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

Besides several speeches in parliament, he published, 1. “The Scots design discovered; relating their dangerous attempts lately practised against the English nation, with the sad consequence of the same. Wherein divers matters of public concernment are disclosed; and the book called, Truths Manifest, is made apparent to be Lies Manifest, 1653,” 4to. 2. “Folly and Madness made manifest; or, some things written to shew, how contrary to the word of God, and practice of the Saints in the Old and New Testament, the doctrines and practices of the Quakers are,” 1659, 4to. 3. “The Quakers Reply manifested to be railing: or, a pursuance of those by the light of the Scriptures, who through their dark imaginations would evade the Truth,” 1659, 4to. It seems, the Quakers were pretty numerous in his neighbonrhood of Broughton; and he either was, or pretended to be, much troubled with them. These tracts are so >carce and little known at this time, as to have escaped Mr. Park’s researches, who informs us that he was not able to discover any of them, in the copious collection of printed tracts, either in the British Museum, or the Bridgewater library.

, a celebrated Italian political writer, the descendant of a very illustrious but decayed family at Naples, was born there Aug. 18, 1752. His parents had very early destined him for the military profession, but the attachment he showed to the acquisition of literary knowledge, induced them to suffer him to pursue his own course of study. His application to general literature became then intense, and before he was twenty years of age, he was not only an accomplished Greek and Latin scholar, but had made himself intimately acquainted with mathematics, ancient history, and the laws of nature and nations as administered in every country. He had also begun at this time to write two works, the one on public and private education, and the other on the duties of princes, as founded on nature and social order, and although he did not complete his design in either, yet he incorporated many of the sentiments advanced in his great work on legislation. He afterwards studied law, more in compliance with the will of his friends, who considered the bar as the introduction to public honour and preferment, than from his own inclination; and the case of an arbitrary decision occurring, he published an excellent work on the subject, entitled “Riflessioni Politiche sull' ultima legge Sovrana, che riguarda ramministrazione della giustizia,” Naples, 1774, 8vo. This excited the more attention, as the author was at this time only in his twenty-second year, and a youth averse to the pleasures and amusements of his age, and intent only on the most profound researches into the principles of law and justice. Nor were these studies much interrupted by his obtaining in 1777 a place at court, that of gentleman of the bedchamber, with the title of an officer of the marines, which appears to have been usually conferred on gentlemen who were near the person of the monarch. In 1780 he published the first two volumes of his celebrated work on Legislation, “Scienza della Legislatione,” at Naples the third and fourth appeared in 1783 the fifth, sixth, and seventh in 1785; and the eighth, after his death, in 1789. This was reprinted at Naples, Venice, Florence, Milan, &c. and translated into French, German, and Spanish. The encomiums bestowed on it were general throughout Europe, and although some of his sentiments were opposed with considerable violence, and some of them are perhaps more beautiful in theory than in practice, a common case with speculators who take upon them to legislate for the whole world; yet it has been said with justice, that he brought to his great task qualifications in which both legislators and authors, who have made great exertions on the same subject, have been lamentably deficient, knowledge, temper, and moderation; and if assent is withheld from any proposition, or conviction does not attend every argument, the sentiment of esteem and respect for an enlightened, industrious, and virtuous man, labouring for the benefit of his fellow-creatures, and seeking their good by temperate and rational means, is never for a moment suspended. This valuable writer had not quite completed his plan, when his labours were ended by a premature death, in the spring of 1788, when he was only in his thirty-sixth year. He was universally lamented by his countrymen at large; and the king, who a little before his death had called him to the administration of the finances, testified his high regard for so useful a servant, by providing for his children, by a wife whom he had married in 1783. His biographer applies to him, with the change of name, what Tacitus says of Agricola, “Quidquid ex Filangierio amavimus, quidquid mirati sumus, manet mansurumque est in animis hominum, in aeternitate temporum, famarerum.” In 1806, sir Richard Clayton published an excellent translation of Filangieri in 2 vols. 8vo, as far as relates to political and Œconomical laws, and omitting what is said on criminal legislation, which the translator conceived was not wanted in this country, where the distribution of public justice is scarcely susceptible of amendment.

, a celebrated Italian poet, was born December 30, 1642, of a noble family at Florence. He studied philosophy, law, and divinity five years at Pisa, and took a doctor of law’s degree there. He then returned to Florence, where, after several years spent in his closet, with no other employment than poetry and the belles-lettres, the grand duke appointed him senator. He died September 27, 1707, aged sixty-five. Filicaia was member or the academies della Crusca, and degli Arcadi. His poems are much admired for their delicacy and noble sentiments. They have been published together by Scipio Filicaia, his son, under the title of “Poesie Toscane di Vincenzo da Filicaia,” &c. 1707, fol. the same with the Latin prose, Venice, 1747, 3 vols. 12mo.

, of Ferrara, an artist born in 1532, was nicknamed Gratella by his countrymen, because he was the first who introduced the method of squaring large pictures, in order to reduce them with exactness to smaller proportions, which the Italians call graticolare, a method which he had learned from Michel Angelo, whose scholar he was at Rome, though unknown to Vasari, at least not mentioned in his life. He was the son of Camillo Filippi, who died in 1574, an artist of uncertain school, but who painted in a neat and limpid manner and if we may judge from a half-figure of S. Paul, in an Annunziata of his in S. Maria in Vado, not without some aim at the style of Michel Angelo. From him therefore Bastiano probably derived that ardent desire for it which made him secretly leave his father’s house, and journey to Rome, where he became one of the most indefatigable copyists and dearest pupils of Buonarotti. What powers he acquired is evident from the “Universal Judgment,” which he painted in three years, in the hoir of the metropolitan a work nearer to Michel Angelothau what can be produced by the whole Florentine school. It possesses grandeur of design with great variety of imagery, well disposed groupes, and repose for the eye. It appears incredible that in a subject pre-occupied by Buonarotti, Filippi should have been able to appear so novel and so grand. He imitated the genius, but disdained to transcribe the figures of his model. He too, like Dante and Michel Angelo, made use of that opportunity to gratify his affections or animosities, by placing his friends among the elect, and his enemies with*the rejected. In that hapless host he painted the faithless mistress who had renounced his nuptials, and drew among the blessed another whom he had married in her place, casting a look of insult on her rival. At present it is not easy to decide on the propriety or intemperance of Barui Taldi and other Ferrarese writers, who prefer this painting to that of the Sistina, for decorum and colour, because it has been long retouched; and already made Barotti, in his description of Ferrarese pictures, lament " that the figures which formerly appeared living flesh, now seem to be of wood. 7 ' Of Filippi’s powers, however, as a colourist, other proofs exist at Ferrara in many an untouched picture: they appear to advantage, though his flesh-tints are too adust and bronzed, end his colours too often united into a misty mass.

In the nudities of those pictures, especially -in those of the colossal figure of S. Cristophano, Filippi adopted the line of Michel Angelo; in the draped figures he followed other models, as is evident in the Circumcision on an altar of the Duomo, which resembles more the style of his father than his own. Want of patience in invention and practice made him often repeat himself; such are his Nunziatas, re-produced at least seven times on the same idea. The worst is, that if the Last Judgment, the large altar-piece of S. Catherine in her church, and a few other public works be excepted, he^more or less hurried on the rest; content to leave in each some master trait, and less solicitous to obtain the praise of diligence than of power from posterity. What he painted for galleries is not much, but conducted with more care: without recurring to what may be seen at Ferrara, the Baptism, of Christ in the house Acqua at Osimo, and some of his copies from Michel Angelo at Rome, are of that number. In his earliest time he painted grotesques, a branch which he afterwards left entirely to his younger brother Cesare Filippi, who was as eminent in the ornamental style, as weak in large figures and history. He died in 1602.

, son of sir Edward Filmer, of East Sutton, in Kent, by Elizabeth his wife, daughter of Richard Argall, esq. was born in the end of the sixteenth, century, and educated in Trinity-college, in Cambridge, of which he was matriculated July 5, 1604. His works are, 1 “The Anarchy of a limited and mixed Monarchy,” 1646, which was an answer to Hunton’s “Treatise on Monarchy,” printed in 1C43. Sir Robert’s work was reprinted in 1652 and 1679, 8vo. 2. “Patriarcha,” in which he endeavours to prove, that all government was monarchical at first, and that all legal titles to govern are originally derived from the heads of families, or from such upon whom their right was transferred, either by cession or failure of the line. He also wrote, “The Freeholders’ Grand Inquest, &c.” On the trial of the celebrated Sidney, it was made a charge that they found in his possession a manuscript answer to Filmer’s “Patriarcha,” but this was afterwards more completely answered by Locke, in his “Two Treatises on Government,” published in 1689 Filnrer died in 1647.

, first earl of Nottingham, and lord high chancellor of England, the son of sir Heneage Finch, knt. recorder of London, was born Dec. 21 or 23, 1621, in the county of Kent. He was educated at Westminsterschool, and became a gentleman commoner of Christ church in Oxford, 1635. After he had prosecuted his studies there for two or three years, he removed to the Inner Temple, where, by diligence and good parts, he became remarkable for his knowledge of the municipal laws, was successively barrister, bencher, treasurer, reader, &c. Charles II. on his restoration, made him solicitor general, and advanced him to the dignity of a baronet. He was reader of the Inner Temple the next year, and chose for his subject the statute of 39 Eliz. concerning the payment and recovery of the debts of the crown, at that time very seasonable and necessary, and which he treated with great strength of reason, and depth of law. Uncommon honours were paid to him on this occasion, the reading and entertainment lasting from the 4th to the 17th of August. At the first day’s entertainment were several of the nobility of the kingdom, and privy counsellors, with divers others of his friends at the second, were the lord mayor, aldermen, and principal citizens of London at the third, which was two days after the former, was the whole college of physicians, who all came in their caps and gowns; at the fourth, all the judges, advocates, doctors of the civil law, and all the society of Doctors’ Commons at the fifth, the archbishops, bishops, and chief of the clergy and at the last, which was on August 15, his majesty king Charles II. did him the honour (never before granted by any of his royal progenitors) to accept of an invitation to dine with him in the great hall of the Inner Temple.

He performed the office of high steward at the trial of lord Stafford, who was found guilty of high treason by his peers, for being concerned in the popish plot. On May J2, 1681, he was created earl of Nottingham, and died, quite worn out, at his house in Queen-street, Lincoln’sinn-fields, Dec. Is, 1682, and was buried in the church of Ilaunston near Olney in Buckinghamshire, where his son erected a superb monument to hrs memory. Though he lived in very troublesome and difficult times, yet he conducted himself with such even steadiness, that he retained the good opinion of both prince and people. He was distinguished by his wisdom and eloquence; and was such an excellent orator, that some of his contemporaries have styled him the English Roscius, the English Cicero, &c. Burnet, in the preface to his “History of the Reformation,” telis us, that his great parts and greater virtues were so conspicuous, that it would be a high presumption in him to say any thing in his commendation being in nothing more eminent, than in his zeal for, and care of, the church of England. His character is described by Dryden, or rather Tate, in the second part of “Absalom and Achitophel,” under the name of Amri; but more reliance may be placed on the opinion of judge Blackstone. “He was a person,” says this learned commentator, “of the greatest abilities, and most incorrupted integrity; a thorough master and zealous defender of the laws and constitution of his country; and endued with a pervading genius that enabled him to discover and to pursue the true spirit of justice, notwithstanding the embarrassments raised by the narrow and technical notions which then prevailed in the courts of law, and the imperfect ideas of redress which had possessed the courts of equity. The reason and necessities of mankind, arising from the great change in property, by the extension of trade, and the abolition of military tenures, co-operated in establishing his plan, and enabled him, in the course of nine years, to build a system of jurisprudence and jurisdiction upon wide and rational foundations, which have also been extended and improved by many great men, who have since presided in chancery; and from that time to this, the power and business of the court have increased to an amazing degree.”

Upon the accession of queen Anne he was again appointed one of the principal secretaries of state, and in that station had a vote of the house of commons passed in his favour, “that he had highly merited the trust her majesty had reposed in him,” and the like sanction from the house of lords. However, on the 17th of April 1704, he resigned that employment, and accepted of no other post during all that reign, though large offers were made to engage him in the court interest and measures, upon the change of the ministry in 1710, his refusal of which so exasperated the opposite, party, that he was attacked with great virulence in several libels both in verse and prose. He continued therefore to give his opinion upon all occasions with great freedom, and in December the same year distinguished himself by a vigorous speech in the house of lords, representing, that no peace could be safe or honourable to Great Britain, if Spain and the West Indies were allotted to any branch of the house of Bourbon and had so much weight in that house, that the clause which he offered to that purpose to be inserted in the address of thanks, in answer to her majesty’s speech, was after a warm debate carried. He soon after moved likewise for an address to the queen, that her majesty would not treat except in concert with her allies. When his late majesty king George succeeded to the crown, his lordship was one of the lords justices for the administration of aflairs till his arrival; and on the 24th of September 1714, was declared lord-president of the council. But on the 29th of February 1715-16, he retired from all public business to a studious course of life; the fruits of which appeared in his elaborate answer to Mr. Whiston’s letter to him upon the subject of the trinity; for which, on the 22d of March 1720-21, he had the unanimous thanks of the university of Oxford in full convocation. He died January 21st, 1729-30, having just before succeeded to the title of earl of Winchelsea, into which that of Nottingham merged.

, of the family of the lord keeper, was the son of sir Thomas Finch of Eastwell in Kent, and was born in that county, and educated at Oriel college, Oxford. From that he went to Gray’s Inn, and after pursuing the usual course of law studies, became a counsellor of reputation, and was autumn or summer reader of that house in 2 James I. In 1614 he attained the rank of a Serjeant, and two years after was knighted. He died Oct. 11, 1625, leaving a son, John, who was afterward created lord Finch of Fordwich, and was keeper of the great seal. Sir Henry Finch wrote “Nomotechnia, ou description del Commun Leys d'Angleterre, &c.” Lond. 1613, fol. This “Description of the Common Law” was afterwards published by himself in English, under the title “Of Law, or a Discourse thereof,” Lond. 1627, (636, and 1661, 8vo. But a better translation was published in 1758 by an anonymous hand. He published also “On the Calling of the Jews,” a work which Wood has so imperfectly described that it is not easy to discover its drift. Finet (Sir John), a man considerable enough to be remembered, was son of Robert Finet of Soulton, near Dover, in Kent, and born in 1571. His great grandfather was of Sienna, in Italy, where his family was ancient; and coming into England a servant to cardinal Campegius, the pope’s legate, married a maid of honour to queen Catherine, consort to Henry VIII. and settled here. He was bred up in the court, where, by his wit, mirth, and uncommon skill in composing songs, he very much pleased James I. In 1614 he was sent into France about matters of public concern; and the year after was knighted. In 1626 he was made assistant to the master of the ceremonies, being then in good esteem with Charles I. He died in 1641, aged seventy. He wrote a book entitled “Fineti Philoxenus: Some choice observations touching the reception and precedency, the treatment and audience, the punctilios and contests of foreign ambassadors in England, 1656,” 8vo published by James Howel, and dedicated to lord LTsle. He also translated from French into English “The beginning, continuance, and decay of Estates, &c. 1606;” written originally by R. de Lusing.

, was an ancient Christian writer, and author of a piece entitled “De Er-> rore Profanarum Religionum;” which he addressed to the emperors Constantius and Constans, the sons of Constantine. It is supposed to have been written after the death of Constantine, the eldest son of Constantine the Great, which happened in the year 340, and before that of Constans, who was slain by Magnentius in the year 350: being addressed to Constantius and Constans, there is reason to believe that Constantine their eldest brother was dead, and it is evident that Constans was then alive. It is remarkable, that no ancient writers have made any mention of Firmicus; so that we do not know what he was, of what country, or of what profession. Some moderns conjecture that he was by birth a Sicilian, and in the former part of his life an heathen. His treatise “Of the Errors of the Prophane Religions,” discovers great parts, great learning, and great zeal for Christianity, and has been often printed, sometimes separately, sometimes with other fathers. Among the separate editions are one printed at Strasbourg, in 1562, another at Heidelberg, 1599, and a third at Paris, 1610, all in 8vo; afterwards it was joined with Minucius Felix, and printed at Amsterdam, 1645, at Leyden, 1652, and again at Ley den, at the end of the same father, by James Gronovius, in 1709, 8vo. It is likewise to be found in the “Bibliotheca Patrum;” and at the end of Cyprian, printed at Paris in 1666.

There are “Eight Books of Astronomy, or Mathematics,” which bear the name of this author, and which have been several times printed, first at Venice in 1497, fol. and afterwards at Basil in 1551, at the end of the astronomical pieces of Ptolemy and some Arabians; but there is nothing in this work that relates to the real science of astronomy, the author amusing himself altogether with astrological calculations, after the manner of the Babylonians and Egyptians; on which account Baronius was of opinion, that it could not be written by so pious a man and so good a Christian as this Firmicus, who no doubt would have thought it very sinful to have dealt in such profane and impious speculations. Cave, however, supposed that he might have written these books in his unconverted state; for, though Baronius will have them to be written about the year 355, yet Labbaeus, as he tells us, affirms them to be between 334 and 337. There is not evidence enough, however, to determine the question.

, a nonconformist divine and physician, was born in 1617, in Suffolk, and educated at Cambridge, where he studied physic, and afterwards practised it with great success in New England, to which he fled, as he said, to enjoy liberty of conscience. When that, kowever, was restored about the latter end of the civil wars, he returned to England, was ordained, and became minister at Shalford, in Essex, where he continued till he was ejected, in 1662, by the act of uniformity. He afterwards resumed the practice of physic, but never neglected to preach when he had an opportunity, in which he appears to have been protected by his excellent and charitable character as a physician. He died in 1697, at the age of eighty. He was author of several works, the most known of which is his “Real Christian.” The others are of the controversial kind, with the Quakers, Antinomians, and Anabaptists, or concerning church government. He bad far more moderation as well as loyalty than many of his brethren, and even is said to have joined with a few like himself, during the usurpation, in praying for the exiled royal family.

In 1680 and 1681, came over the French protestants, who furnished new work for Mr. Firrnin’s zeal and charity: and, in 1682, he set up a linen manufacture for them at Ipswich. During the last twenty years of his life, he was one of the governors of Christ’s hospital in London; to which he procured many considerable donations. About the revolution, when great numbers of Irish nobility, clergy, gentry, and others, fled into England from the persecution and proscription of king James, briefs and other means were set on foot for their relief, in all which Mr. Firmin was so active, that he received a letter of thanks for his diligence and kindness, signed by the archbishop of Tuam, and seven bishops. In April 1693, he became a governor of St. Thomas’s hospital in Southwark, nor was there hardly any public trust or charity, in which he either was not ia one shape or other concerned. He died Dec. 20, 1697, in the sixty-sixth year of his age, and was buried, according to his desire, in the cloisters of Christ’s hospital. In the wall near his grave is placed an inscription, in which hii benevolence is recorded with a just encomium.

, an eminent performer and composer for the hautbois, was born at Fribourg, and educated at a common reading school at a village in Bohemia, where all the children learn music, reading, and writing, as a matter of course. He first learned a little on the violin, but changed it soon for the hautbois, and became early in life so excellent a performer on that instrument, as to be appointed one of the king of Poland’s celebrated band ait Dresden. On the dissolution of this band he went to Berlin, where he had the honour, during a month, to accompany Frederick the late king of Prussia alone, four hours every day. From Berlin he went to Manheim, and thence to Paris, where he was heard with admiration, and as soon as he had acquired some money he came over to England, and here, as soon as he had been once heard in public, which was at a benefit, no other concert, public or private, was thought complete without his performance; and being engaged to play a concerto every night at Vauxhall, he drew thither all the lovers of music, but particularly professors. When the queen’s band was formed, Fischer was appointed one of her majesty’s chamber musicians; and when Bach and Abel, uniting, established a weekly subscription concert at Hanover-square, where, for a long time, no music was heard but that of these excellent masters, Fischer was allowed to compose for himself, and in a style so new and fanciful, that in point of invention, as well as tone, taste, expression, and neatness of execution, his piece was always regarded as one of the highest treats of the night, and heard with proportionate rapture.

Fischer left England in 178G, and in the beginning of the next year had not been heard of. His majesty inquired several times, with some solicitude, whether he had written to any of his friends in England, and was answered in the negative; one of them understood, by report, that he was at Strasburg. He returned, however, at the end of 1787, and continued in England during the rest of his life. About 1777 he had married a daughter of the admirable painter, Gainsborough, an enthusiastic lover of good music and performance, and of none so much as Fischer’s; indeed he enchanted the whole family with his strains, which were beyond measure captivating, and he stood so well at his instrument, that his figure had all the grace of a Tibian at the altar of Apollo, But this marriage was not auspicions; Fischer, with a good person, and superior genius for his art, was extremely deficient in colloquial eloquence, and in all those undefinable charms of conversation which engage the attention and endear the speaker. He had not a grain of sense but what he breathed through his reed; he never spoke more than three words at a time, and those were negatives or affirmatives. Yet, though he had few charms for a friend or companion, he delighted the public at large in a higher degree than is allowed to any but gifted mortals. This admirable musician was seized with an apoplectic fit April 29, 1800, during the performance of a solo at the queen’s house, at his majesty’s concert. Prince William of Gloucester, observing his situation, supported him out of the apartment, whence he was conveyed to his residence in Compton-street, Soho, where he expired about an hour afterwards.

