were by no means proportioned to the brisk career of dissipation into which he had launched; yet, as disagreeable impressions never continued long upon his mind, but only rouzed him to struggle through his difficulties with the greater spirit, he flattered himself that he should find resources in his wit and invention, and acccordingly commenced writer for the stage in 1727, at which time he had not more than attained the completion of his twentieth year. His first dramatic attempt was a piece called “Love in several Masques,” which, though it immediatetysucceeded the long and crowded run of the “Provoked Husband,” met with a favourable reception, as did likewise his second play, “The Temple Beau,” which came out in the following year. He did not, however, meet with equal success in all his dramatic works, for he has even printed, in the title-page of one of his farces, “as it was damned at the theatre-royal Drury-lane;” and he himself informs us, in the general preface to his miscellanies, that for the “Wedding-Day,” though acted six nights, his profits from the house did not exceed fifty pounds. Nor did a much better fate attend some of his earlier productions, so that, though it was his lot always to write from necessity, he would, probably, notwithstanding his writings, have laboured continually under that necessity, had not the severity of the public, and the malice of his enemies, met with a noble alleviation from the patronage of several persons of distinguished rank and character, particularly the late dukes of Richmond and Roxburgh, John duke of Argyle, the first lord Lyttelton, &c. the last-named of which noblemen, not only by his friendship softened the rigour of our author’s misfortunes while he lived, but also by his generous ardour has vindicated his character, and done justice to his memory, after death.

About six or seven years after Fielding had begun to write for the stage, he fell in love with and married miss Craddock, a young lady from Salisbury, possessed of a very great share of beauty, and a fortune of about 1500l. and about the same time his father dying, an estate at East Stour, in Dorsetshire, of somewhat better than 200l, per annum, came into his possession.With this fortune, which, had it been conducted with prudence and ceconomy, might have secured to him a state of independence for life, and, assisted by the productions of a genius unincumbered with anxieties and perplexity, might have even afforded him an affluent income, he determined to retire to his country seat. For his wife’s sake, whom he loved with the greatest ardour, he had also formed the resolution of bidding adieu to all the follies and intemperances to which he had addicted himself in his short but very rapid career of a town life, and of living in domestic regularity.

But here one folly only took place of another, and family pride now brought on him all the inconveniences in one place, that youthful dissipation and libertinism had done in another. Fond of shew and magnificence, he encumbered himself with a large retinue or servants; and led by natural disposition to enjoy society and convivial mirth, he threw open his gates for hospitality, and suffered his whole patrimony to be devoured up by hounds, horses, and entertainments. Thus, in less than three years, he dissipated his whole property; and from the mere passion of beingesteemed a man of great fortune, reduced himself to the unpleasant situation of having no fortune at all. He had thus, at the age of thirty, undermined his own supports, and had now no dependence but on his abilities. Not discouraged, however, he determined to exert his talents vigorously, applied himself closely to the study of the law, and, after the customary time of probation at the Temple, was called to the bar, and made no inconsiderable figure in Westminster-hall.

To the practice of the law Fielding now adhered with great assiduity, both in the courts in London, and on the circuits, as long as his health permitted, and it is probable would have risen to a considerable degree of eminence in it, had not the intemperances of his early life put a check, by their consequences, to the progress of his success. Though but a young man, he began now to be molested with such violent attacks from the gout as rendered it impossible for him to give such constant attendance at the bar as the laboriousness of that profession requires. Under these united severities of pain and want; he pursued his researches with an eagerness peculiar to him; and, as a proof of the degree of eminence to which he might have risen, he left two ms volumes, in folio, on the crown law, to which branch he had most assiduously applied. It gives us an idea of the great force and vigour of his mind, if we consider him pursuing so arduous a study under the exigencies of family distress, with a wife and children, whom he tenderly loved, looking up to him for subsistence, with a body torn by the acutest pains, and a mind distracted by a thousand avocations, yet obliged, for immediate supply, to produce almost extempore, a play, a farce, a pamphlet, or a newspaper. A large number of fugitive political tracts, which had their value when the incidents were actually passing on the great scene of business, came from his pen. The periodical paper, called “The Champion,” owed its chief support to his abilities. A poetical epistle to the right honourable sir Robert Walpole, written in 1730, shews at once his acquaintance with distress, and the firmness of mind with which he supported it. Such other works as were produced before his genius was come to its full growth were, “An Essay on Conversation” “An Essay on the knowledge and characters of Men” “A Journey from this World to the next” “The History of Jonathan Wild the Great;” &c. The two last mentioned are satires of a peculiar texture, and entirely original.