, a man who deserves some notice on account of his zeal for the reformation, was born in Kent, and, after an education at Oxford, went about 1525 to Gray’s Inn, to study the law. A play was then written by one Roo, or Roe, in which cardinal Wolsey was severely reflected on; and Fish undertook to act the part in which he was ridiculed, after every body else had refused to venture upon it. The cardinal issued his orders against him the same night, but he escaped, and went into Germany, where he found out, and associated himself with, William Tyndale. The year following he wrote a little piece, called, “The Supplication of Beggars;” a satire upon bishops, abbots, priors, monks, friars, and indeed the popish clergy in gejieral. About 1527 or 1528, after it had been printed, a copy was sent to Anne Boleyne, and by her given to the king, who was not displeased with it, and Wolsey being now disgraced, Fish was recalled home, and graciously countenanced by the king for what he had done. Sir Thomas More, who, when chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, had answered Fish’s pamphlet, in another, entitled “The Supplication of Souls in Purgatory,” being advanced to the rank of chancellor in the room of Wolsey, the king ordered sir Thomas not to meddle with Fish, and sent a message to this purpose, with his signet, by the Jiands of Fish. On his delivering the message, sir Thomas told him, all this was sufficient for himself, but not for his wife, against whom it was complained that she had refused to let the friars say their gospels in Latin at her house. The chancellor appears to have made some attempt to prosecute the wife, but how far he succeeded is not known. Fish himself died about half a year after this of the plague, about 1531, and was buried in the church of St. Dunstan in the West. In one of the lives of sir Thomas More, it is reported that he turned papist before his death, but this circumstance is not mentioned by Fox. The “Supplication” was one of the publications afterwards prohibited by Cuthbert Tonstall, when bishop of London. Tanner ascribes to Fish two works called “The Boke of merchants rightly necessary to all folkes, newly made by the lord Pantapole” and “The Spiritual Nosegay.” He also published about 1530, “The Summ of the Scriptures,” translated from the Dutch. His widow married James Bainham, afterwards one of the martyrs.

,or Fizacre (Richard), a learned scholar in the thirteenth century, was, if not of the city of Exeter, at least a Devonshire man, and a Dominican friar. He studied at Oxford, first in the college of the great hall of the university, but afterwards taking the cowl, he removed to the Dominican convent, and was the first of the order that was honoured with the theological doctorate. His learning is reported to have been general and extensive, and he made so great a proficiency in every branch, that he was esteemed one of the most learned. Aristotle was his principal favourite, whom he read and admired, and carried about with him. But from these philosophical exercises he passed on to the study of divinity, and became as eminent in this as before he had been in arts, which so endeared him to Robert Bacon (see his article), that the two friends were scarce ever asunder. And for this reason Leland thinks he studied at Paris along with Bacon, and there considerably improved his knowledge; but this may be doubted. Leland observes, that writers generally mention the two Dominican friends together, both in respect of their friendship and learning; and indeed the two Matthews, Paris and Westminster, have joined them, and, therefore, it is probable that Fishacre, as well as Bacon, enjoyed the friendship of bishop Grosseteste. They both died in one year, 1248, and were interred among the Dominicans at Oxford. Bale is severe on the memory of. Fishacre for no reason that can be discovered; but Leland speaks very highly of him in point of personal worth as well as learning. Both Leland and Bale have given a list of his works, consisting of theological questions, postils, and commentaries, some of which may yet be found in the public libraries.

, supposed by Wood to be the son of sir Edward Fisher, of Mickleton in Gloucestershire, knr. was probably born in that county, and educated at Oxford, where he became a gentleman commoner of Brasen-nose college in August 1627, took one degree in arts, and soon after left college, being called home, as Wood thinks, by his relations, who were then in decayed circumstances. At home, however, he improved that learning which he had acquired at the university so much, that he became a noted person among the learned for his extensive acquaintance with ecclesiastical history, and the writings of the Fathers, and for his skill in the Greek and Hebrew languages. Sharing in the misfortunes of his family, and being involved in debt, he retired to Caermarthen in Wales, where he taught school, but afterwards was obliged to go to Ireland, where he died, but at what time is not mentioned. He published, 1. “An Appeal to thy Conscience,” Oxford, 1644, 4to. 2. “A Christian caveat to the Old and New Sabbatarians, or, a Vindication of our old Gospel Festival,” &c. London, 1650, 4to. This tract, of which there were four editions, was answered by one Giles Collier, and by Dr. Collings. 3. “An Answer to Sixteen Queries, touching the rise and observation of Christmas, propounded by Mr. John Hemming of Uttoxeter, in Staffordshire;” printed with the “Christian Caveat,” in 1655. But the most noted of his writings was entitled “The Marrow of Modern Divinity,” 1646, 8vo. This treatise is memorable for having occasioned a controversy of much warmth, in the church of Scotland, about eighty years after its publication. In 1720 it was reprinted in Scotland by the rev. James Hogg, and excited the attention of the general assembly, or supreme ecclesiastical court of Scotland, by which many passages in it were condemned, and the clergy were ordered to warn their people against reading it; but it was on the other hand defended by Boston, and the Erskines, who soon after seceded from the church (see Erskine), upon account of what they considered as her departure from her primitive doctrines. Fisher’s sentiments are highly Calvinistical.

When the question of giving Henry the title of the supreme head of the church of England was debated in convocation in 1531, the bishop opposed it with all his might; which only served the more to incense the court against him, and to make them watch all opportunities to get rid of so troublesome a person. He soon gave them the opportunity they sought, by his remarkable weakness in tampering with, and hearkening too much to the visions and impostures of Elizabeth Barton, the holy maid of Kent; who, among other things, pretended a revelation from God, that “if the king went forwards with 'the purpose he intended, he should not be king of England seven months after.” The court having against him the advantage they wanted, soon made use of it; they adjudged him guilty of misprision of treason, for concealing the maid’s speeches that related to the king; and condemned him, with five others, in loss of goods and imprisonment during the king’s pleasure; but he was released upon paying 300l. for his majesty’s use. Afterwards an act was made, which absolutely annulled Henry’s marriage with Catherine; confirmed his marriage with Anne Boleyn entailed the crown upon her issue, and upon the lady Elizabeth by name making it high treason to slander or do any thing to the derogation of this last marriage. In pursuance of this, an oath was taken by both houses, March 30, 1534, “to bear faith, truth, and obedience to the king’s majesty, and to the heirs of his body by his most dear and entirely beloved lawful wife queen Anne, begotten and to be begotten,” &c. Instead of taking this oath, Fisher withdrew to his house at Rochester: but had not been there above four days, when he received orders from the archbishop of Canterbury and other commissioners, authorised under the great seal to tender the oath, to appear before them at Lambeth. He appeared accordingly, and the oath being presented to him, he perused it awhile, and then desired time to consider of it; so that five days were allowed him. Upon the whole, he refused to take it, and was committed to the Tower April 26.

, or as he usually styled himself in his Latin compositions, Paganus Piscatok, was born at Warnford, in Dorsetshire, the seat of his maternal grandfather, sir Thomas Neale, in 1616, and became a commoner of Hart-hall, (now Hertford college), Oxford, in 1634. After continuing there about three years, he removed to Magdalen college, Cambridge, where he took the degree of B. A. and first discovered his turn for poetry. From Cambridge, having, as Wood says, “a rambling head,” he served for some time in the Netherlands, and soon after returned and bore an ensign’s commission in the army raised by Charles I. against the Scots in 1639; on the disbanding of which he went to Ireland, and obtained the rank of captain, and on his return to England that of major. In July 1644 he served ut the siege of York, and was present at the battle of Mars ton Moor, which he celebrated in his first published poem. Soon after this he left his command, for what reason does not very clearly appear, and came to London, where he employed his pen against the cause which he had supported with his sword, and became such a favourite as to be accounted poet-laureat to Oliver Cromwell. After the restoration he endeavoured to atone for all this, by flattering the men in power, but without effect; and he henceforth lived, as Wood says, on his wits, which appear to have procured him but a scanty diet, arising chiefly from flattering dedications, and other implements of literary supplication. He was frequently in debt and in jail, and died at length, advanced in years, at a coffee-house in the Old Bailey, April 2, 1693, and was buried in St. Sepulchre’s church-yard.

Wood has given a very long list of his productions, which are mostly Latin poems, epitaphs, or orations in praise of the leading characters or events of his day. Among the most remarkable are, 1. “Marston-Moore, sive de obsidione praelioque Eboracensi carmen,” Lond. 165O, 4to. 2. “Irenodia gratulatoria, &c.” in honour of Cromwell, and dedicated to the infamous Bradshaw, ibid. 1652, 4to. 3. “Oratio anniversaria,” in honour of the inauguration of Cromwell, and delivered in the Middle temple hall, ibid. 1655, fol. 4. “Threnodia triumphans, &c.” on the death of Cromwell, 1658, fol. Latin and English. 5. “Epinicion; vel elogium fcelicissimi sereniss. fortiss. Ludovici XIV. &c.” fol. without date or place. This panegyric on the French king is curiously illustrated on the margins of each leaf with cuts of arms and military trophies, &c. He wrote also a book of Heraldry, printed at London, in 1682, with the coats of arms of such of the gentry as he waited upon with presentation copies, in hopes of a reward. From the little we have seen of his works, he appears to have been a man of considerable talents, but in his character and conduct, irregular, vain, and conceited.

, earl of Clare, and lord high chancellor of Ireland, the son of John Fitzgibbon, esq. an eminent lawyer at the Irish bar, who died in 1780, was born in 1749, educated at the universities of Dublin and Oxford, and afterwards entered upon the study of the law, of which profession he became the great ornament in his native country. In 1784 he was appointed attorney-general on the elevation of Mr. Scott to the bench, and on the decease of lord chancellor Lifford in 1789, his lordship received the seals, and was raised to the dignity of the peerage by the title of baron Fitzgibbon of Lower Connello. To these dignities were added the titles of viscount Clare, Dec. 20, 1793, and earl of Clare, June 10, 1795; and the English barony of Fitzgibbon of Sidbury, in Devonshire, Sept. 24, 1799. In 1802 his health appeared to be so seriously affected, that his physicians thought proper to recommend a more genial climate; and he had arrived at Dublin from his country seat at Mountshannon, designing to proceed immediately to Bath, or if his strength permitted to the south of France. The immediate cause of his death was the loss of a great quantity of blood, while at Mountshannon, which was followed by such extreme weakness, that upon his arrival at Dublin on the 25th, there was reason to fear he could not survive the ensuing day; on Wednesday these alarming appearances increased so much, that upon a consultation of physicians, he was given over. On being made acquainted with this melancholy truth, the firmness of his lordship’s mind did not forsake him. To prevent any impediment to the public business, he directed the new law officers to be called, and from his bed administered to them the necessary oaths. Soon after, his lordship fell into a lethargic slumber, and continued motionless until Thursday Jan. 28, 1802, when he ceased to breathe.

This learned lawyer’s works are, 1. “The Grand Abridgment collected by that most reverend judge, Mr. Anthony Fitzherbert, lately conferred with his own manuscript corrected by himself, together with the references of the cases to the books, by which they may be easily found; an improvement never before made. Also in this edition the additions or supplements are placed at the end of their respective titles.” Thus runs the title of the edition of 1577; but the most esteemed edition appears to be that printed in folio by Pynson, in 1516, with additions to the first part under the title “Residuum.” Ames also mentions an edition by Wynken de Worde, in 1516, and dates, Pynson’s edition 1514, but it is questionable whether this edition attributed to Wynken de Worde be not the production of a foreign printer. To the edition of 1577, is added a most useful and accurate table, by the care of William Rastall, serjeant at law, and also one of the jus tices of the common pleas, in the reign of queen Mary; which table, as well as the work, together with its author, is very highly commended by the lord chief justice Coke. It is indeed one of our most ancient and authentic legal records, as it contains a great number of original authorities quoted by different authors, which are not extant in the year-books, or elsewhere to be found in print. 2. “The Office and Authority of Justices of Peace, compiled and extracted out of the old books, as well of the Common Law, as of the Statutes, 1538,” and reprinted often, the last edition in 1617. 3. “The Office of Sheriffs, Bailiffs of Liberties, Escheators, Constables, Coroners,” &c. 1538. Though we give the titles in English, these three works are written in French only part of the second is in English. 4. “Of the. Diversity of Courts,” 1529, in French but translated afterwards by W. H. of Gray’s inn, and added by him to Andrew Home’s “Mirrour of Justices.” 5. “The New Natura Brevium,” 1534, in French; but afterwards translated, and always held in very high esteem. The last edition, published in 1794, 2 vols. 8vo, has the addition of a commentary, supposed to be written by chief justice Hale, and was collated with the former editions, and corrected, with some notes and references added, and the index considerably enlarged. 6. “Of the Surveying of Lands,” 1539. 7. “The Book of Husbandry, very profitable and necessary for all persons,” 1534, and several times after in the reigns of Mary and Elizabeth. It is said, in an advertisement to the reader, that this book was written by one Anthony Fitzherbert, who had been forty years an husbandman; from whence many have concluded, that this could not be the judge. But in tqe preface to his book “Of Measuring Lands,” he mentions his book “Of Agriculture,” and in the advertisement prefixed to the same book, it is expressly said, that the author of that treatise of “Measuring,” was the author likewise of the book “Concerning the Office of a Justice of Peace.” Whence it appears, that both those books were written by this author, who perhaps in the seasons which allowed him leisure to go into the country, might apply himself as vigorously to husbandry in the country, as to the law when in town; and commit his thoughts to paper. He appears to have been the first Englishman who studied the nature of soils, and the laws of vegetation, with philosophical attention. On these he formed a theory confirmed by experiments, and rendered the study pleasing as well as profitable, by realizing the principles of the ancients, to the honour and advantage of his country. These books being written at a time when philosophy and science were but just emerging from that gloom in which they had long been buried, were doubtless replete with many errors; but they contained the rudiments of true knowledge, and revived the study and love of agriculture.

, grandson of sir Anthony, and a very ingenious and learned man, was born in the county of Stafford, in 1552; and sent to either Exeter or Lincoln-college, in Oxford, in 1568. But having been bred a catholic, the college was uneasy to him; and though he would now and then hear a sermon, which was permitted him by an old Roman priest, who lived privately in Oxford, and to whom he recurred for instruction in matters of religion, yet he would seldom go to prayers, for which he was often admonished by the sub -rector of the house. At length, seeming to be wearied with the heresy of the times, as he called it, he receded without a degree to his patrimony: where also refusing to go to his parish church, he was imprisoned about 1572; but being soon set at liberty, he became still more zealous in his religion, maintaining publicly, that catholics ought not to go to protestant churches; for which, being like to suffer, he withdrew, and lived obscurely with his wife and family. In 1580, when the Jesuits Campian and Parsons came into England, he went to London, found them out, was exceedingly attached to them, and supplied them liberally: by which, bringing himself into dangers and difficulties, he went a voluntary exile into France, in 1582, where he solicited the cause of Mary queen of Scots, but in yam. After the death of that princess, and of his own wife, he left France, and went to Madrid, in order to implore the protection of Philip II.; but, upon the defeat of the armada, in 1588, he left Spain, and accompanied the duke of Feria to Milan. This duke had formerly been in England with king Philip, had married an English lady, and was justly esteemed a great patron of the English in Spain. Fitzherbert continued at Milan some time, and thence went to Rome; where, taking a lodging near the English college, he attended prayers as regularly as the residents there, and spent the rest of his time in writing books. He entered into the society of Jesus in 1614, and received priest’s orders much about the same time; after which he speedily removed into Flanders, to preside over the mission there, and continued at Brussels about two years. His great parts, extensive and polite learning, together with the high esteem that he had gained by his prudent behaviour at Brussels, procured him the government, with the title of rector, of the P^nglish college at Rome. This office he exercised for twenty-two years, vrith unblemished credit, during which time he is said to have been often named for a cardinal’s hat. He died there, Aug. 27, 1G40, in his eighty-eighth year, and was interred in the chapel belonging to the English college.

, a celebrated Jesuit, was the son of a merchant in Dublin, and born in that city in 1569. He was educated in the protestant religion, and sent to Oxford, where, in April 1583, he was matriculated as a member of Hart-hall, and in December following appears to have been elected student of Christ Church; but having conceived an inclination for popery, he left the university, and went to Louvaine, where he entered among the Jesuits, and had for his tutor the celebrated Jesuit Lessius. Here, by acute parts and much application, he acquired great distinction, and was appointed to teach philosophy publicly. Having furnished himself with missionary zeal and artifice, he returned to Ireland, where he became very active in gaining proselytes, and for some time laboured publicly, and without an opponent, being accounted a very able disputant. He was, however, committed to prison in Dublin castle in 1599, where he continued, some say two, and some five years, without any alteration in his courage or resolution. On the contrary, having thrown out something like a challenge to the protestants, the celebrated Usher, then a young man of only nineteen, undertook to dispute with him, and weekly meetings were appointed for the purpose. Their first subject was Antichrist, and after they had met twice or thrice, Usher was ready to have proceeded, but Fitzsimons declined any farther engagement. Afterwards, being set at liberty, on his promise to behave quietly, and give no disturbance to the king and kingdom, he went into the Low Countries, where he spent his time in performing offices requisite to his function, and in writing books, particularly “A Catholic Confutation of Mr. John Rider’s Claim of Antiquities, and a calming comfort against his caveat, with a reply to Mr. Rider’s Postscripts, and a discovery of puritan partiality in his behalf.” To which is annexed, “An Answer to certain complaintive Letters of afflicted Catholics for Religion:” all printed together at Rohan, in 1608, in which year he went, according to summons, to Rome, where being appointed by a mission of Ireland, he published his profession of the four vows; and then, being sent back to the Low Countries, he went again into Ireland, where he spent many years in confirming the Roman catholics in their religion, and in making new proselytes. At length, having been a great encourager and abettor of the rebellion which broke out there in 1641, he was, after the rebels began to be subdued, forced to fly for shelter into woods and on mountains, and to creep and sculk into every place, ibr fear of being taken by the English soldiers.

In the beginning of 1643 he was forced to change his place, and retire for safety into a moorish and boggy ground, where, sheltering himself under a shepherd’s cot, no better than a hovel, which did not keep out the wind and rain, he lived there in a very sorry condition, and had for his bedding a pad of straw, which would be often wet by the rising and coming in of the water. Notwithstanding all this misery he seemed to be very chearful, and was ready to instruct the young ones about him, and comfort others. But being in a manner spent, and his age not able to bear such misery long, he was with great difficulty taken away, and being conveyed by some of the brethren into a better place, he expired among them, February 1, 1643-4. By his death the Roman catholics lost a pillar of their church, being esteemed, in the better part of his lile, a great ornament among them, and the greatest defender of their religion in his time. Besides the pieces already mentioned, he wrote, 1. “A Justification and Exposition of the sacrifice of the Mass,” in two books, or more, printed in 1611, 4to. 2. “Britannomachia ministrorum in plerisque et fidei fundamentis et fidei articulis dissidentium,” Duac. 1614, 4to. 3. “A Catalogue of the Irish Saints,” Antwerp, 1621, 8vo. Ware says he also wrote a treatise to prove that Ireland was called Scotia, but he doubts whether this was ever published.

, an English historian of the twelfth century, and author of the earliest description of London extant, was of Norman extractio/i, but born of creditable parents in London. He was a monk of Canterbury, was dispatched to his holiness the pope, who was then probably at Rome or Benevento, once at least, and was much connected with archbishop Becket. He tells us h msel f that he was one of his clerks, and an inmate in h s family. He was also a remembrancer in his exchequer; a subdeacon in his chapel whenever he officiated a reader of Lil’s and petitions, when the archbishop sat to hear and determine causes, and sometimes, when his grace was pleased to order it, Fitzstephen performed the office of an advocate. He was also present with him at Northampton, and was an eye-witness of his murder at Canterbury, continuing with him after his other servants had had deserted him. He has reported a speech which he made on occasion of the archbishop’s sitting alone, with the cross in his hand, at Northampton, when he was forsaken by his suffragans, and expected, as he relates it, to be assaulted and murdered. This speech is memorable, and breathes more of a Christian spirit than we should have expected in those days. One of the archbishdp’s friends had recommended, that if any violent attempt was made upon his person, immediately to excommunicate the parties, which then was the most dreadful vengeance an ecclesiastic could inflict. Fitzstephen, on the contrary, said, “Far be that from my lord. The holy apostles and martyrs, when they suffered, did not behave in that manner,” and endeavoured to dissuade the archbishop from taking a step that would appear to proceed from anger and impatience, &c. This worthy monk is supposed to have died in 1191; but authors vary much as to the particular time when he composed his work, although it seems certain that he wrote it in the reign of Henry II. and that it was part of another work, “The Life and Passion of archbishop Becket.” Dr. Pegge fixes the period between the years I 170 and 1182. This “Description of the City of London,” affords, after Domesday Book, by far the most early account we have of that metropolis, and, to use his editor’s words, we may challenge any nation in Europe to produce an account of its capital, or any other of its great cities, at so remote a period as the twelfth century. It was accordingly soon noticed by Leland and Stowe, who inserted a translation of it in his “Survey of London.” But this edition was grown not only obsolete, but incorrect, when Dr. Pegge published in 1772, 4to, a more accurate translation, with notes, and a preliminary dissertation on the author. Fitzstephen was a person of excellent learning for his age. He was well versed in Horace, Virgil, Sallust, Ovid, Lucan, Persius, and with perhaps many other of the Latin classics, and had even peeped into Plato and some of the Greeks. If he was in some respects a little too credulous, it must be imputed to the times he lived in. His account of London, however, is in all views, curious and interesting, and the composition easy, natural, and methodical.

The important service rendered to the science of astronomy by Fixlmillner, is well known to all astronomers. The great number of his observations of Mercury at a time when they were rare and difficult to be made, enabled Lalande to complete his accurate tables of that planet, for which the French astronomer publicly returned him thanks. Fixlmillner was one of the first astronomers who observed the orbit of the newly-discovered planet Uranus. He was also the first who supported Bode’s conjecture, that the star 34 in the Bull, observed by Flamsteed in 1690, and which afterwards disappeared, was the new planet. Fixlinillner was a man of so great application and activity, that he not only made observations, but calculated them all himself, and deduced from them the necessary results. All his observations, of whatever kind, he calculated on the spot; and to avoid errors, he always calculated them a second time. To uncommon industry he united great penetration and deep reflection, as is proved by the many excellent remarks and discoveries to be found in his works. It must here be added, that this able astronomer lived in a remote part of the country, at a distance from all literary helps, and from others who pursued the same studies; from every thing, indeed, that could animate his zeal; yet he continued to the last day of his life, a singular instance of perseverance and attachment to his favourite study. But few men were so little subject to the imperious power of the passions. Simple in his manners, he possessed great equanimity and firmness, like the immutable laws of nature which he studied. His wide extended celebrity did not render him proud; whatever was written or said in his praise, he endeavoured rather to conceal than to publish. His close application at length impaired his health, and brought on obstinate obstructions, which ended in a diarrhoea. He died Aug. 27, 1791, in the seventy-first year of his age, the fifty-third of his residence in the convent; and the forty-sixth after his entering into the priesthood,

, was an ancient Latin poet, of whom our accounts are very imperfect. There are many places that claim him, but Setia, now Sezzo, a town of Campania, seems to have the best title; and it is from thence that he bears the surname Setinus. Martial, who was his contemporary and friend, intimates that he lived at Padua, or at least was born there, as may be collected from" an epigram in which he advises him to quit the beggarly study of poetry, and to apply himself to the bar, as the more profitable profession of the two. He died when he was about thirty years of age, in the year 93 or 94, and before he had put the finishing hand to the poem which he left.

Flaccus chose the history of the Argonautic expedition for the subject of his poem; of which he lived to compose no more than seven books, and part of an eighth. It is addressed to the emperor Vespasian; and Flaccus takes occasion at the same time to compliment Domitian on his poetry, and Titus on his conquest of Judaea. The learned world have been divided in their opinion of this author; some not having scrupled to exalt him above all the Latin poets, Virgil only excepted; while others have set him as much below them. This poem of the Argonautic expedition is an imitation, rather than a translation, of the Greek poet Apollonius, four books of whose poem upon the same subject are yet remaining; and it has generally been agreed that the Latin poet has succeeded best in those parts where he had not the Greek in view. Apollonius has by no means suffered where Flaccus has seemed to translate him, none of his spirit having been lost in the transfusion; and some have ranked him among the few whose copies have rivalled their originals. He professedly imitated Virgil, and is often successful. Upon the whole, he does not deserve to be so neglected as he has been; especially while other poets of antiquity have been thought worthy of notice, who are not superior to him either for matter, style, or versification. Quintilian seems to have entertained the highest opinion of his merit, by the short eulogium he has left of him: “multum in Valeric Flacco nuper amisimus.” After several editions of this poet, with notes of the learned, Nic. Heinsius published him at Amsterdam, in 1680, 12mo; which edition was republished in the same size, in 1702. But the best edition is that, “cum notis integris variorum & Petri Burmanni,” printed at Leyden, ia 1724, 4to.

It may be proper to mention, that John Baptista Pius, an Italian poet, completed the eighth book of the Argonautics, and added two more, by way of supplement, partly from Apollonius; which supplement was also printed at the end of Flaccus, in Aldus’ s edition of 1523, and has been subjoined to all, or at least most of the subsequent editions.

, an Irish gentleman of learning, who had a considerable knowledge in the history and antiquities of his country, was born in. 1650, at Moycullin, co. Galway, the ancient estate of his family, which became forfeited by the rebellion in 1641, when he was only eleven years old. He published at London, 1685, a book under the singular and mystic title of “Ogygia, or Rerum Hibernicarum Chronologia,” containing chronological memoirs upon the antiquities of the kingdom of Ireland; compiled, as he observes, “ex pervetustis monumentis fideliter inter se collatis eruta, atque e sacris et profanis litteris primarum orbis gentium, tarn genealogicis, quam chronologicis suffulta prresidiis.” This work, a 4to volume, containing about 600 pages, he" dedicated to the then duke of York, afterwards king James II. of England. The author commences his history from the deluge, continues it to the year of Christ 42 8, and has divided it into three parts. The first describes the island, its various names, inhabitants, extent, kings, the manner of their annual election, &c. The second is a kind of chronological parallel of the Irish affairs, with the events that happened during the same period in other countries. The third is a more ample detail of particular transactions in the same kingdom. To this is added a professedly exact chronological table of all the Christian kings who have ruled over Ireland, from A. D. 482 till A. D. 1022; and a brief relation of the most prominent historic features of the island till the time of Charles II. in 1685. To this succeeds a chronological poem, which forms a summary of Irish history to the same period. At the end is a very curious catalogue of the Scottish kings, Irish, who have reigned in the British isles. In his genealogical remarks on the regal house of the Stewarts, the author attempts to prove they were originally an Irish family. It is surprising that neither the author nor his work has been noticed by Macpherson or Whitaker in their controversy respecting the peopling of Hibernia, and the origin of the Caledonians; although he is particularly noticed by O'Hallaran in his History of Ireland.

After this, Flaminio was removed by his father to Bologna for the study of philosophy, after which he returned again to Rome, and formed an intimacy with the most illustrious scholars of that city. Without devoting himself to any profession, he for some years attached himself to the cardinal de Sauli, and after his death resided with the prelate Ghiberti, either at Padua, or at his see of Verona, where he secured the friendship of Fracastorius and Naugerius, a friendship of the most generous and disinterested kind, as appears from many passages in their writings. About 1538 he went to Naples in consequence of a long indisposition, and by relaxation from his studies, recovered his former health, and repaired to Viterbo, where cardinal Pole then resided as pontifical legate, and honoured Flaminio by the most friendly intimacy. He also accompanied the cardinal to the council of Trent, but refused the office of secretary to this council, and by this refusal, as well as by other parts of his conduct, and a certain liberality of sentiment displayed in some of his writings, gave rise to suspicions that he was inclined towards the. opinions of the reformers. Whether this was actually the case has been a subject of dispute among his biographers; but that he was suspected is certain, for his writings were for some time prohibited in the Index Expurgatorius of the Roman church. Those who feel an interest in the question may consult Schelhornius’ dissertation on the subject in his “Amcenitates Hist. Eccles.” and compare it with Tiraboschi’s answer, who after being obliged to admit that Flaminio had embraced the opinions of the reformers, informs us that he was recalled to his former faith by cardinal Pole. And another account says, that cardinal Caraflfa (afterwards Paul IV.) attended him on his /death-bed. His death, which happened at Rome in 15.50, was lamented by all the learned of his time, and he appears to have deserved their highest encomiums. His poems place him in the first rank of the Latin school. Most of his poems are in the “Carmina quinque illustrium poetarum;” but the scarce editions of his works are, I. “M. Ant. Flaminii in Librum Psalmorum brevis explanatio,” Venice, 1545, 8vo. 2. “Epistolae aliquot de veritate doctrinae eruditae et sanctitate religionis, in Latinum veterem sermonem conversse, ex Italico hodierno, nee non narrationes de Flaminio,” &c. Noriberg. 1571, 8vo. 3. “M. A. Flaminii Carmina sacra, quue extant omnia, hoc modo nunquam hactenus edita,” c. Rostock, 1578, 8vo. There is an edition of his works, with those of his father, by Maucurti, mentioned before, which was reprinted in 1743.

, a very eminent English astronomer, was born of reputable parents at Denby in Derbyshire, Aug. 19, 1646. He was educated at the free-school of Derby, where his father lived; and at fourteen was visited with a severe fit of sickness, which being followed by other distempers, operating upon a very delicate constitution, prevented his going to the university, as was designed. He was taken from school in 1662, and within * month or two after had Sacrobosco’s book “De Sphscra,” put into his hand, which he set himself to read without any director. This accident, and the leisure that attended it, laid the groundwork of all that mathematical and astronomical knowledge, for which he became afterwards so justly celebrated. He had already perused a great deal of history, ecclesiastical, as well as civil: but astronomy was entirely new to him, and he found great pleasure in it. Having translated as much from Sacrobosco, as he thought necessary, he proceeded to make dials by the direction of such ordinary books as he could get together; and having changed a volume of astrology, found among his father’s books, for Mr. Street’s Caroline Tables, he undertook to calculate the places of the planets, but found very little help from that concise author.

From this time he began to have accounts sent him of all the mathematical books which were published at home or abroad; and in June 1670, his father, who had hitherto discountenanced his studies, taking notice of his correspondence with several ingenious men whom he had never seen, advised him to go to Lqndon, that he might be sonally acquainted with them. He gladly embraced this offer, and visited Oldenburg and Collins; and they introduced him to sir Jonas It ><% who presented him with Townley’s micrometer, and undertook to procure him glasses for a telescope, at a moderate rate. At Cambridge, he visited Barrow, Newton, and Wroe, then fellow of Jesus-college, of which he also entered himself a student. Jn the spring of 1672, he extracted several observations from Gascoigne’s and Crabtree’s letters, which had not been made public, and translated them into Latin. He finished the transcript of Gascoigne’s papers in May; and spent the remainder of the year in making observations, and in preparing advertisements of the approaches of the moon and planets to the fixed stars for the following year. These were published in the “Philosophical Transactions,” with some observations by the same author on the planets. In 1673 he wrote a small tract in English, concerning the true and apparent diameters of all the planets, when at their nearest or remotest distances from the earth; which tract he lent to Newton in 1685, who made use of it in the fourth book of his “Principia.”

In 1673-4, he wrote an Ephemeris, to shew the falsity of astrology, and the ignorance of those that pretended to it; and gave a table of the moon’s rising and setting carefully calculated, together with the eclipses and appulses of the moon and planets to the fixed stars. This fell into the hands of sir Jonas Moore, for whom he made a table of the moon’s true southings for that year; from which, and Philips’s theory of the tides, the high waters being made, he found that they shewed the times of the turn of the tides very nearly, whereas the common seaman’s coarse rules would err sometimes two or three, hours. In 1674, passing through London in the way to Cambridge, sir Jonas Moore informed him, that a true account of the tides would be highly acceptable to the king; upon which he composed a small ephemeris for his majesty’s use. Sir Jonas had heard him often discourse of the barometer, and the certainty of judging of the weather by it, from a long series of observations he had made upon it; and now requested of him to construct for him one of these glasses, which he did, and left him materials for making more. Sir Jonas highly valued this barometer; and mentioning it as a curiosity to the king and duke of York, he was ordered to exhibit it the next day, which he did, together with Fiamsteed’s directions for judging of the weather from its rising or falling. Sir Jonas was a great friend to our author had shewn the king and duke his telescopes and micrometer before and, whenever he acquainted them with any thing which he had gathered from Flamsteed’s discourse, he told them frankly from whom he had it, and recommended him to the nobility and gentry about the court.

About 1684, he was presented to the living of Burstow, near Blechingley, in Surrey, which he held as long as he lived. He was, indeed, very moderately provided for, yet seems to have been quite contented, aspiring after nothing but knowledge, and the promotion of the sciences. This, however, as it raised him to the notice of the world, and recommended him to royal favour and protection, likewise procured him the friendship and confidence of some of the most illustrious persons for scientific pursuits; such as sir Isaac Newton, Dr. Halley, Mr. Molineux of Dublin, Dr. Wallis, Cassini, &c. He shewed the same assiduity in labouring for the improvement of astronomy, after this moderate prdvision was made for him, as he did before; which appears from the numberless papers addressed by him to the secretaries of the royal society, many of which are printed in the Philosophical Transactions. He spent the latter, as he had done the former part of his life, in promoting true and useful knowledge; and died of a strangury, Dec. 3 1, 1719. Though he lived to above 73 years of age, yet it is remarkable, that he had from his infancy a peculiar tenderness of constitution; and in a letter to Mr. Collins, March 20, 1670-71, he says, that “he shall scarcely have time to transcribe, and fit his papers for the press, partly, because his occasions, but more frequently his distempers, withdraw and detain him from his pen-endeavours. For the spring,” says he, “coming on, my blood increases, which, if I should not exercise strongly, I should spit up, or receive into my stomach, with great detriment to my health.” He was married, but had.no children.

In 1660, came out, under the letters T. F. a collection of poems, entitled “Virtus Rediviva; a Panegyric on the late king Charles the First, of ever blessed memory,” &c, but these not being reprinted in any edition of his “Poems,” Wood will not afiinn them to be FJatman’s. In 1661, was published a piece in prose, entitled “Don Juan Lamberto, or a Comical History of the late Times,” with a wooden cut before it, containing the pictures of giant Desborough with a great club in his right hand, and of Lambert, both leading under the arms the meek knight Richard Cromwell; and this being very successful, a second part was published the same year, vrith the giant Husonio before it, and printed with the second edition of the first. This satirical work has to it the disguised name of Montelion, knight of the oracle; but Wood says, the acquaintance and contemporaries of Flatman always averred him to be the author of it. Montelion' s Almanack came out in 1660, 1661, 1662. The Montelions of the two last years are supposed to be Flatman’s, that of the first was written by Mr. John Philips. It is remarkable, that Flatman, in his younger days had a dislike to marriage, and made a song describing the incumbrances of it, with this beginning “Like a dog with a bottle tied close to his tail, Like a tory in a bog, or a thief in a jail,” &c. But being afterwards, according to Wood, “smitten with a fair virgin, and more with her fortune, he espoused her in 1672; upon which,” says the same author, “his ingenious comrades did serenade him that night with the said song.” He died at his house in Fleet-street, London, in 1688; his father, a clerk in chancery, being then alive, and in his eightieth year. Although of very little value as a poet, he succeeded better as a painter, and as Granger says, one of his heads is worth a ream of his Pindarics.

, patriarch of Constantinople in the fifth cen tury, succeeded Proclus in that dignity, in the year 447; and although Chrysaphius, favourite of the younger Theodosius, wished to drive him from his see, Flavian despised his menaces. In his time arose the Eutychian heresy, which he condemned in a synod held ut Constantinople. But the partizans of Eutyches condemned and deposed Flavian in the year 449, in the council called “Latrocinium Ephesinnm,” or “Conventus Latronum,” the “Assembly of Robbers.” Dioscurus bishop ol Alexandria, was placed at the head of this council by Tlicodosius, who carried matters with such violence, that Flavian was personally mal-treated, publicly scourged, and banished to Hypacpa, in Lydia, where he died soon after, in consequence of this scandalous usage. Before his death he appealed to Leo, and this appeal produced another council, in which Eutyches was condemned, and the savage Dioscorus deposed. Flavian was the author of “Two Letters” to pope Leo, which are printed in the fourth volume of the “Collectio Conciliorum,” and of a “Declaration of Faith delivered to the emperor Theodosius.”

, or Flavius Blondus, an Italian anticjuaryand historian, was born at Forli, in 1388. We have only a very slight account of his early years, but he appears to have been young when he was sent to Milan by his fellow-citizens to negociate some affairs for them. In 1434 he was secretary to pope Eugene IV. in which office he served three of the successors of that pontiff, but was not always with them. He travelled much through various parts of Italy, studying carefully the remains of antiquity. He died at Rome, in 1463, leaving three sons well educated, but without any provision, his marriage having prevented him from rising in the church. His long residence at Rome inspired him with the design of publishing an exact description of all the edifices, gates, temples, and other remains of ancient Rome, which then existed as ruins, or had been repaired. This he executed in a work entitled “Romae instauratae lib. III.” in which he displays great learning, as he did in his “Romce triumphantis, lib. X.” in which he details the laws, government, religion, ceremonies, sacrifices, military state, and wars of the ancient republic. Another elaborate work from his pen, was his “Italia illustrata,” or ancient state of Italy; and he published also a history of Venice, “De origine et gestis Venetorum.” At his death he had made some progress in a general history of Rome from its decline to his own time, the manuscript of which is in the library of Modena. His style is far from elegant, nor are his facts always correct; but he has the merit of paving the wav for future antiquaries, who have been highly indebted to his researches. A collection of his works was published at Basil, in 153 1.

, the celebrated bishop of Nismes, distinguished equally for elegant learning, abilities, and exemplary piety, was born June 10, 1632, at Perne, near Avignon, in Provence, and educated in the study of literature and virtue under his uncle Hercules AudifiTret. After the death of this relation, who was principal of the congregation styled De la Doctrine Chretienne, he appeared at Paris, about 1659, where he was soon distinguished as a man of genius, and an able preacher. A description of a carousal, in Latin verse, which, notwithstanding the difficulty of a subject unknown to the ancients, was pure and classical, first attracted the public admiration. It was published in 1669, in folio, and entitled “Cursus Regius,” and has since been included in his miscellaneous works. His funeral orations completed the fame which his sermons had begun. He had pronounced one at Narbonne, in 1659, when professor of rhetoric there, on the bishop of that city, but this is not extant. The first of those that are published, was delivered in 1672, at the funeral of madam de Montausier, whose husband had become his patron and friend. He soon rose to be the rival of Bossuet in this species of eloquence. His oration on mareschal Turenne, pronounced in 1676, is esteemed the most perfect of these productions; it excited at once the liveliest regret for the deceased hero, and the highest admiration of the orator. The last oration in the collection must have agitated his feelings as well as exercised his talents, for it was in honour of his well-tried friend the duke of Montausier, who died in 1690. In 1679 he published his history of the emperor Theodosius the Great, the ouly part that was ever executed, of a plan to instruct the dauphin, by writing for him the lives of the greatest Christian princes. The king, after having testified his regard for him by giving him the abbey of S. iSeverin, and the office of almoner in ordinary to the dauphin, promoted him in 1685 to the see of Lavaur, saying to him at the same time, < Be not surprised that I so Jong delayed to reward your merit; I was afraid of losing the pleasure of hearing your discourses.“Two years after, he was made bishop of Nismes. In his diocese he was no less remarkable for the mildness and indulgence by which he drew hack several protestants to his church, than for his general charity, and attention to the necessities of the unfortunate of all descriptions. At the time of a famine, in 1709, his charity was unbounded, and was extended to persons of all persuasions; and his modesty was at all times equal to his benevolence. Numbers were relieved by him, without knowing the source of their good fortune. His father had been a tallowchandler; but Flechier had too much real greatness of mind to conceal the humbleness of his origin: and, being once insolently reproached on that subject, he had the spirit to reply,” I fancy, sir, from your sentiments, if you had been so born, you would, have made candles still.“It is said that he had a presentiment of his death by means of a dream; in consequence of which, he employed an artist to design a monument for him, wishing to have one that was modest and plain, not such as vanity or gratitude might think it necessary to erect. He urged the artist to execute this design before his death, which happened Feb. 16, 1710.” He died,“says d'Alembert,” lamented by the catholics, regretted by the protestants, having always exhibited to his brethren an excellent model of zeal and charity, simplicity and eloquence."

His works are, 1. “CEuvres Mesle*es,” miscellaneous works, 12mo, in verse and prose, both French and Latin, Of his compositions in the latter language, it is generally remarked, that they are distinguished by classical purity and good taste. 2. An edition of Gratiani, “De casibus iliustriuni Virornm,” 4to. S. “Panegyrics of the Saints,” esteemed one of the best works of the kind. 4. His funeral Orations, which are* eight in number. 5. His Sermons, in 3 vols. If mo, less forcible than his panegyrics, or his orations. He had studied old quaint discourses, which he ridiculed, and called his buffoons; yet they had in some degree vitiated his style of writing sermons. 6. “The History of Theodosius,” above-mentioned. 7. “The Life of cardinal Ximenes,” one volume, 4to, or two volumes, 12mo. 8. “Letters,” 2 vols. 12mo, in a pure, but not an epistolary style, y. “The Life of cardinal Commendon, translated from the Latin of Gratiani,” one vol. 4 to, or two vols. 12mo. 10. Posthumous Works, containing pastoral letters of the most excellent paternal tenderness, and other matters. Of all these a handsome edition was printed in 1782, 9 vols. 8vo. But in this edition the correspondence with Baville, the persecuting intendant of Languedoc, which had been promised, was suppressed by authority.

His other dramatic pieces are, “Ermina, or the Chaste Lady f” Love’s Dominion;“and,” The Marriage of Oceanus and Britannia.“The second of these performances, was printed in 1654, and dedicated to the lady Elizabeth Claypole; to whom the author insinuates the use of plays, and begs her mediation to gain a licence for acting them. It was afterwards republished in 1664, under the title of” Love’s Kingdom,“and dedicated to the marquis of Newcastle. The author then with great pains introduced it on the stage, but it was condemned by the audience, which Flecknoe styles the people, and calls them judges without judgment. He owns that his play wants much of the ornaments of the stage; but that, he says, may be easily supplied by a lively imagination. His other works consist of, 1.” Epigrams and Enigmatical Characters,“usually bound up with his” Love’s Dominion;“but there is a separate edition in 1670, 8vo,” by Richard Flecnoe, priest.“2.” Miscellanea, or poems of all sorts, with divers other pieces,“1653, 12mo. 3.” Diarium, or the Journal, divided into twelve jornadas, in burlesque verse,“Lond. 1656, 12mo. Mr. Harris mentions also a book in the catalogue of the Bodleian library written by one Rich. Flecknoe, entitled” The Affections of a pious soul unto Christ,“1640, 8vo. He thinks it probable this was the same person, and that he wrote it in his younger years,” before his principles were debauched by the world.“Flecknoe died in the summer of 1678, according to Mr. Malone, who speaks with as much contempt of Flecknoe as if he were personally interested in Dryden’s antipathies. Mr. Southey, in his” Omniana," has a faf more favourable opinion of our poet, and confirms it by extracts from his works, some of which refute Mr. Harris’s opinion of Flecknoe’s principles being debauched. He indeed every where expresses an abhorrence of immorality.