But his genius is seen in full and vigorous exertion, first in “Joseph Andrews,” and more completely in his “Tom Jones;” which are too well known, and too justly admired, to leave any room for expatiating on their merits. Soon after the publication of “Joseph Andrews,” his last comedy was exhibited on the stage, entitled “The Wedding-Day,” which was attended with but an indifferent share of success. The repeated shocks of illness more and more disqualified him from pursuing the law: from business, therefore, he derived little or no supplies, and his prospect grew every day more gloomy and melancholy. To these discouraging circumstances, if we add the infirmity of his wife, and the agonies he felt on her account, the measure of his affliction may be considered as nearly full. That fortitude of mind, with which he met all the other calamities of life, deserted him on this most trying occasion; and her death, which happened about this time, brought on such a vehemence of grief, that his friends began to think him in danger of losing his reason. At length, when the first emotions of sorrow were abated, philosophy administered her aid, his resolution returned, and he began again to struggle with his fortune. He engaged in two periodical papers successively, with a laudable and spirited design of rendering service to his country. The first of these was called “The True Patriot,” which was undertaken during the rebellion of 1745. Precarious, however, as such means of subsistence unavoidably must be, it was scarcely possible he should be thus enabled to recover his shattered fortunes, and was therefore at length obliged to accept of the office of an acting magistrate in the commission of the peace for the county of Middlesex, in which station he continued till near the time of his death. This office, however, seldom fails of being hateful to the populace, and of course is liable to many infamous and unjust imputations, particularly that of venality; a charge which the ill-natured world, not unacquainted with Fielding’s want of œconomy, and passion for expence, were but too ready to cast upon him. From this charge Mr. Murphy, in the life of this author, prefixed to the first edition of his works, has taken great pains to exculpate him; as likewise has Fielding himself, in his “Voyage to Lisbon,” which may, with some degree of propriety, be considered as the last words of a dying man. Amidst all the laborious duties of his office, his invention could not lie still, but he found leisure to amuse himself, and afterwards the world, with “The History of Tom Jones.” His “Amelia” was entirely planned and executed while he was distracted by a multiplicity of avocations which surround a public magistrate; and his constitution, now greatly impaired and enfeebled, was labouring under severer attacks of the gout than he had before felt; yet the activity of his mind was not to be subdued. At length, however, his whole frame was so entirely shattered by continual inroads of complicated disorders, and the incessant fatigue of business in his office, that, by the advice of his physicians, as a last effort to preserve life, and support a broken constitution, he set out for Lisbon. Even in this distressful condition, his imagination still continued making the strongest efforts to display itself; and the last gleams of his wit and humour sparkled in the “Journal” he left behind him of his “Voyage” to that place > which was published in 1755, at London, in 12mo. In 17 54-, about two months after his arrival at Lisbon, he died Oct. 8, in his forty -eighth year. His works have been published in several sizes, witli “An Essay on the Life and Genius of the Author, by Arthur Murphy, esq.”