, lord deputy of Ireland during the usurpation, descended of a good family in Lincolnshire and Staffordshire, was the son of sir William Fleetwood, knt. cup-bearer to James I. and Charles I. and comptroller of Woodstock park. His grandfather, sir William Fleetwood, had been receiver of the court of wards, an office, which in May 1644, was conferred upon the subject of this article, who embarked on the parliamentary side in the beginning of the rebellion. He was next, in May 1644-45, advanced to the rank of colonel of horse, and in Oct. following made governor of Bristol, and knight of the shire for the county of Bucks. In July 1647, he was appointed one of the commissioners of the army for treating with those of the parliament, with relation to the points in dispute between those two bodies, but notwithstanding his zeal for the interests of the former, he was not personally concerned in the death of Charles I. After the establishment of the commonwealth he was raised to the rank of lieutenant-general, and in Feb. 1650-1 chosen a member of the council of state, and Sept. 3 following, had a considerable share in the victory gained at Worcester over king Charles II. Soon after this he was present at the conference held between several members of the parliament and the principal officers of the army, at the speaker’s house, concerning the settlement of the nation, in which he declared that it appeared to him very difficult to determine, whether an absolute republic, or a mixed monarchy, was the most proper form of government to be established; though the soldiers in general discovered themselves to be averse to any thing of monarchy, while every one of them was a monarch in his own regiment or company. The lawyers, however, were, most of them, for a mixed monarchical government.

Upon his brother-in-law Richard Cromwell’s succeeding to the title of protector, he signed the order for his proclamation; but soon discovered his enmity to that succession, being disappointed of the protectorship, which he had expected, and determined that no single person should be his superior. He joined therefore with the discontented officers of the army in deposing Richard, after he had persuaded him to dissolve his parliament; and invited the members of the long parliament, who had continued sitting till April 20, 1653, when they were dissolved by Oliver Cromwell, to return to the exercise of their trust. Upon their meeting in May 1659, he was chosen one of the council of state, and the next month made lieutenant general of the forces; which post he held till Oct. 12 following, when he was appointed one of the commissioners to govern all the forces; and on the 17th of that month was nominated by the general council of state, commander in chief of all the forces. But in December 1659, finding that his interest declined in the army, who were now zealous to have the parliament sit again in honour, freedom, and safety, and that this, concurring with the general temper of the nation, would evidently restore the king, he was advised by Whitelocke to send immediately some person of trust to his majesty at Breda, with offers of restoring him to his rights, and by that means anticipate Monk, who had undoubtedly the same design. Fleetwood in return asked Whiteiocke, whether he was willing to undertake that employment; who consenting, it was agreed that he should prepare himself for the journey that evening or the^ next morning, while the general and his friends should draw up instructions for him. But sir Henry Vane, general Disbrowe, and col. Berry, coming in at that critical moment, diverted Fleetwood from this resolution; who alledged, that those gentlemen had reminded him of his promise, not to attempt any such affair without general Lambert’s consent; while Whitelocke, on the other hand, represented to him that Lambert was at too great a distance to give his assent to a business which must be immediately acted, and was of the utmost importance to himself and his friends. He appears, indeed, before that time, to have entertained some design of espousing the king’s interests, if he had had resolution to execute it; for lord Mordaunt, in a letter to the king, dated from Calais, October 11, 1659, asserts, that Fleetwood then 1 looked upon his majesty’s restoration as so clearly his interest as well as his duty, that he would have declared himself publicly, if the king or the duke of York had landed; and that although that engagement failed, he was still ready to come in to his majesty, whensoever he should attempt in person. Sir Edward Hyde likewise, in a letter to the marquis of Ormonde from Brussels of the same date, rves, that the general made then great professions of being converted, and of his resolution to serve the king upon the first opportunity. But the same noble writer, in his “History of the Rebellion,” represents Fleetwood as “a weak man, though very popular with all the praying part of the army, whom Lambert knew well how to govern, as Cromwell had done Fairfax, and then in like manner to lay him aside;” and that amidst tbo several desertions of the soldiers from the interests of their officers to the parliament in December 1659, he remained still in consultation with the “committee of safety;” and when intelligence was brought of any murmur among the soldiers, by which a revolt might ensue, and he was desired to go among them to confirm them, he would fall upon his knees to his prayers, and could hardly be prevailed with to go to them. Besides, when he was among them, ancj in the middle of any discourse, he would invite them all to prayers, and put himself upon his Icnees before them. And when some of his friends importuned him to appear more vigorous in the charge he possessed, without which they must be all destroyed, they could get no other answer from him than that “God had spit in his face, and would not hear him.” So that it became no great wonder why Lambert had preferred him to the office of general, and been content with the second command for himself.

, an English lawyer, and recorder of London in the reign of Elizabeth, was the natural son of Robert Fleetwood, esq. who was the third sou of William Fleetwood, esq. of Hesketh in Lancashire. He had a liberal education, and was for some time of Oxford, whence he went to the Middle Temple, to study the law; and having quick as well as strong parts, became in a short time a very distinguished man in his profession. In 1562 he was elected summer reader, and in 1568 double reader in Lent. His reputation was not confined to the inns of court; for when it was thought necessary to appoint commissioners in the nature of a royal visitation in the dioceses of Oxford, Lincoln, Peterborough, Coventry, and Litchtield, Fleetwood was of the number. In 1569 he became recorder of London. It does not appear whether his interest with the earl of Leicester procured him that place or not; but it is certain that he was considered as a person entirely addicted to that nobleman’s service, for he is styled in one of the bitterest libels of those times, “Leicester’s mad recorder;” insinuating, that he was placed in his office to encourage those of this lord’s faction in the city. He was very zealous against the papists, active in disturbing mass-houses, committing popish priests, and giving informations of their intrigues: so zealous, that once rushing in upon mass at the Portuguese ambassador’s house, he was, for breach of privilege, committed prisoner to the Fleet, though soon released. In 1580 he was made serjeant at law, and in 1592, one of the qneen’s Serjeants; in which post, however, he did not continue long, for he died at his house in Noble-street, Aldersgate, February 28, 1594, and was buried at Great Missenden in Buckinghamshire, where he had purchased an estate. He was married, and had children. Wood says that “he was a learned man, and a good antiquary, but of a marvellous merry and pleasant conceit,” He was farther esteemed an acute politician; which character was most likely to recommend him to his patron Leicester. He was a good popular speaker, and wrote well upon subjects of government. He made a great figure in his profession, being equally celebrated for eloquence as an advocate, and for judgment as a lawyer.

About a week before king William’s death, he was nominated to a canonry of Windsor; but the grant not having passed the seals in time, the house or commons addressed the queen to give that canonry to their chaplain. His patron, lord Godolphiri, laid the matter before the queen, who said, that, if king William had given it to Mr. Fleetwood, he should have it; and accordingly he was installed in 1702. In 1704 he published, without his name, a piece entitled, 4. “The Reasonable Communicant; or, an explanation of the doctrine of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper.” This book, of which there haVe been several editions, has, in the catalogue of the tracts distributed by the society for propagating Christian knowledge, been given to another person; but it is agreed, at length, to be Fleetwood’s. In 1705 he published, in two volumes, 8vo, 5. “Sixteen Practical Discourses upon the relative duties of parents and children, husbands and wives, masters and servants; with three sermons upon the case of Self-murder.” About this time he took a resolution of retiring from the noise and hurry of the town; much to the concern of his friends and admirers. His parishioners of St. Austin’s were so deeply affected with it, that, among other temptations, they offered to keep him a curate but nothing could divert him from his resolution so that he gave up his preferments, and withdrew to Wexham, a small rectory of about 60l. a year in Buckinghamshire. Here he enjoyed the tranquillity and pleasure of that privacy for which he had so much longed, in a commodious house and gardens; and what made this retirement more agreeable, was its nearness to his beloved Eton. Here also he indulged his natural inclination for the study of British history and antiquities, which no man understood better; and, in 1707, gave a specimen of his great skill therein, in 6. “Chrbnicon Preciosum; or, an account of the English money, the price of corn, and other commodities, for the last 600 years. In a letter to a student of the university of Oxford” without his name, but improved ina second edition, with plates, published in 1726.

He did not remain long in this retirement; for, in 1706, upon the death of Beveridge, he was nominated by the queen to the see of St. Asaph, without any solicitation, or even knowledge of his own; so that, as he assured a friend, the first intelligence he had of his promotion was from the Gazette. He was but just gone out from waiting as chaplain, when his predecessor died; upon which one of the ladies of the bed-chamber asking the queen whom she intended to make bishop of St. Asaph her majesty replied, “One whom you will be pleased with whom 3*ou have lately heard preach I intend it for Dr. Fleetwood.” This spontaneous goodness of the queen contributed to reconcile him to the world again; for he thought he saw the hand of God in it, and so was consecrated in June 1708. Tn this station he acted in the most exemplary manner. His biographer tells us, that “his great and clear reputation, his uncommon abilities and unblemished life., which set off the episcopal character with so much lustre, his obliging and easy deportment, free from the least tincture of pride, or shew of superiority, did not only place him above all indecent treatment, which was a great point gained in those unequal times, but procured much reverence and affection to his person from a clergy that almost to a man differed from him in principle.”

Notwithstanding his difference with the ministry, when a fast was appointed to be kept, Jan. 16, 1711-12, he was chosen by the house of lords to preach before them; but, by some means or other getting intelligence that he had censured the peace, they contrived to have the house adjourned beyond that day. This put it indeed out of his power to deliver his sentiments from the pulpit; yet he put the people in possession of them, by sending them from the press. Though without a name, from the spirit and language it was easily known whose sermon it was. It gave offence to some ministers of state, who now only waited for an opportunity to be revenged; and this opportunity the bishop soon gave them, by publishing, 8. “Four Sermons; viz. On the Death of queen Mary, 1694; on the Death of the duke of Gloucester, 1700; on the Death of king William, 1701; on the Queen’s accession to the throne, 1702. With a preface,” 1712, 8vo. This preface, bearing very hard upon those who had the management of public affairs, was made an object of attack, and, upon a motion made for that purpose in the house of commons, an order was made to burn it, which was accordingly done on the 12th of May. The bishop, knowing this to be the effect of party rage, was very little affected with it; but rather pleased to think that the very means they had used to suppress his book, was only a more effectual way of publishing and exciting the whole nation to read it. It was owing to this, certainly, that it was printed in the Spectator, No. 384, and thereby dispersed into several thousand hands. This same year, and indeed before his sermons, he published, but without his name, 9. “The Judgment of the Church of England in the case of LayBaptism, and of Dissenter’s Baptism; by which it appears that she hath not, by any public act of hers, made or declared Lay-Baptism to be invalid. The second edition. With an additional letter from Dr. John Cosin, afterwards bishop of Durham, to Mr. Cordel, who scrupled to communicate with the French Protestants upon some of the modern pretences,” 8vo. This piece was occasioned by the controversy about Lay-Baptism, which was then au object of public notkv. In 1713, he published without his name, 10. “The Life and Miracles of St. Wenefrede, together with her Litanies, with some historical observations made thereon.” In the preface, he declares the motives which induced him to bestow so much pains upon this life of St. Wenefrede; and these were, that the concourse of people to the well which goes by her name was very great that the papists made use of this to influence weak minds that they had lately reprinted a large life of this saint in English; that these considerations might justly affect any protestant divine, and th,at for certain reasons they affected him in particular. Upon the demise of the queen, and the Hanover succession, this prelate had as much reason to expect that his zeal and services should be rewarded, as any of his rank and function: but he did not make any display of his merit, either to the king or his ministers. However, upon the death of Moore, bishop of Ely, in 1714, Tenison, then archbishop of Canterbury, strenuously recommended Fleetwood to the vacant see; and he was accordingly, without the least application from himself directly or indirectly, nominated to it.

Fleming’s chief work was his “Collectanea Sacra,” or Lives of Irish and Scotch Saints, with various tracts in illustration of their history, with notes, commentaries, &c. the whole comprized in a folio volume, printed at Louvaine in 1667. The works of the three abbots Columban, Aileran, and Cumean, which are extant in the “Bibl. Patrum,” are acknowledged to be taken from Fleming. He wrote also, “Vita rev. patris Hugonis Cavelli (Mac-Caghwell) 1626, and abridged a work entitled” Chronicon consecrati Petri Ratisbonoe."

, a Scotch presbyterian clergyman, whose works are still much esteemed in that country, was born at Bathens, or Easter, the seat of the earls of Tweedale, in 1630, where his father, James Fleming, was long a minister of the gospel. He was educated in classics^ philosophy, and divinity, at the universities of Edinburgh and St. Andrew’s, and at the latter studied divinity under the celebrated Samuel Rutherford. His natural parts, according to his biographer, were excellent; hjs understanding quick and penetrating, his judgment clear and profound, and his memory strong. These talents, which he employed in the course of his academical-studies, and especially in theology and ecclesiastical history, recommended hiai to ordination, when in his twenty-third year, and when the church of Scotland was purely presbyterian. His pastoral charge was Cambuslang, in Clydsdale, in which he remained highly venerated by his flock until th^ restoration; but an attempt being then made to establish episcopacy in Scotland, he and such of his brethren as adhered to the presbyterian form of government, were ejected from their livings. After this he resided mostly at Edinburgh, and in Fifeshire until September 1673, when he was apprehended for nonconformity, but was soon liberated, and went to Holland, where he officiated as minister to the Scotch congregation at Rotterdam. He died at this place July 15, 1694, deeply regretted by his flock, as well as by his brethren in Scotland, who considered him. in respect of piety and learning, as a great ornament to his profession. He published a few religious tracts of the practical kind, but is best known by his more elaborate work entitled “The Fulfilling of the Scriptures,” which is in fact, a view of the operations of providence in preserving the church through all the vicissitudes of ecclesiastical history. This was originally published in three parts, separately, which were printed together in a handsome manner, in 1726, folio, with a life prefixed, from which this article is chiefly taken.

, son of the preceding, was born and partly educated in Scotland, but studied afterwards at the universities of Leyden and Utrecht, where he prosecuted all those branches of learning which were deemed necessary to qualify him for the ministerial profession. His first settlement was with the English church at Leyden, whence he afterwards removed to become minister of the Scotch church of Amsterdam. In the course of a few years, he came over to London, and became pastor of a Scotch church in Lothbury, London; urged, as it is said, to make the exchange by king William, who often advised with him on the concerns of his own country, and frequently received him at court. His great learning and talents procured him much respect abroad, and also in this country, where he was esteemed by churchmen and dissenters, as well as by those belonging to the Scotch presbytery. He was on terms of friendship with the archbishop of Canterbury; and was chosen one of the preachers of the lecture, instituted by the merchants of London, at Salters’­hall, every Tuesday. From his early years he was eminently devout; and he xvas firmly attached to the British monarchy and constitution. He died May 24, 1716. His works were numerous, consisting of various sermons, and tracts; particularly, 1. “The History of Hereditary Right.” 2. “The Mirror of Divine Love,” in which is a dramatic poem, called the “Monarchical Image, or Nebuchadnezzar’s Dream.” 3. “Theocraty, or Divine Government of Nations.” 4. “A practical discourse on the death of king William.” 5. “Christology, or a discourse concerning Christ.” 6. “The Rod of the Sword.” 7. “Speculum Davidicum Redivivum, or the Divine right of the Revolution evinced and applied,” and “Discourses on several subjects, viz. the Rise and Fall of Papacy,” c. published in 1701. In the dedication of this last mentioned work to lord Carmichael, principal secretary of state for Scotland, and chancellor of the college of Glasgow, Mr. Fleming mentions his being related to his lordship, and acknowledges his obligations for the offer of so considerable au office as that of principal of the college of Glasgow; which very honourable and beneficial situation he declined, being a dissenter from the church of Scotland. This work, some years ago, was very much the subject of public attention, from the remarkable coincidence between Fleming’s conjectural interpretation of a prophecy in the Revelations, which he supposed to relate to the humbling of the French monarchy, about 1794, and the calamitous events which, within a year of that very period, befel the unhappy Louis XVI. There being at that time a very numerous party in this and other countries, whose object was the humbling of every monarchy and established government, this lucky conjecture of Mr. Fleming’s encouraged the appearance of various prophets (at the head of whom was a lunatic, still in confinement), and their publications for a considerable time agitated the public mind, and produced, in some degree, what was intended, a damp on the spirits of the credulous, and a reluctance to support the war. This, however, like every other popular delusion, was not of long duration, and more recent events have given a happier direction to public sentiment.

, an English prelate, and the founder of Lincoln college, Oxford, descended from an ancient family, was born at Crofton iti Yorkshire, and educated at University college, Oxford, where his extraordinary proficiency in logic and philosophy procured him higher degrees than were then usually conferred. In 1406 he was presented to the prebend of South Newbold, in the church of York, and next year served the office of proctor in the university. The copy of the statutes belonging to the duties of junior proctor, which he caused to be transcribed, is still preserved among the archives. Soon after taking his master’s degree, he professed a zealous attachment to the principles by which Wickliff was endeavouring to oppose the established religion, and argued with so much ability as to make many converts, some of whom were persons of high distinction. By what means he was induced to change His opinion, and display equal or greater zeal against the reformation, is not known. In 1396, when a student in theology, or scholar, we find his name among the other Oxford men who condemned Wicklif 's doctrines, and it is certain, that when he speculated on the foundation of a college, it was for the express purpose of educating divines who were to exert their talents against the heresy of that reformer.

Whatever disappointment he might feel in not succeeding to the archbishopric of York, it does not appear to have interfered with his generous design of founding a college; but his full intentions were frustrated by his death, which took place at Sleford, Jan. 25, 1430-31. He was interred in Lincoln cathedral, where a tomb was erected with a long epitaph in monkish rhime, some part of which was written by himself. The only information it conveys is, that the pr>pe consecrated him bishop of Lincoln with his own hand. In 1427 he obtained the royal licence to found a college or society of one warden or rector, seven, scholars, and two chaplains, in the church of All Saints in Oxford, which was then under his own patronage as bishop of Lincoln; and to unite, annex, and incorporate that church with the churches of St. Mildred and St. Michael, at the north-gate, which were likewise in his gift, and these churches, so united, were to be named the church of All Saints, and erected into a collegiate church or college. A certain chantry in the chapel of St. Anne, within the said church, was to be annexed, under thje patronage of the mayors of Oxford, provided that daily mass, &c. was duly performed in the chapel for the souls of the founder and others. There were also to be two chaplains, elected and removeable at the pleasure of the rector, who were to officiate in the said church with the cure of souls. The college was to be called, the College of the Blessed Virgin Mary and All Saints Lincoln, in the university of Oxford. The rector and scholars were also to be perpetual parsons of the said church, and were empowered to purchase lands, rents, and possessions, to the yearly value of ten pounds. This licence was dated Oct. 12, 1427. The founder then employed John Baysham, Nicholas Wynbush, and William Chamherlayn, clerks (who were intended to be of the number of his scholars), to purchase ground for the erection of buildings. The first purchase they made was a tenement called Deep Hall, situated in St. Mildred’s lane, between St. Mildred’s church on the west, and a garden on the east; but the founder’s death interrupting their progress, the society resided in Deep Hall, as it stood, maintained by the revenues of the churches above-mentioned, and the money left by the founder. They had as yet, however, no fixed statutes for their government, and were kept together merely at the discretion of the rectors, whose judicious conduct, joined to the utility of the institution, induced some benefactors to augment their revenues by gifts of lands and money. Among these were, John Forest, dean of Wells, who about 1437 built the chapel, library, hall, and kitchen, John Southam, archdeacon of Oxford, William Findarne,esq. cardinal Beaufort, and John Buketot; and these were followed by one who has been allowed to share the honours of foundership, Thomas Rotheram, bishop of Lincoln, of whom some account will be given, hereafter.

, nephew to the preceding, was educated at Oxford, and probably in Lincoln college, then newly founded by his uncle. On Jan. 21, 1451, he was admitted dean of Lincoln, being much admired for his learning. He afterwards went to Italy, and visited the principal universities; and among other eminent men, he attended the lectures of the celebrated orator and poet Baptista Guarini, professor of the Greek and Latin languages at Ferrara. From this place he went to Rome, >vhere he remained a year or two, and became acquainted with several learned men, particularly Earth. Platina, librarian of the Vatican. He became also known to pope Sixtus IV, in whose praise, during a summer’s recess at Tibur, or Tivoli, he composed a Latin poem in two books inscribed to his holiness; who was so pleased with it, that he made the author his protonotary. Of this poem, entitled “Lucubrationes Tiburtinae,” we have only a few verses quoted by Leland, and praised by him for the style. At his return from Italy, he brought over with him several books curiously illuminated, which he bequeathed to Lincoln college library, with some of his own composition, among which Leland, Bale, and Pits mention “Dictionarium Graeco-Latinum;” “Carolina diversi generis,” and “Epistolarum ad diversos, liber unus.” On Sept. 27, 1467, he was installed into the prebend of Leigh ton -man or, in the cathedral church of Lincoln, which he exchanged, Dec. 3, 1478, for that of Leighton-Bosard; and he fotmded in this cathedral, a chantry for two chaplains. This learned man died Aug. 12, 1483, and was buried near bishop Flemming, his relation.

, a man of some celebrity and talents, was born at Little Bronghton, in the parish of Bridekirk, Cumberland, in 1714. His father, who was a tobacco-pipe maker, had a small paternal estate; on which, with his trade, he was barely enabled to live, and bring up his family, without their becoming burthensome to their parish. It is not certain, that his son Abraham ever went to any school, although there is a tradition, that, very early in life, before he was able to do any work, his parents once spared him for three weeks, to attend a school in the village, where y^uth were taught at the rate of a shilling for the quarter. If this report be well-founded, all the education he ever had that was paid for, cost three-pence. By some means or other however he learned to read: and, before he haJ. arrived at manhood, he had also learned to write. With these humble attainments to set out with, it does him great honour that, at length by dint of industry alone, he became a man of science and a man of learning. He was of a thinking, inquisitive mind; and, having taught himself arithmetic, in preference to any other science, only because he met with a book of arithmetic and no other, for the same reason he applied himself to mathematical investigations. Whatever he attempted, he attempted with all hio might, and pursued with unwearied diligence. In the day-time, he was employed in husbandry, or in making pipes: and, at night, eagerly betook himself to work the theorems (which word he long used to pronounce theorems) on which, during the day, he had been intensely ruminating. Often has he sat up all night, delineating diagrams; to the serious grief of his parents, who considered only the apparent unprofitableness of such pursuits, and the certain loss of the lump or two of cannel-coal, incurred by his lucubrations. Hardly ever, even in the subsequent more prosperous periods of his life, did he aspire to any thing beyond a rush light. The parents, contented in their ignorance, felt no ambition to have their son pass through life otherwise than they had done, in the midst of hard work and hard fare. And, as his midnight studies, and abstractedness of mind, seemed not to them likely to qualify him either to work more, or to eat less, they thought it their duty, and for his interest, to discountenance and discourage his passion for theorems his books and his slate were hid and he was double-tasked with labour. It was this poor man’s fate to begin and continue through life his pursuit after knowledge, under almost every possible disadvantage: yet difficulties and discouragements seemed but to increase his ardour. He used to relate, with vast self-complacence and satisfaction, a device he had formed, by which he flattered himself he should be permitted to stick to his studies without interruption, at his few intervals of leisure. He married early; and his wife, adopting the opinions and maxims of his parents, was no friend to studies, which appeared to her little likely to lead to any thing that might help to feed and clothe themselves, or their children. Over his house of one room, there was a kind of loft, or hoarded floor, (in Cumberland called a banks), which, however, had neither door, window, nor stairs. Hither, by means of a single rope, which he always drew up after him, he mounted with his book and his slate; and here he went through Euclid. This anecdote (says his biographer) is but simple, yet it is not insignificant.

At about the age of thirty, even his wife began to be persuaded, that learning, according to the old saw, may sometimes be a substitute for house and land, and consented to his relinquishing his manual labours, and setting up as a schoolmaster. For several years, he was a teacher of mathematics of considerable reputation; and many respectable yoimg men were his pupils. Still pursuing knowledge wherever knowledge was to be found, Abraham (now Mr.) Fletcher, became a botanist, as well as a mathematician: but he studied the properties, rather than the classification of plants; and made many experiments to ascertain their medical virtues. Few men, it is believed, have lately made a greater proficiency than he did, in this (now perhaps too much neglected) department of science: and he was soon qualified to commence doctor, as well as schoolmaster. It is true, indeed, he practised chiefly, if not solely, with decoctions, or diet-drinks: yet with these, he either performed, or got the reputation of performing, many extraordinary cures; and had no small practice. Doctor Fletcher was particularly famed for his skill and success in hypochondriacal cases; and, had he been as able to describe, as he was to relieve and cure such cases, many things in this way occurred in his practice, to which even the most learned might have attended with advantage. He was also deeply versant in astrological predictions, and is said to have foretold the time of his own death, within a few days. We have more pleasure, however, in adding that Mr. Fletcher, with all his attention to intellectual attainments, never was inattentive to the duties of his relative station. He was both industrious and economical, and was enabled to leave his large family the sum of 4000l. three-fourths of which were of his own earning. He died Jan. 1, 1793. In 1762 he published a large mathematical work, in 8vo, called “The Universal Measurer,” which, as a collection of mathematical knowledge, is said to possess very great merit.

, an eminent Scotch politician, and ranked among the patriots of that country, was the son of sir Robert Fletcher of Saltown, in Scotland, and was born in 16S3. Being left fatherless while he was a child, he was placed under the tuition of Dr. Gilbert Bunu-t, then rector of Saltown, from whom he is supposed to have imbibed some of those political principles which he afterwards carried to a high degree of enthusiasm. He then spent some years of his youth in foreign travel, and first appeared as a public character in the station of a commissioner for East Lothian in the Scotch parliament, but his opposition to the arbitrary measures of the court, rendered it necessary to withdraw to Holland; and upon being cited to appear by a summons from the lords of the council, which it was known he could not obey, he was outlawed, and his estate confiscated. In 1683 he came over to England to assist, with his friend Mr. Baillie of Jerviswood, in the consultations held among the friends of liberty in England and Scotland, to concert measures for their common security; and by his prudence and address he avoided giving any pretext to the ministry for his apprehension. He returned to the continent, and in 1685 engaged in the enterprise of the duke of Monmouth. He landed in the west of England, but was obliged to quit the country again on account of a dispute which he had with a man who insulted him, and whom he shot dead, his temper being at all times most irascible. From England he went to Spain, and afterwards passed into Hungary, where he engaged in the war with the Turks, and distinguished himself by his valour and skill. The interest which he took in the fate of his country soon brought him back to join in the conferences which were held among the Scotch refugees in Holland, for the purpose of effecting a revolution; and upon that event taking place, he returned to Scotland, and resumed the possession of his estate. He was a member of the convention for the settlement of the new government in Scotland, and in all his political conduct he shewed himself the zealous asserter of the liberties of the people, without any regard to party distinction, and free from all views of his own interest. In 1698 he printed “A Discourse of Government with relation to Militias.” Also “Two Discourses concerning the Affairs of Scotland.” In one of these he suggests a plan for providing for the poor by domestic slavery, a most preposterous plan to be proposed by a friend to liberty. When a bill was brought into the parliament of Scotland for a supply to the crowq, in 1703, he moved that, previously to this, or to any other business, the house should consider what acts were necessary to secure their religion and liberties in case of the queen’s death, and he proposed various limitations of the prerogative, which were received in the “Act of Security,” passed through his exertions into a law, but rendered ineffectual by the subsequent union, to which he was a determined enemy. He died at London in 1716. His publications, and some of his speeches, were collected in one volume octavo, entitled, “The Political Works of Andrew Fletcher, Ksquire,” and his Life was lately published by the earl of Burhan, with a very high panegyric on his political virtues. Another very high character of him may be seen in our authority.

, bishop of Bristol, Worcester, and London, is generally said to have been a native of Kent, and as such is placed by Fuller among the Worthies of that county, where that name has been very common; otherwise, as he was one of the first fellows of Bene‘t college, Cambridge, upon archbishop Parker’s foundation, there would have been reason to suppose him a native either of Norwich or Norfolk, the Parker fellowships being appropriated to the natives of those places. He was, however, a scholar of Trinity college in 1563, where (as he proceeded M. A. and removed to Bene’t college in 1569) he had probably been admitted the year before. On his removing to Bene't, he entered upon the business of pupils, and other offices of the college; and in 1572 went to Oxford, where he was incorporated A. M. In September of that year, he was instituted to the prebend of Islington in th church of St. Paul, London, upon the presentation of Matthew Parker, gent, son to the archbishop, who probably had the patronage of that turn made over to him by bishop Grindal, in order to carry on his father’s scheme of annexing prebends to the fellowships he had founded. Accordingly he held this with his fellowship; and was made president upon Mr. Norgate’s promotion to the mastership the year following, but seems to have left the college soon after, with a testimonial of his learning and good behaviour, as well as of his having acquitted himself with credit in the offices of the college, in the public schools, and in the pulpit. In 1581 he proceeded D. D. and became chaplain to the queen, to whom he had been rero.nmcMiJed by archbishop Whitgift for the deanry of Windsor, but she chose rather to bestow on him that of Peterborough in 1583. In 1585, the prebend of SuttonLonga in the church of Lincoln was given to him, and he was likewise parson of Aidcrkirke in that diocese, and was presented by sir Thomas Cecil to the church of Barnack. Soon after this, he was appointed to attend upon the execution of Mary queen of Scots, at Fotheringhay castle, in which office some biographers have censured him for his endeavouring to bring that unhappy princess over to the protestant religion. In his speech, however, to her, as preserved by Strype, we see nothing more than an honest zeal, which perhaps men of cautious tempers would have reserved for a more promising opportunity.

In 1589, queen Elizabeth, with whom he was in high favour, promoted him to the bishopric of Bristol, and about the same time made him her almoner. Sir John Harrington says that he took this see on condition to lease out the revenues to courtiers, an accusation to which Browne Willis seems inclined to give credit. He was, however, translated to Worcester in 1592, and about two years after that to London, in consequence of his particular solicitation to the lord treasurer. Soon after he was promoted to the see of London, he gave out twenty-seven articles of inquiry to the churchwardens upon his primary visitation; and by these means, according to Neal, many of the nonconformists, or rather puritans, as they were at this time called, suffered imprisonment. But he was soon interrupted in these proceedings, by marrying, for his second wife, the widow of sir John Baker, of Sisingherst in Kent, a very handsome woman. Queen Elizabeth, who had an extreme aversion to the clergy’s marrying, was highly offended at the bishop. She thought it very indecent for an elderly clergyman, a bishop, and one that had already had one wife, to marry a second: and gave such a loose to her indignation, that, not content with forbidding him her presence, she ordered archbishop Whitgift to suspend him from the exercise of his episcopal function, which was accordingly done. He was afterwards restored to his bishopric, and in some measure to the queen’s favour: yet the disgrace sat so heavy on his mind, that it is thought to have hastened his end. He died suddenly in his chair, at his house in London, June 15, 1596; being, to all appearance, well, sick, and dead, in a quarter of an hour. He was an immoderate taker of tobacco; the qualities of which being then not well known, and supposed to have something poisonous in them, occasioned Camden to impute his death to it, as he does in his Annals of Elizabeth’s reign. He was buried in his cathedral, near bishop Aylmer, but without any monument. Of his character it is not easy to form a very favourable judgment, nor does it appear that he is censurable for any great errors, except that he was perhaps too compliant with some of the caprices of his royal mUiress His appearance and person wr re stately, which made him be called Prcsul spttndidus, hut this did not arise from pride, as those who were most intimate with him commended his modesty and humility. There are no works ascribed to his pen, except some regulations for the better government or his diocese, and the reformation of his spiritual courts, which are printed among the records in Collier’s “Ecclesiastical History.” By his first wife, whose name is not known, he had the more celebrated subject of the following article.

, an English dramatic writer, the son of the preceding, is said to have been born in Northamptonshire, in 1576, while his father was dean of Peterborough, but as this does not correspond with his age at the time of his death, it is more probable he was a native of London, a person of that name and place being admitted pensioner of Bene't college, Oct. 15, 1591, when he must have been about fifteen, the usual age of admission in those days. He was made one of the bible clerks in 15i>3, but his further progress in the university cannot be traced, nor how long he remained in it. On his arrival in London he became acquainted, and wrote plays jointly with Beaumont; and Wood says that he assisted Ben Jouson in a comedy called “The Widow.” After Beaumont’s death, which happened in 1615, he is said to have consulted Shirley, in forming the plots of several of nis plays; but which those were, we have no means of discovering. Beaumont and Fletcher, however, wrote plays in concert, though it is not known what share each bore in forming the plots, writing the scenes, &c. and the general opinion is, that Beaumont’s judgment was usually employed in correcting and retrenching the superfluities of Fletcher’s wit. Yet, if Winstanley may be credited, the former had his share likewise in the drama, in forming the plots, and writing the scenes: for that author relates, that these poets meeting once at a tavern, in order to form the rude draught of a tragedy, Fletcher undertook to kill the king; and that his words being overheard by a waiter, they were seized and charged with high treason: till the mistake soon appearing, and that the plot was only against a theatrical king, the affair ended in mirth. Some farther, and perhaps preferable, remarks on their respective shares may be seen in our account of Beaumont (vol. IV.) Fletcher survived Beaumont some years, but died of the plague at London in 1625, and was interred in St. Mary Overy’s church in Southwark . Sir Aston Cockaine among his poems has an epitaph on Fletcher and Massinger, who, he, tells us, he both buried there in one grave though Wood informs us, from the parish-register there, that Massinger was buried, not in the church, but in one of the four yards belonging to it For a judgment upon this author, Edward Philips observes, that “he was one of the happy triumvirate of the chief dramatic poets of our nation in the last foregoing age, among whom there might be said to be a symmetry of perfection, while each excelled in his peculiar way Ben Jonson in his elaborate pains and knowledge of authors Shakspeare in his pure vein of wit and natural poetic height and Fletcher in a courtly elegance and genteel familiarity of style, and withal a wit and invention so overflowing, that the luxuriant branches thereof were fre^ quently thought convenient to be lopped off by his almost inseparable companion Francis Beaumont.” Dryden tells us, that Beaumont and Fletcher’s plays in his time were the most pleasing and frequent entertainments, two of theirs being acted through the year for one of Shakspeare’s or Jonson’s; and the reason he assigns is, because there is a certain gaiety in their comedies, and a pathos in their most serious plays, which suits generally with all men’s humours. The case, however, is now reversed, for Beaumont and Fletcher are not acted above once for fifty times that the plays of Shakspeare are represented. Their merit, however, is undoubted; and though it could not avert the censure of the cynical Rymer, has been acknowledged by our greatest poets. Their dramas are full of fancy and variety, interspersed with beautiful passages of genuine poetry; but there is not the nice discrimination of character, nor the strict adherence to nature, that we justly admire in Shakspeare. Some of Beaumont and Fletcher’s plays were printed in 4to, during the lives of their authors; and in 1645, twenty years after Fletcher’s death, there was published a folio collection of them. The first edition of all their plays, amounting to upwards of fifty, was published in 1679, folio. Another edition was published in 1711, in seven volumes, 8vo. Another in 1751, in ten volumes, 8vo. Another by Colman, also in ten volumes, in 1778.

, brother to bishop Fletcher, and a native of the same county, was a very ingenious man. He received his education at Eton; and, in 1565, was elected thence to KingVcollege in Cambridge, where he took a bachelor’s of arts degree in 1596, a master’s in 1573, and that of LL. D. in 1581. He was, says Wood, an excellent poet, and a very accomplished man; and his abilities recommending him to queen Elizabeth, he was employed by her as a commissioner into Scotland, Germany, and the Low Countries. Of his poetical talent, however, no proofs are known to be extant. In 1588, he was sent ambassador to Russia; not only to conclude a league with the emperor there, but also to re-establish and put into good order the decayed trade of our Russia company. He met, at first, with a cold reception, and even rough usage: for the Dutch, envying the exclusive privilege which the Russia company enjoyed of trading thither, had excited prejudices against them: and a false rumour then spread, of our fleet being totally destroyed by the Spanish armada, had created in the czar a contempt for the English, and a presumption that he might safely injure those who were not in a capacity to take revenge. But the ambassador soon effaced those impressions; and having obtained advantageous conditions, returned to England with safety and honour. Fuller says, that upon his arrival at London, “he sent for an intimate friend, with whom he heartily expressed his thankfulness to God for his safe return from so great a danger. For the poets cannot fancy Ulysses more glad to be come out of the den of Polyphemus, than he was to be rid of the power of such a barbarous prince: who counting himself, by a proud and voluntary mistake, emperor of all nations, cared not for the law of all nations; and who was so habited in blood, that, had he cut off this ambassador’s head, he and his friends might have sought their own amends, but the question is, where they would have found it.” Shortly after his return, he was made secretary to the city of London, and a master of the Court of Requests: and, in June 1597, treasurer of St. Paul’s. This worthy person died in 1610, in the parish of St. Catherine Colman, Fenchurch-street; and was probably buried in that church. From the observations he had made during his embassy into Russia, he drew up a curious account, “Of the Russe Commonwealth: or manner of Government by the Russe Emperor, commonly called the Emperor of Moskovia, with the manners and fashions of the people of that country,” 1590, 8vo. This work was quickly suppressed, lest it might give offence to a prince in amity with England: but it was reprinted in 1643, 12mo, and is inserted in Hakluyt’s “Navigations, Voyages,” &c. vol. I. only a little contracted. Camden, speaking of this book, styles it “libellum in quo plurima observanda.” Dr. Fletcher also wrote, “A Discourse concerning the Tartars,” the object of which was to prove that they are the Israelites, or ten tribes, which being captivated by Salmanasser, were transplanted into Media. This opinion was afterwards adopted by Whiston, who printed the discourse in the first volume of his curious “Memoirs.”

The works of Phineas Fletcher, including the “Purple Island, or the Isle of Man;” the * Piscatory Eclogues;“and Miscellanies, were published at Cambridge in 1633, 4to. The only part that has been correctly reprinted is the” Piscatory Eclogues,“published at Edinburgh in 1771, by an anonymous editor. There are few of the old poets whom Mr. Headley seems more anxious to revive than Phinean Fletcher, and he has examined his claims to lasting fame with much acuteness, yet, perhaps, not without bomewhat of that peculiar prejudice which seems to pervade many of the critical essays of this truly ingenious and amiable young man. Having at a very early period of life commenced the perusal of the ancient English poets, his enthusiasm carried him back to their times, their imbits, and their language. Froai pardoning their quaintnesses, he proceeded to admire them, and has in some instances placed among the most striking proofs of invention, many of those antitheses and conceits which modern refinement does not easily tolerate. Stiil, taste and judgment are generally predominant in the following criticism.” Were the celebrated Mr. Pott compelled to read a lecture upon the anatomy of the human frame at large, in a regular set of stanzas, it is much to be questioned whether he could make himself understood by the most apprehensive author, without the advantage of professional knowledge. FJetrher seems to have undertaken a nearly similar task, as the rive first cantos of The Purple Island are almost entirely taken up with an explanation of the title; in the course of which the reader forgets the poet, and is sickened' with the anatomist. Such minute attention to this part of the subject was a material error in judgment; for which, however, ample amends is made in what follows. Nor is Fletcher wholly undeserving of praise for the intelligibility with which he has struggled through his difficulties, for his uncommon command of words, and facility of metre. After describing the body, he proceeds to personify the passions and intellectual faculties. Here fatigued attention is not merely relieved, but fascinated and enraptured; and notwithstanding his figures, in many instances, are too arbitrary and fantastic in their habiliments, often disproportioned and over-done, sometimes lost in a superfluity of glaring colours, and the several characters, in general, by no means sufficiently kept apart; yet, amid such a profusion of images, many are distinguished by a boldness of outline, a majesty of manner, a brilliancy of colouring, a distinctness and propriety of attribute, and an air of life, that we look for in vain in modern productions, and that rival, if not surpass, what we meet with of the kind even in Spenser, from whom our author caught his inspiration. After exerting his creative powers on this department of his subject, the virtues and better qualities of the heart, under their leader Eclecta, or Intellect, are attacked by the vices: a battle ensues, and the latter are vanquished, after a vigorous opposition, through the interference of an angel, who appears at the prayers of Eclecta. The poet here abruptly takes an opportunity of paying a fulsome, and unpardonable compliment to James the First (stanza 55, canto 12), on that account perhaps the most unpalatable passage in the book. From Fletcher’s dedication of this his poem, with the Piscatory Eclogues and Miscellanies, to his friend Edmund Beniowes, it seems that they were written very early? as he calls them ' raw essays of ray very unripe years, and almost childhood.* It is to his honour that Milton read and imitated him, as every attentive reader or* both poets must soon discover. He is eminently entitled to a very high rank among our old English classics. Quarles, in his verses prefixed to The Purple Island, hints that he had a poem on a similar subject in agitation, but was prevented from pursuing it by finding it had got into other hands. In a map to one of his Emblems are these names of places, London, Finchfield, Roxwell, and Httgay: edit. 1669."

That Mr. Headley is not blind to the defects of his favourite will farther appear from his remarks on Orpheus and Eurydice in The Purple Island. “These lines of Fletcher are a paraphrase, or rather a translation from Boethius. The whole description is forcible: some of the circumstances perhaps are heightened too much; but it is the fault of this writer to indulge himself in every aggravation that poetry allows, and to stretch his prerogative of 4 quidlibet audendi' to the utmost.”

Fleury, though a zealous divine of the Romish church, was by no means a bigot. He has the reputation of a philosopher as well as a divine, and a philosopher in practice as well as speculation. He is said to have taken an extreme delight in reading Plato; and, after the example of this great ancient, would often have private conferences with societies of the learned, which chiefly turned on the illustration of the scriptures. He was a great lover of solitude, yet was not reserved, but would speak his mind freely upon the most important and even delicate subjects. Constantly attentive to, and punctual in the discharge of his duty, he took no steps to be rich or great, cherished no principles of ambition, but preferred the glory of doing useful services to his country, to any honours which his uncommon talents and merit might justly have claimed.

His works were numerous, and all excellent in their kinds. He wrote, I. “Mceurs des Israelites,” “Manners of the Israelites,” a masterly picture of the lives of holy men under the first covenant, which has been published in English. This was followed by, 2. “Mceurs des Chretiens,” “Manners of Christians,” since united with the other in a single volume; and as excellent an introduction to ecclesiastical, as the other is to sacred history. 3. “Ecclesiastical History,” in 13 vols. 4to, or 20 vols. 12mo, containing an account of the Christian church from the earliest times to the council of Constance in 1414, a very elaborate and valuable work, but written in a negligent style, mixed with Greek and Latin idioms. The most valuable part (for the facts may be met with elsewhere) is the preliminary dissertations, which contain the result of profound meditation, on the most important subjects connected with church history. These have been printed separately in one volume, 12mo. 4. “Institution of Ecclesiastical Law,” 2 vols. 12mo, a work, to which it has been chiefly objected that it is too concise. 5. te Historical Catechism,“one vol. 12mo, an excellent introduction for children 5 with a preliminary discourse fit to rank with those in the ecclesiastical history. 6.” A Treatise on the choice and method of Studies.“7.” Duties of Masters and Servants.“8.” The Life of La Mere d'Arbouse,“who reformed the convent of Val-de-Grace, 12mo. 9. ”Portrait of the duke of Burgundy,“1714, 12mo. 10.” Treatise on Public Law,“a posthumous work, in 2 vols. 12mo, important and excellent in its matter, but not completed by the la^t touches of the author. An edition of his works, except the ecclesiastical history, was published at Ntsmes, in 1781, in 5 vols. 8vo. There was another learned Fleury, who published the Delphin edition of Apuleius, in two volumes, quarto, under the name of” Julian us Floridus," his real name being Julian Fleury. He began Ausomus also, but it was not completed. He died Sept. 13, 1725.