Fielding’s genius excelled most in those strong, lively, and natural paintings of the characters of mankind, and the movements of the human heart, which constitute the basis of his novels; yet, as comedy bears the closest affinity to this kind of writing, his dramatic pieces, every one of which is comic, are far from being contemptible. His farces and ballad pieces, more especially, have a sprightImess of manner, and a furcibleness of character, by which it is impossible not to be agreeably entertained; and in itiose which he has in any degree borrowed from Moliere, or;.ny other writer, he has done great honour and justice t>j Irs original, by the manner in which he has treated the subject. Having married a second time, he left a wife and four children, who were educated under the care of their uncle, with the aid of a very generous donation given annually by Ralph Allen, esq. the celebrated man of Bath. One of his sons is still living, a barrister of considerable reputation. This second wife died at Canterbury, in May 1802, at a very advanced age. Fielding’s frame was naturally very robust, and his height rather above six feet. It was thought that no picture was taken of him while he lived, and it is certain that the portrait prefixed to his Works was a sketch executed by his friend Ho r garth, from memory. We find, however, in Mr. Nichols’s new edition of the Life of Bowyer, a beautiful engraving from a miniature in the possession of his grand-daughter, Mrs. Sophia Fielding. His character as a man, may in great measure be deduced from the incidents of his life, but cannot perhaps be delineated better than by his biographer Mr. Murphy, with whose words this article may properly be closed.

“It will be an humane and generous office to set down to the account of slander and defamation, a great part of that abuse which was discharged against him by his enemies in his life-time; deducing, however, from the whole, this useful lesson, that quick and warm passions should be early controuled, and that dissipation and extravagant pleasures are the most dangerous palliations that can be found for disappointments and vexations in the first stages of life.” We have seen,“adds he,” how Mr. Fielding very soon squandered away his small patrimony, which, with oeconomy, might have procured him independence; we have seen how he ruined, into the bargain, a constitution, which in its original texture seemed formed to last much longer. When illness and indigence were once let in upon him, he no longer remained the master of his own actions; and that nice delicacy of conduct which alone constitutes and preserves a character, was occasionally obliged to give way. When he was not under the immediate urgency of want, those who were intimate with him are ready to aver, that he had a mind greatly superior to any thing mean or little; when his finances were exhausted, he was not the most elegant in his choice of the means to redress himself, and he would instantly exhibit a farce or a puppet -shew, in the Haymarket theatre, which was wholly inconsistent with the profession he had embarked in. But his intimates are witness how much his pride suffered wben he was forced into measures of this kind no man having a juster sense of propriety, or more honourable ideas of the employment of an author and a scholar." Many years after the death of Fielding, the French consul at Lisbon, le Chev. de Meyrionnet, wrote an elegant epitaph for him, and proposed to have erected a monument; but the English factory, stimulated by this generosity in a foreigner, took the matter into their own hands.

Many of the most eminent critics of the age have treated on Mr. Fielding’s genius, as may appear from our references, and while they concur in censuring his occasional indelicacies, are yet unanimous in assigning him the very first rank of genius. “Tom Jones, and” Amelia,“are his best performances, and the most perfect perhaps of their kind in the world. With respect to the former, Dr. Beattie has well observed,” that since the days of Homer, the world has not seen a more artful epic fable. The characters and adventures are wonderfully diversified, yet the circumstances are all so natural, and rise so easily from one another, and co-operate with so much regularity in bringing on, even while they seem to retard, the catastrophe, that the curiosity of the reader is kept always awake, and instead of flagging, grows more and more impatient as the story advances, till at last it becomes downright anxiety. And when we get to the end, and look back on the whole contrivance, we are amazed to find that of so many incidents there should be so few superfluous; that in such a variety of fiction there should be so great probability; and that so complex a tale should be so perspicuously conducted, and with perfect unity of design.“The same author justly remarks that the novel, or” comic romance, since the time of Fielding, seems to have been declining apace, from simplicity and nature, into improbability and affectation.“Fie has, indeed, not only had no equal, no successful rival; but among the many hundreds who have attempted the same species of writing, there is not one who reminds us of Fielding. The cause of his superiority is to be sought in his wit and humour, of which he had a more inexhaustible fund, as well as more knowledge of mankind, than any person of modern times. Lord Lytteiton, after mentioning several particulars of Pope, Swift, and other wits of that age, when reminded of Fielding, said,” Henry Fielding had more wit and humour than all the persons we have been speaking of put together.“And many parts of his writings, particularly of his tc Amelia,” shew that he could excel, when he chose, in the pathetic. The world, after so many years, yet concurs in these sentiments of Fielding’s excellence; and his works are as fully established in popularity, as those of the greatest geniuses of our nation, and the demand for them continues as great.

There are not so many anecdotes preserved concerning Fielding as might perhaps have been expected, considering the eccentricity of his disposition, and his talents for conversation. But when he died, the passion for collecting the memorabilia of literary men was little felt. In the Gent. Mag. for 1786, however, we have an anecdote which is too characteristic to be omitted. Some parochial taxes for Fielding’s house in Beaufort Buildings being unpaid, and for which demands had been made again and again, he was at length told by the collector, who had an esteem for him, that no longer procrastination could be admitted. In this dilemma he had recourse to Jacob Tonson, the bookseller, and mortgaging the future sheets of some work he had in hand, received the sum he wanted, about ten or twelve guineas. When he was near his own house, he met with an old college chum, whom he had not seen for many years, and Fielding finding that he had been unfortunate in life, immediately gave him up the whole money that he had obtained from Mr. Tonson. Returning home in the full enjoyment of his benevolent disposition and conduct, he was told that the collector had called twice for the taxes. Fielding’s reply was laconic, but memorable: “Friendship has called for the money, and had it; let the collector call again.” The reader will be glad to hear that a second application to Jacob Tonson enabled him to satisfy the parish demands. Another anecdote affords one of those happy turns of wit which do not often occur. Being once in company with the earl of Denbigh, and it being noticed that Fielding was of the Denbigh family, the earl asked the reason why they spelt their name? differently; the earl’s family spelling it with the e first, (Feilding), and Mr. Henry Fielding with the i first, (Fielding) “I cannot tell, my lord,” said our author, “except it be that my branch of the family were the first that knew how to spell”

, third sister of the preceding, was born in 1714, lived unmarried, and died at Bath, where she had long resided, in April 1768. She made some figure among the literary ladies of her age, and possessed a well cultivated mind. Soon after the appearance of her brother’s “Joseph Andrews,” she published a novel in 2 vols. 12mo, entitled “The Adventures of David Simple, in search of a faithful friend,” which had a considerable share of popularity, and is not yet forgotten. In 1752 she produced a third volume, which did not excite so much attention. Her next production, which appeared in 1753, was “The Cry, a new Dramatic Fable,” 3 vols. but this, although far from being destitute of merit, was not well adapted to the taste of romance-readers. Her last performance was “Xenophon’s Memoirs of Socrates, with the Defence of Socrates before his Judges,” translated from the original Greek, 1762, 8vo. In this translation, which is executed with fidelity and elegance, she was favoured with some valuable notes by the learned Mr. Harris, of Salisbury, who also probably contributed to the correctness of the translation. The other works of this lady, less known, were, “Familiar letters between the characters in David Simple,” 2 vols.; “The Governess, or Little Female Academy” “The Lives of Cleopatra and Octavia;” “The History of the Countess of Delwyn,” 2 vols. and “The Hjstory of Ophelia,” 2 vols. Dr. John Hoadly, who was her particular friend, erected a monument to her memory, with a handsome compliment to her virtues and talents.