, a dissenting clergyman of considerable learning and industry, was born Feb. 22, 1707-8, at Great Torrington, in Devonshire, where his father was a manufacturer. He discovered a very early inclination for the ministry, and such was his proficiency in classical learning, that, at the age of fifteen he was admitted into the academy at Tiverton, under the rev. John Moore, who, on finishing his studies, solicited his assistance in the conduct of that institution. This, however, he declined, and in pursuance of his original intentions, was ordained in 1730 at Modbury, whence he soon removed to Crediton, and afterwards to Chard, and in 1739 to Bradford, Wilts. In 1747 he arrived in the metropolis, and became the pastor of a congregation at Rotherhithe, in which station he continued until his hearers, by death, or otherwise, declined so much in numbers, that he thought proper to resign in 17S3. He continued, however, for time time to preach occasionally at a morning lecture in St. Helen’s, Bishojisgate-street, and eisewh^re; but in his latter years his health and faculties were so much impaired as to render the performance of his public duties no longer possible. He died June 14, 1795, at the very advanced age of eighty-eight.

, or Frodoard, a French historian, was born in the year 894, at Epernai, and afterwards had preferment in the church of Rheims, where he wrote a chronicle, which extends from the year 919 to 966, and a history of the church of Rheims, regularly continued from its foundation to the year 949. The best edition is tij.it of 1617. Flodoard was also a poet. He composed in verse the history of the popes, as far as Leo VII. and the triumphs of Jesus Christ and the saints, in nineteen bonks. He was once near being promoted to be bishop of Noyon, but was disappointed. He died in the year 966, at the age of seventy-three.

When the revolution took place, Florian retired to Seaux, hoping that in that retreat, as he confined himself entirely to his studies, he would be overlooked in the general proscription of men of talents; but he was known to have been the intimate of a nobleman, and upon the simple niandat of the infamous Robespierre, he was arrested. His judges reproached him with having prefixed to his “Numa” some verses in praise of the queen; and upon this accusation, he was dragged to prison. Here he began the first book of his “Guillaume Tell,” a poem, the admirers of which must regret that it was not completed. In this prison, also Florian finished his poem entitled “Kbrahim,” in four cantos; a work replete with beauties, in which are depicted with the pencil of Fenelon, fraternal affection, patriarchal virtue, noble jealousy, and the passion of love in all its strength and delicacy. This Hebrew poem was among all his productions the favourite work of Florian; and that which, at the same time that it afforded him the most pleasure in composing it, was also written with the greatest facility. At length, however, the overthrow of Robespierre renovated the hopes, and re-animated the courage of his victims. Among the rest, Florian, who had long considered himself devoted to death, was released, and again retired to the country; but whether from the agitation of his mind in prison, or from the confinement and unwholesome food, he soon fell into a decline, which proved fatal Sept. 13, 1794. Florian’s works consist of short dramas, novels, and pastorals, written witb. great attention to nature and simplicity, butupon the whole, we think better adapted to afford pleasure to his countrymen, than to those who look for more vigour of genius, and less of the sickly sentimental style. So many of them, however, have been introduced to the knowledge of the English reader by translations, that it is not necessary to enlargemuch on their beauties or defects. His pastoral romances, “Estelle,” “Galathea,” &c. are unquestionably the most favourable specimens of his genius; but we doubt the perpetuity of their popularity without those peculiar charms which can be conveyed only in their original language. His “Fahles” have been much admired in France, and esteemed the best since the days, of Fontaine. In all his works he preserves that attention to benevolence and moral feeling which distinguished him in his life.

, a painter of history, was born at Antwerp in 1520, but practised the art of sculpture till he was twenty years of age, when he changed his profession, and studied painting under Lambert Lombard. He afterwards went to Rome, and copied the works of the ancients; but was particularly struck with the works of Michel Angelo Buonaroti, which he imitated with great zeal, particularly his Last Judgment; but, probably from want of a comprehensive genius, attended more to the parts than die whole. Such was his success, however, in his general improved style of painting on his return to his native city, that it acquired for him the honourable appellation of the “Raphael of Flanders,” though his style of design is certainly more in imitation of M. Angelo than of Raphael. He painted for the contrafestivity hail of St. Michael, at Antwerp, a large picture, now at the Louvre, at Paris. The subject is, " The Fall of Lucifer and his Angels/' It is highly celebrated for the goodness of the composition and handling, for the variety of attitudes in the fallen angels, and for the strong expression of the muscles in the naked figures. In fact it is a very curious picture, painted with great capacity, and exhibits a powerful, though eccentric, imagination. The fiends in M. Angelo’s Last Judgment are not more horrible, or nearly so grotesque. The power of colour also is admirable, and in some parts has been rarely surpassed. He had a strong and bold manner, and, like his great model Buonaroti, marked the muscular parts too full for a just imitation of nature. He invented and composed with ease, but in a dry and gothic manner; and though sometimes his figures have an agreeable air, yet in general they possess a reprehensible degree of the stiffness and formality peculiar to the age and country he lived in. There are some etchings by him, which, though slight, are bold and spirited. He died in 1570, aged 50.

Floras, however, has given a very concise and elegant history of Rome, from its foundation to its settlement under Augustus; has described it in a very agreeable and picturesque manner; and has scattered throughout his narrative reflections, which shew a force of parts and judgment, and raise him above the common level of writers. Some have doubted, whether Florus in this history did not mean to give an epitome of Livy: but there seems no just ground for such an opinion, the method followed by the historian being very different from that of an epitomizer. Others have accused Florus of contriving the loss of Livy’s history, for the sake of enhancing the value of his own abridgment: as if it could have been in the power of any single man, or indeed any body of men whatever, to produce an effect of so extensive a nature.

There have been several editions of this author. Madame Dacier, then M. le Fevre, published him in 4to, for the use of the dauphin, at Paris, in 1674. Graevius gave another edition in 1680, 8vo, which was afterwards republished at Amsterdam, in 1702, with great improvements and ornaments, in 2 vols. 8vo. The best edition is that of Duker, 2 vols. 8vo, printed in 1722, and again in 1744, or perhaps that of Fischer, printed at Leipsic, 1760, 8vo. To most of the editions of Florus since the Elzevir of 1638, has been added Ampelius’s “Liber Memorialist Of this author we have no information. Respecting the first edition of Florus, bibliographers are very much at variance. There are five editions, all without dates, but the majority of bibliographers have determined in favour of the edition in 4to, printed at Paris by Gering, Crantz, and Friburger, between the years 1470 and 1472, which, as well as the other four early editions, being in lord Spencer’s library, we can refer the reader with some confidence, to Mr. Dibdin’s magnificent” Bibliotheca Spenceriana," now in the press, where they are minutely and accurately described.

, or de Fluctibus, an English philosopher, was the son of sir Thomas Fludd, knight, sometime treasurer of war to queen Elizabeth in France and the Low Countries; and was born at Milgate, in the parish of Bearsted, in Kent, in 1574. He was admitted of St. John’s-college, Oxford, in 1591; and having taken both the degrees in arts, applied himself to physic. He then spent six years in travelling through France, Spain, Italy, and Germany: in most of which countries he not only became acquainted with several of the nobility, but read lectures to them. After his return, being in high repute for his chemical knowledge, he accumulated the degrees of bachelor and doctor of physic. This was in 1605; about which time he practised in London, and became fellow of the college of physicians. He did not begin to publish till 1616, but afterwards became a voluminous writer, being the author of about twenty works, mostly written in Latin, and as dark and mysterious in their language, as in their matter. Some of his productions were aimed against Kepler and Mersennus; and he had the honour of replies from both those philosophers. He wrote two books against Mersennus; the first entitled “Sophias cum Moria certamen, in quo lapis Lydius, a falso structore Patre Marino Mersenno Monacho reprobatus, celeberrima voluminis sui Babylonici in Genesim figmenta accuratæ examinat.” Franc. 1629, folio. The second, “Summum Bonorum, quod est verum Magiae, Cabalae, Alchymije, Fratrum Roseug Crucis Verorum, subjectum: in dictarum scientiarum laudem, in insignis calumniatoris Fr. Mar. Mersenni dedecus publicatum, per Joachim. Frizium,” 1629, folio. Mersennus desiring Gassendus to give his judgment on these two books of Fludd against him, that great man drew up an answer divided into three parts: the first of which sifts the principles of Fludd’s whimsical philosophy, as they lie scattered throughout his works the second is against “Sophiae cum Moria certamen” and the third against “Summum Bonorum,” &c. This answer, called “Examen Fluddanae Philosophise,” is dated Feb. 4, 1629, and is printed in the third volume of Gassendus’s works in folio. In the dedication to Merseniius, this antagonist fairly allows Fludd the merit of extensive learning. His other works were: 1. “Utriusque Cosmi, majoris et minoris, Technica Historia,” Oppenheim, 1617, in two volumes foiio. 2. “Tractatus Apologeticus integritatena societatis de Rosea cruce defendens,” Leyden, 1617. 3. “Monochordon mundi symphoniacum, eu Replicatio ad Apologiam Joannis Kepleri,” Francfort, 1620. 4. “Anatomise Theatrum triplici effigie designatum,” ibid. 1623. 5. “Philosophia Sacra et vere Christiana, seu Meteorologia Cosmica,” ibid, 1626. 6, “Mediclna Cathotica, sen, Mysticum artis Medicandi Sacrarium,” ibid. 1626. 7. “Integrum Morborum Mysterium,” ibid. 1631. 8. “De Morborum Signis,” ibid. 1631. These two treatises are a part of the Medicina Catholica. 9. “Clavis Philosophise et Alchyrniae Fluddanse,” ibid. 1633. 10. “Philosophia Mosa'ica,” Goudae, 1638. 11. “Pathologia Daemoniaca,” ibid. 1640.

So peculiar was this philosopher’s turn of mind, that there was nothing which ancient or modern times could afford, under the notion of occult wisdom, which he did not eagerly gather into his magazine of science. All the mysterious and incomprehensible dreams of the Cabbalists and Paracelsians, he compounded into a new mass of absurdity. In hopes of improving the medical and chemical arts, he devised a new system of physics, loaded with wonderful hypothesis, and mystical fictions. He supposed two universal principles, the northern or condensing power, and the southern, or rarefying power. Over these he placed innumerable intelligences and geniuses, and called together whole troops of spirits from the four winds, to whom he committed the charge of diseases. He applied his thermometer to discover the harmony between the macrocosm and the microcosm, or the world of nature and of man he introduced many marvellous fictions into natural philosophy and medicine he attempted to explain the Mosaic cosmogony, in a work entitled “Philosophia Mosaica,” wherein he speaks of three first principles, darkness, as the first matter; water, as the second matter; and the divine light, as the most central essence, creating, informing, vivifying all things of secondary principles, two active, cold and heat and two passive, moisture and dryness and describes the whole mystery of production and corruption, of regeneration and resurrection, with such vague conceptions and obscure language, as leaves the subject involved in impenetrable darkness. Some of his ideas, such as they were, appear to have been borrowed from the Cabbalists and Alexandrian Platonists. The reader will easily judge, what kind of light may be expected from the writings of Robert Fludd, when he is informed that he ascribes the magnetic virtue to the irradiation of angels. Fludd died at his house in Coleman-street, London, in 1637, and was sent to Bearsted for interment.

, a celebrated physician, was bofti at Mentz, in 1528, and educated at Paris, where he acquired a taste for the works of the Greek physicians, under ins preceptors Houllier and Goupile, who facilitated his progress in that course of study, by procuring books and Mss. for his perusal and under whose direction he copied some very ancient manuscripts of Hippocrates from the library of Fontainbleau and the Vatican, but his narrow circumstances obliged him to return for practice to Mentz about 1556 or 7, where his reputation became so great, even in distant provinces, that several princes endeavoured by promises of great honour and emolument, to draw him from his native place; but his attachment to it was immoveable. During his practice, he found leisure to peruse the works of Hippocrates, in which he thought he discovered the most important observations relative to diseases, and the most correct delineation of their nature and progress. This produced his first work, printed at Basil in 1650, entitled “Hippocratis Coi Liber secundus de morbis vulgaribus, difficillimus et pulcherrimus: olim a Galeno Commentariis illustratus qui temporis injurid, interciderunt; nunc vero pene in integrum restitutus Commentariis sex, et Latinitate donatus,” 8vo. In the following year he published a “Pharmacopeia medicamentorum omnium, quie hodie ad publica medentium munia in officinis extant, tractationem et usum ex antiquorum Medicorum pnescripto continens,” Basilea), 1561, 8vo. His constant meditations on the works of Hippocrates again produced “GEconomia Hippocratis alphabet! serie distincta, in qua dictionum apud Hippocratem omnium, pra?­jsertim obscurionnn, usus explicatur, et velut ex amplissimo penu depromitur: ita ut Lexicon Hippocraticum merito dici possit,” Francofurti, 1588, folio; Geneva, 1662, folio. Afterwards, at the request of his learned contemporaries, he published a complete and correct edition of the whole works of Hippocrates, entitled “Magni Hippocratis, Medicorum omnium facile Principis, Opera omnia Cjiub extant, in octo sectiones ex Erotiani uiente distributa: nunc recens Latina interpretatione et aiinotationibus iliustrata,” folio, Francofurti, 1593, &c. Geneva;, 1657. Foesius did not long survive this laborious undertaking: he died in 1595, and his talents were inherited by his son and grandson, who successively filled his station as physician at Metz.

, the first king of China, is said to have founded this empire about two hundred years after the deluge. He was originally of the province of Xen Si, whence he removed the seat of empire to Chin Cheu. He was the first who taught the Chinese the advantages of civil society. He invented instruments of music, and established laws and ordinances. He regulated the commerce between male and female, which before was promiscuous, and suffered none of the same name and family to intermarry, which custom is observed to this day. He instituted religious services and sacrifices, some of which were dedicated to the sovereign spirit, who governs heaven and earth, others to inferior spirits, whom he supposed to preside over mountains, rivers, and particular countries. This prince is said to have reigned no less than a hundred and fifteen years. The Chinese impute to him the invention of several things, which at this day -ire much revered among them: but there is probably much fable in the history of this prince. An ancient book, called “Yekin,” which is still preserved in China, is ascribed to Fohi; written in hieroglyphics, of which no one has been able to give a satisfactory explanation. The most probable conjecture is that of Leibnitz, that it was intended to teach the art of numeration. Fohi was succeeded by several emperors, who carried forward the work of civilization, particularly by means of moral allegories, fables, and poems. Mr. Bryant supposes Fohi to have been Adam, and his successors Sim Noo, or Sin Nura, and Hoam Ti, to have been Noah and Ham.

, an eminent French officer and author, famous for his skill and knowledge in the military art, was born at Avignon, in 1669, of a noble but not a rich family. He discovered early a happy turn for the sciences, and a strong passion for arms; which last was so inflamed by reading Cxsar’s Commentaries, that he actifally enlisted at sixteen years of age, and although his father obtained his discharge, and shut him up in a monastery, he made his escape in about two years after, and entered himself a second time in quality of cadet. His inclination for military affairs, and the great pains he took to accomplish himself in every branch of the art, recommended him to notice; and he was admitted into the friendship of the first-rate officers. M. de Vendome, who commanded in Italy in 1720, made him his aid-de-camp, having conceived the highest regard for him; and soon after sent him with part of his forces into Lombardy. He was entirely trusted by the commander of that army; and no measures were concerted, or steps taken, without consulting him. By pursuing his plans, many places were taken, and advantages gained; and his services were remunerated by a pension of four hundred livres, and the cross of St. Lewis. He distinguished himself greatly, Aug. 15, 1705, at the battle of Cassano; where he received such a wound upon his left hand, as entirely deprived him of the use of it. M. de Vendome, to make him some amends, tried to have him made a colonel, but did not succeed. It was at this battle, that Folard conceived the first idea of that system of columns, which he afterwards prefixed to his Commentaries upon Poly bins.

The duke of Orleai6 sending de Vendome again into Italy in 1706, Folard had orders to throw himself into Modena, to defend it against prince Eugene; where he acquitted himself with his usual skill, but was very near being assassinated. The description which he has given of the conduct and character of the governor of this town, may be found in his “Treatise of the Defence of Places,” and deserves to be read. He received a dangerous wound on the thigh at the battle of Blenheim, or Malplaquet, and was some time after made prisoner by prince Eugene. Being exchanged in 1711, he was made governor of Bourbourg. In 1714, he went to Malta, to assist in defending that island against the Turks. Upon his return to France, he embarked for Sweden, having a passionate desire to see Charles XII. He acquired the esteem and confidence of that celebrated monarch, who sent him to France to negociate the reestablishment of Jarnes II. upon the throne of England; but, that project being dropped, he returned to Sweden, followed Charles XII. in his expedition to Norway, and served under him at the siege of Frederickshall, where that prince was killed, Dec. 11, 1718. Folard then returned to France, and made his last campaign in 1719, under the duke of Berwick, in quality of colonel. From that time he applied himself intensely to the study of the art military, as far as it could be studied at home; and built his theories upon the foundation of his experience and observations. He contracted an intimacy with count Saxe, who, he then declared, would one day prove a very great general. He was chosen a fellow of the royal society at London, in 1749; and in 1751, made a journey to Avignon, where he died in 1752, aged eighty-three years. He was the author of several works, the principal of which are, 1. “Commentaries upon Polybius,” in 6 vols. 4to. 2. “A Book of new Discoveries in War.” 3. “A Treatise concerning the Defence of Places, &c.” in French. Those who would know more of this eminent soldier, may consult a French work entitled, “Memoires pour servir a THistoire de M. de Chevalier de Folard. Ratisbone, 1753,” 12mo. As a man of letters, he drew his knowledge from ancient authors, which as a military man he explains with great clearness. The form of his writings is not so pleasing as the matter. The abundance of his ideas led him into too great a profusion of words. His style is negligent, his reflections detached, and his digressions either useless, or too long; but he was undoubtedly a man of genius.

, more known by his assumed name of Merlin Coccaio, was born Nov. 8, 1491, of a noble family at Mantua studied the languages under Virago Coccaio and then went to Bologna, where he cultivated philosophy under Peter Pomponatius. His preceptor, Coceaio, accompanied him there, but his taste and vivacity of genius led him to poetry, and defeated the endeavours of ins master to fix him to serious studies. His first work was a poem, entitled, “Orlandino,” in which he took the name of Limerno Pictoco. It displays considerable vigour of imagination, and may be read with pleasure. He afierwards was obliged, as well as his master, to quit Bologna precipitately, to avoid being apprehended, but what was the subject of the proceeding against him is not known. His father not leceiving him kindly, he entered into the army, but grew tired of it, and became a Benedictine in the monastery of St. Euphemia, where healready had a brother. Folengo here indulged his vein for satire and burlesque, by which he attracted the enmity of his brethren, who would have made him feel their resentment had he not been very powerfully protected. He died in 1544, aged fifty-one, at his priory, della Santa Croc e, near Bassano. The most known among his works is, 1. the “Opus Macaronicum,” printed at Venice in 1651, &c. written in that kind of mock Latin, made up of vernacular words and expressions, which has since been called from this original, macaronic. It is, however, an easy species of wit, and in a man of any abilities requires only that he should condescend to attempt it to ensure tfce greatest degree of success. He named it macaronic, from Maccherone, a gross feeder, or buffoon; a violent eater of macaroni. His poem was received with abundant ap plause, in an age much addicted to pedantic buffoonery. It must be confessed, that he sometimes rises a little above his burlesque style, to intersperse moral and characteristic reflections. A few more of his productions are also known. 52. “Caos del Tri per uno;” a poem on the three ages of man, and including much of his own history, but in a style more extravagant than his “Orlandino, 1527. 3.” La Humanita del Figlio di Dio, in ottava rima," Vinegia, 1533. This was written as some atonement for the licentiousness of his former writings, but probably had fewer readers. Many other works by him are mentioned by his, biographers, which are now confined to the libraries of the curious.

On the death of Algernon, duke of Somerset, president of the society of antiquaries, in Feb. 1750, Mr. Folkes, then one of the vice-presidents, was immediately chosen to succeed his grace in that office, in which he was continued by the charter of incorporation of that society, Nov. 2, 1751. But he was soon disabled from presiding in person, either in that or the royal society, being seized on Sept. 26th of the same year, with a palsy, which deprived him of the use of his left side. In this unhappy situation he languished nearly three years, till a second stroke put an end to his life, June 28, 1754, and was buried near his father and mother at Hillington church, under a black marble slab, with no inscription but his name and the date, pursuant to the express direction of his last will. By his wife, Lucretia Bradshaw, an actress on the stage before he married her, he left issue two daughters.

Mr. Folkes was a man of great modesty, affability, and integrity; a friend to merit, and an ornament to literature among others whom he zealously patronized, were Edwards the ornithologist, and Norden the Danish traveller. His library was large and well-chosen, and his cabinet enriched with a collection of English coins, of great extent and value. The manuscripts of his composition, which were not a few, and upon points of great curiosity and importance, not having received from him that revision and completion which he was capable of giving them, were expressly directed by him to be suppressed, an injunction which the public has probably great reason to regret. His knowledge was very extensive, his judgment exact and accurate, and the precision of his ideas appeared from the perspicuity and conciseness of his style on abstruse and difficult topics, and especially in his speeches at the. anniversary elections of the royal society on the delivery of the prize medals, in which he always traced out the rise and progress of the several inventions for which they were assigned as a reward. He had turned his thoughts to the study of antiquity and the polite arts with a philosophical spirit, which he hid contracted by the cultivation of the mathematical sciences in his youth. His talents appeared to greatest advantage upon the subjects of coins, weights, and measures, which had been extremely perplexed by other writers, for wan-t of a moderate share of arithmetic; in the prosecution of which he produced many arguments and proofs, which were the results of his own experiments and observations on common things, not sufficiently attended to, or seen with less distinguishing and penetrating eyes by others. He had a striking resemblance to Peiresk, particularly in some parts of his character represented by the elegant writer of that great man’s life. The generosity of his temper was no less remarkable than the politeness and vivacity of his conversation. His love of a studious and contemplative life, amidst a circle of friends of the same disposition, disinclined him in a very high degree to the business and hurry of a public one; and his only ambition was to distinguish himself by his zeal and activity for the promotion of science and literature. The sale of his library, prints, coins, &c. in 1756, lasted fifty-six days, and produced the sum of 3090l. 5s. A fine monument was erected (in 1792) to his memory in Westminster Abbey, in a window on the south side of the choir, opposite to Thynne’s monument

, a celebrated Portuguese Jesuit, was born about 1528, at Cortisada. He taught philosophy at Coimbra, and theology at Evora, where he took a doctor’s degree, 1570, held several important offices in his order, and laboured zealously fora reformation of manners in Portugal. He died November 4, 1599, at Lisbon, aged seventy-one, or, as others say, in 1619, He left various philosophical works and his “Metaphysics,” 4 torn. fol. claims the glory of having first invented the opinion of the Middle Science, which being afterwards adopted by Molina, excited a violent controversy between his followers and the Dominicans and Jansenists, who maintained the doctrine of St. Augustine relative to the divine prescience.