, lord Say and Sele, a person of literary merit, but not so well known on that account as for the part he bore in the Grand Rebellion, was born at Brpughton in Oxfordshire, in 1582, being the eldest son of sir Richard Fiennes, to whom James I. had restored and confirmed the dignity of baron Say and Sele: and, after being properly instructed at Winchester school, was sent in 1596 to New-college in Oxford, of which, by virtue of his relationship to the founder, he was made fellow. After he had spent some years in study, he travelled into foreign countries, and then returned home with the reputation of a wise and prudent man. When the war was carried on in the Palatinate, he contributed largely to it, according to his estate, which was highly pleasing to king James; but, indulging his neighbours by leaving it to themselves to pay what they thought fit, he was, on notice given to his majesty, committed to custody in June 1622. He was, however, soon released; and, in July 1624, advanced from a baron to be viscount Say and Scle. At this time, says Wood, he stood up for the privileges of Magna Charta; but, after the rebellion broke out, treated it with the utmost contempt: and when the long-parliament began in 3640, he shewed himself so active that, as Wood says, he and Hampden and Pym, with one or two more, were esteemed parliament-drivers, or swayers of all the parliaments in which they sat. In order to reconcile him to tne court, he had the place of mastership of the court of wards given him in May 1641 but this availed nothing; for, when arms were taken up, he acted openly against the king. Feb. 1642, his majesty published two proclamations, commanding all the officers of the court of wards to. attend him at Oxford; but lord Say refusing, was outlawed, and attainted of treason. He was the last 'who held the office of master of this court, which was abolished in 1646 by the parliament, on which occasion 10,000l. was granted to him, with a part of the earl of Worcester’s estate, as a compensation. In 1648 he opposed any personal treaty with his majesty, yet the same year was one of the parliament-commissioners in the Isle of Wight, when they treated with the king about peace: at which time he is said to have urged against the king this passage out of Hooker’s “Ecclesiastical Polity,” that “though the king was singulis major, yet he was universis minor” that is, greater than any individual, yet less than the whole community. After the king’s death, he joined with the Independents, as he had done before with the Presbyterians; and became intimate with Oliver, who made him one of his house of lords. “After the restoration of Charles II. when he had acted,” says Wood, “as a grand rebel for his own ends almost twenty years, he was rewarded forsooth with the honourable offices of lord privy seal, and lord chamberlain of the household; while others, that had suffered in estate and body, and had been reduced to a bit of bread for his majesty’s cause, had then little or nothing given to relieve them; for which they were to thank a hungry and great officer, who, to fill his own coffers, was the occasion of the utter ruin of many.” Wood relates also, with some surprise, that this noble person, after he had spent eighty years mostly in an unquiet and discontented condition, had been a grand promoter of the rebellion, and had in some respect been accessary to the mupdler of Chailes I. died quietly in his bed, April 14, 1662, and was buried with his ancestors at Broughton. On the restoration he was certainly made lord privy seal, but nut, as Wood says, chamberlain of the household. Whitlock says, that “he was a person of great parts, wisdom, and integrity:” and Clarendon, though of a contrary, party, does not deny him to have had these qualities, but only supposes them to have been wrongly directed, and greatly corrupted. He calls him, “a man of a close and reserved nature, of great parts, and of the highest ambition; but whose ambition would not be satisfied with offices and preferments, without some condescensions and alterations in ecclesiastical matters. He had for many years been the oracle of those who were puritans in the worst sense, and had steered all their counsels and designs. He was a notorious enemy to the church, and to most of the eminent churchmen, with some of whom he had particular contests. He had always opposed and contradicted all acts of state, and all taxes and impositions, which were not exactly legal, &c. In a word, he had very great authority with all the discontented party throughout the kingdom, and a good reputation with many who were not discontented; who believed him to be a wise man, and of a very useful temper in an age of licence, and one who would still adhere to the law.” But from a comparison of every authority, a recent writer observes, that he appears to have been far from a virtuous or amiable man; he was poor, proud, and discontented, and seems to have opposed the court, partly at least with the view of extorting preferment from thence. He had the most chimerical notions of civil liberty, and upon the defeat of those projects in which he had so great a share, retired with indignation to the isle of Lundy, on the Devonshire coast, where he continued a voluntary prisoner until the protector’s death.