Though his disposition was exceedingly averse to confinement, or restraint of any kind, yet, to oblige his parents, he consented to marry; and, though the most unfeeling and insensible of mortals, was yet so far captivated by the wit and beauty of his \\ne, that he entertained a high opinion of her judgment, and never undertook any considerable work without consulting her. The dutchess of Bouillon, however, niece to cardinal Mazarine, being banished to Chateau-Thierry, Fontaine was presented to her, and had the happiness to please her; and this, added to a desire of conversing with the wits, tempted him to follow her when she was recalled to Paris. Here the intendant Fouquet soon procured him a pension, which he enjoyed in great comfort without troubling himself at all about his wife, or, perhaps, even reflecting that he had one. Upon the disgrace of this minister, he was admitted as gentleman to Henrietta of England; but the death of this princess put an end to all his court hopes, if, indeed, he was susceptible of hope. After this, among other favours from the most illustrious persons in the kingdom, the generous and witty madam de la Sabliere furnished him with an apartment and all necessaries in her house; who, one day, having hastily turned away all her servants, declared that she had kept but three animals in her house, which were her dog, her cat, and La Fontaine. In this situation he continued twenty years, during which time he became perfectly acquainted with all the wits of his time, with Moliere, Racine, Boileau, Chapelle, &c.

The delights of Paris, and the conversation of thess friends, did not hinder him from paying a visit to his wife every September; but that these visits might be of some use, he never failed to sell a house, or piece of land, so that, with his wife’s expences and his own, a handsome family estate was nearly consumed. His Parisian friends urged him frequently to go and live with his wife, saying, that it was a shame to separate himself from a woman of her merit and accomplishments and, accordingly, he set out with a purpose of reconciling himself to her and, arriving at the town, inquired at his house for her. The servant, not knowing him, said, “She was gone to church;” upon which he immediately returned to Paris; and, when his friends inquired about his reconciliation, answered, that “he had been to see his wife, but was told she was at church.” Upon the death of madam de la Sabliere, he was invited to England by the dutchess of Mazarine, and the celebrated St. Evremond, who promised him all the comforts and sweets of life: but the difficulty of learning the English language, together with the liberality of some great persons at home, made him lay aside all thoughts of this journey. In 1692 he was seized with a dangerous illness: and when the priest came to talk to him about religion, concerning which he had lived in an extreme carelessness, though without being actually an infidel or a libertine, Fontaine told him that ' he had lately bestowed some hours in reading the New Testament, which he thought a very good book.“Being brought to a clearer knowledge of ivligions truths, the priest represented to him, that he lia.l intelligence of a certain dramatic piece of his, which was soon to be acted; but that Ik-could not be admitted to the sacraments of the church i.nless he suppressed it. This appeared too rigid, and Font.iinc appealed to the Soi bonne; who confirming what the priest had said, Fontaine threw the piece into the fire, without keeping even a copy. The priest then laid before him the evil tendency of his Tales, which are written in a loose and wanton manner; told him, that while the French language subsisted, they would be a most dangerous sedueement to vice; and further added, that he could not administer the sacraments tu him unless he would promise to make a public acknowledgment of his fault at the time of receiving, a public acknowledgment before the academy, of which he was a member, in case he recovered, and to suppress the book to the utmost of his power. Fontaine thought these terms very hard, but at length yielded to them all. On these accounts some have compared him to Peter Aretin, who, though the most libertine of all writers, became at last a very saint, and wrote nothing but books of piety. But it is certain that Fontaine did not resemble Aretin in writing pious books; and many, among whom is Baillet in particular, doubt the truth of those stories which are related concerning his repentance. He affected, indeed, some degree of repentance, and vowed to renounce his libertine manner in a dedication to his patroness, madam de la Sabliere but, notwithstanding this, he relapsed again, writing tales with his usual gaiety and the excuse he makes” for this inconstancy, when he calls himself “Tho Butterfly of Parn-.issus,” savours more of the poet than the Christian. He did not die till April 13, 1695; when, if we believe some, he was found with that implement of superstitious mortification, an hair-shirt on.

Beside “Tales,” he was the author of “Fables;” and in both he has merited the title of an original writer, who is, and probably will ever be, single in his kind. In his subjects indeed, he has made great use of the Greek, and Larin, and French, and Italian authors; but he is truly original in his manner, which is so easy, so natural, so simple, so delicate, that it does not seem possible to exceed it. His compositions have much nature, entirely devoid of affectation: his wit seems unstudied, and so much pleasantry is hardly to be met with. He never grows languid or heavy, but is always new and surprising*. His Tales are said to have been a great while the cause of his exclusion from the French academy; but at last, upon his writing a letter to a prelate of that society, wherein he declared his dissatisfaction for the liberties he had taken, and his resolution that his pen should never relapse, he was received into that body with marks of esteem. His first Fables are more valued than his last he seems to have thrown the best of his fire and force into them and both the one and the other have more sobriety and correctness than his Tales.

His life had as little of affectation in it as his writings: he was all nature, approaching to the extreme of simplicity or even stupidity, without a grain of art. He had a son, whom, after keeping a short time at. home, he recommended to the patronage of the president Harlay. Fontaine, being one day at a house where this son was come, did not know him again, but observed to the company, that he thought him a boy of parts and spirit. Being told that this promising youth was no other than his own son, he answered very unconcernedly, “Ha truly I am glad on't.” This apathy, which so many philosophers have vainly affected, was perfectly natural to Fontaine; it ran through every part of his behaviour, and seemed to render him insensible to every thing without. As he had a wonderful facility in composing, so he had no particular apartment for that purpose, but went to work wherever the humour came upon him. One morning, madam de Bouillon going to Versailles, spied him deep in thought under a tree; and, when she returned in the evening, there was Fontaine in the same place and attitude, though the day had been cold, and much rain fallen. Whether from the same simplicity, or rather, we think, absolute stupidity, we are told that he did not perceive the evil tendency of his writings, not even of his Tales; for being once exhorted by his confessor in a severe illness to prayer and almsgiving, he replied, “I can give no alms for I have nothing to give: but there is a new edition of my Tales in the press, of which the bookseller is to let me have a hundred copies; I will give them to you, that you may sell them for the benefit of the poor.” Another time having written a Tale, in which he made a very profane application of these words of the gospel “Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents” he addressed it to the celebrated M. Arnauld, in a very ingenious prologue, “wishing,.” he said, “to show posterity his great esteem for this learned doctor;” nor did he perceive the indecency of the application of scripture, or of his dedication, till Boileau and Kacine made him sensible of it. Notwithstanding their advice, the same is said to have been his design agairr, with respect to another Tale, which he was going to dedicate to M. Harlai, archbishop of Paris.

The nurse who attended him in his illness, observing the fervor of the priest in his exhortations, said to him, “Ah, good sir, don't disturb him so; he is rather stupid than wicked.” These, and many other stories are told of him, which either are, or might have been true. One thing, however, must be mentioned as an honour shewn to him; his widow being molested about the payment of some public money, the intendant gaveorders, that no tax or impost should be. levied upon his family nor was this distinguishing favour ever revoked by any succeeding intendants while any of the family remained.

, a voluminous French writer, the son of a scrivener at Paris, was born in 1625, and received at the age of twenty into the: society of the celebrated solitaries of Port Royal, in a subordinate office, but in the course of time obtained the^ chief superintendance of the young men who were sent there for education; He employed his leisure hours in severe literary labours, such as transcribing the works of several of these solitaries. He followed Nicole and Arnauld, to whom he had been a kind of secretary, into their different places of retreat; in 1664 he was shut up in the Bastille with Sacy, and came out of it with him in 16f>8. After the death of Sacy, in 1684, he frequently changed his retreat, but established himself finally at Mel un, where he died in 1709, at the age of eighty-four. His works are principally, 1. “Lives of the Saints of the Old Testament,” 4 torn. 8vo. 2. “Lives of the Saints” in general, the same number of volumes, or 1 in folio. 3. “Les figures de Bible,” or a history of tha Bible, in short chapters, which has often been printed under the title of “Bible de Royaumont,” and there is an English edition in 4to, with above 300 prints. 4. “Memoirs of the Solitaries of Port Royal,” 2 vols. 12mo. 5. “Translation of St.' ChrysostonVs Homilies on St. Paul’s Epistles,” 7 vols. 8vo. His versions are written with fidelity, but not always with vigour. He was far inferior to Arnauld and Nicole, whom he admired; but his piety was worthy of Port Royal. He was distinguished for innocence of manners, laborious, edifying simplicity of life, sincere modesty, unparalleled disinterestedness, and a steadiness of faith superior to all trials. A man of so many virtues deserves to be recorded, though not among the first class of authors. It remains to be added that his translation of Chrysostom involved him in trouble. Father Daniel, a Jesuit, accused him of Nestorianism, and denounced, him in a letter to the Sorbonne. Fontaine made a very humble and respectful retraction, and substituted several new pages in those parts which had been found reprehensible; but, as this did not prevent M. de Harlai from condemning his translation, he undertook its defence in a work where he asserts, that he has faithfully translated St. Chrysostom, and not fallen into heresies.

, a French critic, was born of a good family at Rouen, in 1685. At fifteen, he entered into the society of the Jesuits; and, at thirty, quitted it for the sake of returning to the world. He was a pnest, and had a cure in Normandy; but left it, and resided for some time in the character of a man of wit and letters, with the cardinal d'Auvergne. Having obtained some reputation at Paris by certain critical productions, the abbe“Bignon, in 1724, committed to him the editorship of the” Journal des Scavans.“He acquitted himself well in this department, and was peaceably enjoying the applauses of the public, when in 1725 the enemies whom by critical strictures in his Journal he had created, formed an accusation against him of a most abominable crime, and procured him to be imprisoned. By the credit of powerful friends, he was set at liberty in fifteen days; the magistrate of the police took himself the trouble of justifying him in a letter to the abbe Bignon; and this letter having been read amidst his fellow-labourers in the Journal, he was unanimously re-established in his former credit. But with whatever reputation he might acquit himself in his Journal, his frequent quarrels interrupted his labours, which, however, he employed on some newperiodical works, from which he derived his greatest fame. In 1731, he began one under the title of” Nouveliiste du Parnasse, ou Reflexions sur les ouvrages nouveanx,“but proceeded only to two volumes; the work having been suppressed by authority, from the incessant complaints of authors who were there ridiculed. About three years after, in 1735, he obtained a new privilege for a periodical production, entitled” Observations sur les Ecrits Modernes;“whk:h, after being continued to thirty-three volumes, was suppressed also in 1743. Yet the year following, 1744, he published another weekly paper, called” Jugemens sur les ouvrages nouveaux,“and proceeded to eleven volumes; the two last being done by other hands. Fontaines could go no farther: for, in 1745, he was attacked with a disorder in the breast, which ended in a dropsy, and this in five weeks’ time carried him oHF.” He was,“says M. Freron,” born a sentimental person; a philosopher in conduct as well as in principle; exempt from ambitton and of a noble firm spirit, which would not submit to sue for preferments or titles. In common conversation he appeared only an ordinary man, but when subjects of literature or any thing out of the common way were agitated, he discovered great force of imagination and wit."

, an eminent Italian architect, but perhaps more justly celebrated for his knowledge of mechanics, was born at Mili, on the lake of Lugano, in 1543, and came to Rome in his twentieth year, to study architecture. Sixtus V. to whom his merits were known when he was cardinal Montalti, was no sooner raised to the tiara, than he made him his architect. Among other great designs for ornamenting the city of Rome, this pontiff had conceived the project of digging out and re-erecting the famous obelisk, formed of one entire piece of granite, originally from Egypt, which had formerly decorated the circus of Nero, but was now partly buried near the wall of the sacristy of St. Peter’s. For this purpose he called together the ablest artists, engineers, and mathematicians, to consider of the means by which this vast relic of Roman grandeur, which was thirty-six feet high, and weighed above a million of pounds, could be removed, and placed on its pedestal in the front of the piazza of St. Peter’s. The machinery employed by the Egyptians in preparing this obelisk, or of conveying il to Rome, were so forgotten, that even tradition preserved no probable conjecture; but the ingenuity of Fontana was completely successful. He first produced before the pope a model of the machinery to be employed, and demonstrated the practicability of the operation; and having made all the necessary erections, the obelisk was raised and safely transported to the piazza, about 150 yards distance, and placed on its pedestal amidst the acclamations of the astonished populace of Rome, on Sept. 10, 1586, the same day that the duke of Luxembourg, ambassador from Henry IV. made his entry into the city. It is said that Fontana undertook this work with the alternative of losing his head if it did not succeed, and that he had provided horses at every gate at Rome, to aid his escape, in case of any accident. Be this as it may, the pope revyarded him munificently. He created him a knight of the golden spur, gave him titles of nobility, and caused medals to be struck to his honour. To all this he added a pension of 2000 crowns, with reversion to his heirs; 3000 crowns as a gift, and all the materials employed on the undertaking, the value of which was computed at 20,000 crowns. Besides the erection of this obelisk, on which Fontana’s fame chiefly rests, he constructed three others, and built for the pope a superb palace near St. John of Lateran, and the library of the Vatican, and repaired some of the ancient monuments of art in Rome. His forte, indeed, was rather in mechanics than in original architecture, in which last he is said to have committed many mistakes; and either this, or the envy which his great enterprize created, is supposed to have raised him enemies, who at length persuaded pope Clement VIII. to dismiss him from his office of pontifical architect. In 1592, however, he was invited to Naples by the viceroy, the count Miranda, who made him royal architect and chief engineer. In that city he built the royal palace and some other considerable edifices, and died there in 1607. He published an account of the removal of the obelisk, entitled “Delia transportatione dell' Obelisco Vaticano e delle fabriche Sixto V.” Rome, 1590, fol. reprinted at Naples in 1603. He had a brother, John, who assisted him in his works at Rome, but who excelled chiefly in hydraulic machinery. He died at Rome in the year 1614.

This great author died in January 1757, without ever having had any violent disorder, or felt any of the maladies of age till he was turned of ninety, after which he was a little deaf, and his eyes in some degree failed. The tranquil ease Of his temper is thought to have contributed to extend his life to this unusual period. A fuller account of hi* works will doubtless be required, which we shall give in chronological order. I. Letters of “the Chav. d'Horny”[??] 1685; a work of wit and fancy. 2. “Discourses on the Plurality of Worlds,” 1686; the character of this performance has been already sketched, as well as that of his, 3. “History of Oracles,” 1687. 4. “Pastoral Poems, with a Discourse on the Eclogue, and a digression on the ancients and moderns,” 1688. It seems to he agreed, that if these are not good eclogues, they are at least elegant poems. It was in the dissertation annexed to these that he made his first attempt to depreciate the ancients, whose merit compared with that of the moderns, was then the subject of a well-known controversy. Among his papers after his death, was found a discourse on the Greek tragedians, which was given to Diderot for insertion in the Encyclopedic, but he said he could not possibly insert in that work, a treatise tending to prove that Æschylus was a madman. 5, Several volumes of “Memoirs of the Academy of Sciences,” to which society he was secretary fortytwo years, from 1699. The general preface to this work is highly excellent; it contains also his “Eloges,” or Eulogies on the academicians, which have been published separately. 6. “History of the French Theatre, to Corneille,” with the life of that great Dramatist. 7. “Reflections on theatrical poetry, particularly Tragedy:” this is reckoned one of the most profound and judicious works of Fontenelle. 8. “Elements of the Geometry of Infinites,” 1727; not much esteemed by mathematicians. 9. “A Tragedy,” in prose, and “Six Comedies,” none of them calculated for theatrical effect. Warburton, it appears by his letters to bishop Hurd, entertained a high opinion of these comedies, and of Fontenelle’s preface to them. 10. “Theory of the Cartesian Vortices.” He remained unfortunately attached to the system of Descartes to the end of his life, having imbibed it very early. 11.“Endymion,” and some other pastoral lyric dramas. 12. “Moral Discourses,” and fugitive pieces. All these, except those on geometry and natural history, were collected in 11 vols, 12mo, under the title “Œuvres Diverses.” Other editions have since been published in folio and quarto. The style of this author is in general elegant and clear, but not altogether free from defects. It is often too negligent and familiar. He betrays at some times an affectation of giving great matters in a small compass; at others he der scends to puerile details unworthy of a philosopher. Ke displays occasionally too much refinement in his ideas; and, at times, is too elaborate in his ornaments. These defects are less offensive in the writings of Fontenelle, than they would be in any others; not only because they are overpowered by many striking beauties of various kinds, but because it is easy to perceive that they are truly natural to the author.

Perhaps no other man of letters ever enjoyed so universal an esteem as Fontenelle, which advantage he owed not only to his works, but to the prudence of his conduct, and the sweetness of his manners. His conversation was lively though placid, and his politeness was equal to his wit. Though he was superior to most other men, he did not make them feel it; but bore with their defects, and conversed as an equal. “Men,” he said, “are foolish and wicked; but such as they are, I must live among them; and this I settled with myself very early in life.” He was accused of want of feeling: and certainly he had not all the warmth which some require in a friend; but his friendship had more constancy and equality than that has in general which is more tender or more lively. He rendered services without the smallest ostentation. When the duke of Orleans proposed to him to be made perpetual president of the academy of sciences, his -reply was, “Take not from me, my lord, the delight of living with my equals.” He was ready always to listen as well as to talk; but when be had delivered his opinion, he studiously avoided dispute, pretending that his lungs were not equal to it. Though poor originally, he became rich for a literary man, by the royal bounty, and by an oeconomy free from all tincture of avarice. He was sparing only to himself; to others he was ready at all times to give or leur, and frequently to persons unknown to him. One of his maxims was, “that a man should be sparing in superfluities to himself, that he may supply necessaries to others;” a sublime and truly Christian saying, which with the rest of his excellent character, may discharge us from the necessity of entering into the dispute concerning his religious faith; which, probably, has been by some estimated too low, because he was superior to many of the superstitious opinions thought essential to it in his time.

, esq. called the English Aristophanes, a distinguished writer and actor in comedy, was of a good family, and born at Truro, in Cornwall, about 1720. His father, John Foote, esq. enjoyed the offices of commissioner of the prize-office and line contract, and was finally member of parliament for Tiverton, in Devonshire. His mother, by an unhappy quarrel between her two brothers, sir John Dinely Goodere, bart. and sir Samuel Goodere, captain of the Ruby man of war, became heiress of the Goodere family. The quarrel alluded to, after subsisting for some years, ended in the murder of sir John by his brother, and the subsequent execution of the latter, in 1741. Foote received his education at Worcester-college, Oxford; and was thence removed to the Temple, as designed for the law. The dry ness and gravity of this study, however, not suiting the vivacity and volatility of Foote' s spirit, and his fortune, whatever it was, being soon dissipated, he left the law, and had recourse to the stage. He appeared first in Othello; but whether he discovered that his forte did not lie in tragedy, or that the language of other writers would not serve sufficiently to display his humour, he soon struck out into a new and untrodden path, by taking upon himself the double character of author and performer. In this double capacity, in 1747, he opened the little theatre in the Haymarket with a sort of drama of his own, called “The Diversions of the Morning,” This piece was nothing more than the introduction of well-known characters in real life; whose manner of conversing and expressing themselves he had a most amazing talent at imitating, copying not only the manner and voice, but in some degree, even the persons of those he ridiculed.

From 1752 to 1761, he continued to perform at one of the theatres every season, as fancy or interest directed his choice, generally for a stated number of nights; and, on these engagements, he usually brought out a new piece. He proceeded thus, till a very pressing embarrassment in his affairs compelled him to perform “The Minor,” at the May-market, in the summer of 1760, with such a company as he could hastily collect. Henceforward he pursued the scheme of occupying that theatre, when the others were shut up; and from 1762, to the season before his death, he regularly performed there. Feb. 1766, when at lord Mexborough’s in the country, he broke his leg by a tall from his horse, the duke of York being also there: and it is generally supposed, that this accident facilitated his application for a patent, which he obtained in July the iauie ye jr.

The wit and humour of Foote in private conversation, were equal to his comic powers on the stage, of which the following account, given by Mr. Boswell in the Life of Johnson, affords a striking instance. Dr. Johnson is said to have related it himself: “The first time I was in company with Foote was at Fitzherbert’s. Having no good opinion of the fellow, I was resolved not to be pleased; and it is very difficult to please a man against his will. I went on eating my dinner pretty sullenly, affecting not to mind him; but the dog was so very comical, that I was obliged to lay down my knife and fork, throw myself back in my chair, and fairly laugh it out. Sir, he was irresistible.” Innumerable other stories are circulated, all proving the lively and ready wit of this eccentric genius, as well as the general tinge of licentiousness which was visible in his conduct as well as conversation. His “Memoirs,” indeed, lately published by Mr. Cooke, prove that his mind “was not overcharged with the impressions of religious or moral duties.” It has, however, been reported on the testimony of some who knew him intimately, that he was a man of competent classical learning, and much various reading, and no less a rational and instructive companion in a serious hour with a single friend, than an entertaining one in mixed society.

His published dramas are twenty in number, and were written in the following order: 1. “Taste, a comedy,” 1752. 2. “The Englishman in Paris,” 1753. 3. “The Knights,” 1754. 4. “The Englishman returned from Paris,” 1756. 5. “The Author,” 1757. 6. “The Minor,” 1760. 7. “The Lyar,” 1761; not printed till 1764. 2. “The Orators,” 1762. 9. “The Mayor of Garrat,” 1763. 10. “The Patron,” 1764. 11. “The Commissary.” 12. “Prelude on opening the Theatre,” 176T. 13. “Tho Devil upon Two Sticks,” 1768, printed in 1778. 1 k “The Lame Lover,” 1770. 15. The Maid of Bath,' 1 1771, printed 1778. 16. “The Nabpb,” 1772, primed 1778. 17. “The Bankrupt,” 1772. 18. “The Cozeners,” 1771, printed 1778. 19. “A Trip to Calais, 1776, printed 1778. 20.” The Capuchin.“The lattur of these uas altered from the former, which was prohibited. A trifling piece called” Piety io Pattens,“awl” The Diversions of the Morning,“altered from Taste, were never published. The anonymous mock Tragedy of” The Tailors," is usually printed with. Foote’s works, and is very generally thought to he his. It was acted in 1767, printed in 1778. Most of these are formed upon temporary topics, and full of personalities, the objects of which are still generally recollected, and therefore do not require to be specified; but they are replete with vivacity and humour, and though composed with little care, or attention to plot, are very entertaining even in the closet. Foote borrowed liberally from Moliere and others; but made what he took his own by an originality in his manner of employing it; and his personal humour was so peculiar, that it has been hardly possible for any other player to give equal effect to the parts he acted himself.

, an eminent historian and biographer, was professor of divinity at Louvaine, and canon and archdeacon of Mechlin, where he died July 16 1761, highly respected as a man of learning and virtue, but of his private history we have no further particulars. His first publication appears to have been “Batavia Sacra, sive res gestae Apostolicorum virorum,” fol. 1714. He then published, 2. “Historia Episcopatus Antverpiensis,” Brussels, 1717, 4to. 3. “Historia Episcopatus Sylvicducensis,” ibid. 1721. 4. A new edition of “Auberti Minci Opera Diplomatics et Historica,” with large additions, ibid, 1723, 2 vols. fol. 5. “Diplomatum Belgicorum novu collectio,” being a supplement to the former, 1734 and 1748, 2 vols. foi. 6. “Chronologia sacra Episcoporum Belgii, ab anno 1561 ad annum 1761,” 12mo, a work in verse, with prose notes. He also published a new edition of the “Basilica Bruxellensis” of J. B. Christian, at Mechlin in 1743, 2 vols. 8vo, but is best known by his “Bibliotheca Belgica,” or lives of the Belgic authors, 1739, 2 vols. 4to, being a continuation of Miraeus, Sweert, and Valerius Andreas, ornamented with near 150 portraits, not half of which are to be found in the most complete copies. We lie under too many obligations to this work to examine it with the rigour which Marchand has employed, and for which we refer to his “Dictionnaire Historique.” The inaccuracies, as far as we have examined the work, are few, and for an occasional want of liberality, we must seek an apology in his religion. He has, however, taken some credit to himself, for not omitting those epitaphs on protestant writers in which their principles are commended and of this merit he ought not to be deprived.

, a very eminent Scottish lawyer, was born at Culloden, in the county of Inverness, in 1685, and educated in the university of Edinburgh, whence he removed to Utrecht, and afterwards to Paris, where he studied the civil law. He returned, in 1710, to Scotland, and was called to the bar in the court of session. His abilities as an advocate were soon noticed, and he obtained great practice. In 1717, he was appointed solicitor-general of Scotland. In 1722, he was returned member for the county of Inverness; and in 1725, was promoted to the dignity of lord-advocate. He was further advanced in 1742, to be lord-president of the court of session, in which high station he acted with such integrity, that he was esteemed and honoured by his country. During the rebellion in 1745 and 6, he used the utmost of his power to oppose the pretender, and mortgaged his estate to support the government. With great reason he applied to the ministry for a repayment of those expences which he had incurred by his loyalty, and their refusal, undoubtedly a stain on the history of the times, is said to have operated so strongly upon his mind, as to produce a fever, of which he died in 1747, at the age of 62. His writings were chiefly on theological subjects, without any reference to his profession; they are, 1. “Thoughts on Religion.” 2. “A Letter to a Bishop.” 3. “Reflections on Incredulity,” 1750, in 2 vols. 12mo. Father Houbigant translated the two former of these works into French, but they were not greatly admired in that country; the solidity of the Scottish lawyer could not be expected to suit with the vivacity of French reasoners. Duncan Forbes of Culloden, says a recent biographer, was in all respects one of the most eminent men of his time. His learning was extensive and profound, reaching even to the oriental languages; and he had that acuteness and subtlety of parts, which is peculiarly fitted for the nice discriminations of the law; but which was always regulated in him by the prevailing principles of his nature, probity, candour, and a strong sense of the beauty of virtue and moral excellence. In the eloquence of the bar, he outshone all his contemporaries; for he united to great knowledge of jurisprudence, a quickness of comprehension that discovered to him at once the strong ground of argument which he was to press, or the weakness of the doctrine he wished to assail. When raised to the presidency of the court, the vigour of his intellect, his patience in the hearing of causes, his promptitude in the dispatch of business, the dignity, of his deportment, and above all, the known probity and integrity of his mind, gave the highest weight to the decisions of that tribunal over which he presided.

Of his religious sentiments this biographer, the late lord Woodhouselee, speaks with less approbation. He allows that his piety was fervent and habitual, but seems to refer it to warmth of heart, and feelings naturally ardent, and that all this co-operating with a lively imagination, led him to become an admirer and disciple of the Hutchinsonian scheme of theology; and he adds that he had not enough of physical science to detect the absurdities with which the scheme of his favourite author abounds. It does not appear, however, that he adopted the whole scheme of Hutchinson, or that he was more absurd in what he did adopt than bishop Home, Parkhurst, and some other men of equal talents and celebrity. Warburton in one of his “Letters” lately published, after recommending the lord president’s “Reflections on Incredulity,” which was a posthumous work, adds, “It is a little jewel. I knew and venerated the man; one of the greatest that ever Scotland bred, both as a judge, a patriot, and a Christian.”

, of Corse, second son to the preceding, was born May 2, 1593, and after his school education, was sent to the university of King’s college, Aberdeen, in 1607. After a course of philosophy and theology here, he went to Heidelberg, where he attended the lectures of Paraeus, and afterwards spent some time at the other universities of Germany. With theology he applied vigorously to the study of the Hebrew language, and according to Pictet, maintained, in 1608, a public dispute against the archbishop and the Lutherans of Upsal. If there be no mistake in this date, he could now have been only fifteen or sixteen yeajs of age. He pursued his studies, however, abroad until 1619, when returning to Aberdeen, he gave such proofs of extensive knowledge and talents, that he was immediately appointed professor of divinity and ecclesiastical history in King’s college. How well he was qualified for the office appears from his “Historicotheological Institutions,” a work universally admired, even by those who differed from him with regard to matters of church-government. Having, however, subscribed the Perth articles, as they were called, proposed by the synod of Perth, as an introduction to episcopacy in Scotland, the favourite measure of James I. which Dr. Forbes ably defended, and having refused to subscribe to the national league and covenant, he was ejected from his professorial chair in 1640. He had before this made an ineffectual. attempt to compose the religious dissentions in Scotland, by publishing a work written with great moderation of sentiment, entitled “Irenicam,” dedicated to the lovers of truth and peace. This was printed at Aberdeen in 1629, 4to. In 1642 he went to Holland, where he remained a few years, and revising the lectures he had delivered when professor, he compiled from them the excellent work abovementioned, which he published at Amsterdam in 1645, fol. under the title of “Institutiones historico-theologicæ.” This was so much admired, and considered indeed as one of the best works of the kind that had ever appeared, as to pass through three editions in a very short time. In 1646 he published, at the same place, his father’s “Commentary Oh the Apocalypse,” 4to, translated into Latin. Returning then to Scotland, he spent the short remainder of his life in retirement on his estate of Corse, where he died April 29, 1648. Those who had ejected him from his professorship added two instances of persecution which are peculiarly disgraceful. While professor, he had purchased a house at Old Aherdeen, where King’s college is situated, and made it over for the use of his successors; but having forgot to secure his life-rent in it, the prevailing party actually turned him out of it; and now, when dead, they would not allow him to be buried beside his father, though earnestly requested by many of his friends. The body was afterwards carried to the church-yard of Leuchil, where it lies without any monument. In 1703, a very elegant edition of all his works, in 2 vols. fol. was printed by the Wetsteins at Amsterdam, under the care partly of Mr. George Garden of Aberdeen, but principally of professor Gurtler of Deventer. The whole indicates great learning, and his “Exercitia Spiritualia,” a kind of Diary, shows no less piety.

Though able and learned, he had published nothing, and composed very little. He wrote a treatise tending to pacify controversies, which was printed at London in 1658, with this title, “Considerationes modestae et pacificae controversiarum de justificatione, purgatorio, invocatione Sanctorum, Christo Mediatore, Kucharistia.” “This posthumous work,” says ttoe author of his life, “is a signal specimen and proof of a pacific temper, and a moderate mind: wherein, like a second Cassander, and catholic moderator, he endeavours to compose, or at least to mitigate, the rigid and austere opinions, in certain points of religious controversy, both of the reformed and of the popish party. How greatly he regarded moderation, appears from that usual saying of his, that, if there had been more Cassanders and Wiceliuses, there would have been no occasion for a Luther, or a Calvin.” He had another saying concerning letters, as good as this concerning religion: it was, “Lege plura, et scribe pauciora,” “Read more, and write less.” It was a piece of advice he gave to one, who used a great deal of paper; and the result of a resolution, which he himself had made, not to write much.

Some maxims were found in his Memoirs published in 1749, by Reboulet, in two volumes, which ought to have made him more acceptable to ministers: unless, perhaps, as is highly probable, his experience of the bad effects of the contrary conduct, was the cause of committing them to paper. They are directed to persons who desire to rise in the sea service; and are to this effect: 1. “Never to. interfere in any thing which did not strictly belong to their employment.” 2. “To pay a blind obedience to the or^ ders they received, however repugnant to their private opinions; trusting that ministers have more extended views, than individuals in the service can develope.”

, an eminent political and financial writer of France, was born at Mans, Oct. 2, 1722. His father, Francis, Louis Veron Duverger, was a merchant of that city. Having finished his education at the college of Beauvais, i,Ek Paris, he left it in the sixteenth year of his age, to followthe tarn my trade, which had long been carried on by his family; his great grandfather having established at Mans a, manufactory of tammies, which, from that circumstance, in Spain were called Verones. In 1741 he was sent by his father to Spain and Italy, whence he returned to Mans in 1743. His grandfather by the mother’s side, having soon after retired from business, he was thereby enabled to trade on his own account; but declining, from motives of delicacy, to carry on at Mans the same trade as his father, he Avent to Nantes, where his uncle was established as a shipowner, to obtain a knowledge of the mercantile concerns and transactions of that city. Having spent several years at Nantes, and collected much valuable information on maritime and colonial trade, he entered in 1752 upon a speculation, which induced him to go to Paris. Confined to a small circle of friends and acquaintance, he lived there in great privacy, yet presented to government several memoirs, which experiencing a very cool reception, he resolved to write in future, not for administration, but the public. He published accordingly in 1753, his “ThtJorie et pratique du Commerce et de la Marine,” a free translation from the Spanish of Dr. Geron. de Votariz, which was soon followed by the “Considerations sur les Finances d'Espagne relativement a eel les de France,” a work in which he displayed such intimate acquaintance with the Spanish system of finance, that the Spanish ambassador at the court of Versailles proposed him to marshal cle Noailles, as consul-general of Spain; but the former being soon after recalled by his court, the appointment did not take place. About the same time he published, in 1754, his “Essai sur la partie politique du commerce de terre et de mer, de Pagriculture et des finances,” which within three weeks passed through two editions; the third edition was published in 1766, and the fourth in 1796, considerably improved and enlarged. From his profound knowledge in matters relative to money and coinage, he was appointed in 1755, to examine into the enormous abuses which had crept into the administration <yf the French mint. He immediately proposed a new coinage, but his plan was not carried into execution until 1771; he was, however, in the meanwhile, appointed inspectorgeneral of the mint, a new office expressly established for him. Having obtained free admittance to the library of the family of Noailles, rich in manuscripts relative to the administration of the finances of France, he conceived the idea of composing his “Recherches et considerations sur les finances de France depuis 1595 jusqu'a 1721,” printed at Basle, 1758, in 2 vols. 4to, and reprinted the same, year at Liege, in 6 vols. 8vo. This valuable work expeperienced the most distinguished reception both in France and other countries, and supplied Thomas with matter for his observations on the true principles of financial administration in his eulogy of Suny. The duke de Choiseuil being appointed prime minister, he endeavoured to place Forbonnois in the department for foreign affairs; but the latter declining the appointment, Choiseuil requested he would apply himself to lay down a general system of trade, and to comment on all commercial treaties concluded by France, in order that certain and uniform principles might be introduced into that important department of political economy. While he was making the necessary preparations for executing that commission, the abandoned state of the French finances in 1759, occasioned the appointment of the noted Sithonette to the office of comptroller-general or minister of finances. Without being in the least connected with that minister, Forbonnois received an offer of the place of principal clerk of the department of finance, which being declined, the minister requested he would at least privately lend him his assistance in projecting the first financial operations necessary for opening the war both by sea and land, at a time when 1,500,000 livres only were left in the treasury. Eight days after, Forbonnois brought him all the plans and draughts of edicts for the first operations. They were approved by the minister, and laid before Louis XV. who in consequence thereof appointed Forbonnois inspector of the depot of the general financial comptrol, a title which he himself suggested, in order to avoid the eclat of a more brilliant appointment. However, Forbonnois’ acknowledged superiority as a financier, which proved exceedingly offensive to the minister’s lady, soon brought on a coolness between her husband and him, which induced Forbonnois to retire into the country until Sithonette’s disgrace and dismission. He might have succeeded him as comptroller-general, had he been willing to consent to sacrifices which he could not reconcile with his honesty and candour. While he held the place of inspector of the depot of the general financial comptrol, he published his “Lettre d'un Banquier a son correspondent cle province;” chiefly intended to give a favourable account of the minister’s operation. In 1760 he pointed out to the Duke de Choiseuil the perilous situation of France, and suggested the plan of a treaty of peace, calculated to tempt the ambition of Great Britain, and at the same time to save resources for France. This plan met with so much applause, that Don de Fuentes, at that lime Spanish ambassador at Paris, who was admitted to the conferences, offered an armed neutrality on the part of his court to tacilitate its execution. Forbonnois was charged to draw up the necessary acts and plans, and to elucidate a great variety of points respecting the fisheries, the means of enlarging them, the sacrifices to be made to England, &c. nay, he was offered the appointment of plenipotentiary to conclude the treaty; but having executed his charge, and demanded a conference, he received no answer. Being entrusted with the secrets of the state, he began to entertain strong apprehensions for his personal safety, and took refuge in a glass-manufactory in the mountains of Burgundy, in which he was concerned. He returned, however, afterwards to Paris, and in order to render both the minister and the financiers perfectly easy on his account, he purchased the place of a counsellor or member of the parliament of Metz.

It was greatly advantageous to the cause of letters that Mr. Forcellini, being introduced to the notice of cardinal Cornaro, bishop of Padua, received from that prelate an order to compile a new Latin Dictionary, in which all the deficiencies of the preceding edition of Calepini’s performance, for the Latin department, should be supplied. Perhaps no person was better qualified for such an undertaking, or was possessed of more steadiness, patience, and perseverance; an almost incredible proof of which is, that he employed in it in-aHy forty years of his life He ransacked not only all the Latin writers of the several ages of Roman literature, but all the ancient grammarians, and every collection of inscriptions which had been published to his time. To each of the Latin words inserted in this new Dictionary he affixed the corresponding Italian and Greek, and, to render the work still more complete, he subjoined to u a copious list of barbarous words, and a numerous catalogue of the writers whose works he had investigated. The performance was soon considered classical and unrivalled. Besides the intimate friendship of Facciolati, his preceptor and benefactor, the abbe Forceliini was highly esteemed by Morgagni, Pontedera, Valsecchi, and other eminent professors in the university of Padua. His learning and his merit would have advanced him to high literary honours, had he been less modest and unassuming. He was regular in his domestic life, candid, disinterested, and exemplary; and as a literary character, he was satisfied that his memory would be dear to and respected by posterity. He died April 4, 1768.

, an ingenious gentleman of the seventeenth century, was the son of sir John Ford, knt. and was born at Up-park in the parish of Harting in Sussex, in 1605. He became a gentleman commoner of Trinity college, Oxford, in 1621, but left it without taking a degree, after which Wood has not been able to trace his history, until he served the office of high sheriff for Sussex, and demonstrated his loyalty to Charles I. who conferred on him the honour of knighthood at Oxford, Oct. 4, 1643. About that time he bore a colonel’s commission in the army, or, according to Clarendon, had a regiment of horse in lord Hopton’s troops, and was afterwards a considerable sufferer for his adherence to the royal cause. In 1647, he and Dr. Stephen Goffe were imprisoned on. suspicion of being accessary to his majesty’s escape from Hampton court. How or when he was released we are not told, but as he had married general Ireton’s sister, he might owe his release to the influence of his brother-inlaw with the parliamentary party. In 1656 we find him employed in certain mechanical inventions of considerable importance. With Cromwell’s encouragement, and at the request of the citizens of London, he contrived machinery for raising the Thames water into all the higher streets of the city, a height of ninety-three feet. This he is said to have accomplished in a year’s time, and at his own expence; and the same machinery was afterwards employed in other parts of the kingdom for draining mines and lands, which it performed better and cheaper than any former contrivance. He also constructed the great water engine at Somerset-house, for supplying the Strand, &c. but this obstructing the prospect from the windows, queen Catherine, the consort of Charles II. caused it to be pulled clown. After the restoration he invented a mode of coining copper money (Wood says, farthings) which could not possibly be counterfeited, as each piece was made to differ from another in some minute circumstance. He failed in procuring a patent for these for England, but obtained one for Ireland. He went over accordingly to carry his design into execution there, but died before he could accomplish it, on Sept. 3, 1670, and his body being brought over, was interred in the family buriai place at Harting. Wood speaks of him as a man who might have done great things if he had met with proper encouragement. He published, 1. “A Design for bringing a River from Rickmansworth in Hertfordshire to St. Giles’s in the Fields, near London; the benefits of it declared, and the objections against it answered,” Lond. 1641, 4to. 2. “Experimental Proposals how the king may have money to pay and maintain his fleets, with ease to the people London may be re-built, and all proprietors satisfied money may be lent at six per cent, on pawns and the fishing trade set up, and all without straining or thwarting any of our laws or customs,” ibid. 1666, 4to. To this last was added a “Defence of Bill Credit.” About 1663 he had printed a proposal fur the raising of money by bills of exchange, which should pass current instead of money, to prevent robbery.

, an early English dramatic author, the second son of Thomas Ford, esq. a gentleman in the commission of the peace, was a native of Ilsington in Devonshire, where he was born in 158G, probably in the beginning of April, as he was baptised on the 17th of that month at Ilsington. It does not appear where he was educated, but on Nov. 16, 1602, he entered as a member of the Middle Temple, for the purpose of studying law. While there he published, in 1606, “Fame’s Memoriall, on the earle of Devonshire deceased; with his honourable life, peaceful end, and solemne funerall,” a small quarto of twenty-eight leaves. This poem, considered as the production of a youth, is creditable to the talents of Ford, as it exhibits a freedom of thought and command of language, of which there are few contemporaneous examples. At this time Ford was in his twenty-first year, and deeply engaged, but unfortunate, in an affair of the heart; and being disappointed also by the death of lord Mountjoy, the liberal friend of the poet Daniel, to whom he was about to look up as a patron, he determined to seek relief in travel. Whether he actually went abroad, or finding a nymph less cruel, and an avenue to fame without individual patronage, remained in England, is matter of conjecture: but we next hear of him on the stage. With a forbearance, however, unusual with those who have once adventured before the public, Ford abstained from the press from 1606 to 1629, when he printed his tragicomedy of the “Lover’s Melancholy.” But this was not his first attempt on the stage, as his play entitled “A bad beginning makes a good ending,” was acted at court as early as 1613. He wrote at least eleven dramas, and such as were printed appeared from 1629 to 1639. The greater part of those were entirely of his own composition, but in some he wrote conjointly, probably with Decker, Drayton, Hatherewaye, or some of the numerous retainers of the stage. It has been asserted that Jonson was jealous of Ford, and that Ford was frequently pitted against Jonson, as the champion of his antagonists. But Mr. Gilchrist, in, “A Letter to William Gifford, esq.” 1811, has most satisfactorily proved that there is no foundation for either of these assertions. The date of Ford’s death is unknown; he wrote nothing for the stage after 1639, and it is probable that he did not long survive that period. A writer in the “Censura Literaria,” has attributed to him an excellent little manual, entitled “A Line of Life, pointing at the immortalitie of a vertuous name,” 1620, 12mo.

His works are, 1. “Ambitio sacra. Conciones duae Latine habitae ad academicos,” Oxon. 1650, 4to. 2. Several Latin poems, published separately in 1666, and the following years, and afterwards collected into one volume, entitled “Poemata Londinensia, &c.” 3. “Carmen funebre, ex occasione Northampton^ conflagrate,” Lond. 1676, 4to. This was translated, or rather imitated by F. A. (Fernando Archer) 4to. 4. “A Panegyric on Charles I.” 5. “Christ’s Innocency pleaded against the cry of the chief priests,” Lond. 1656, 4to. 6. “The Spirit of Bondage and Adoption largely and practically handled,” ibid. 1655, 8vo, with a sermon and tract added. 7. “Anew version of the Psalms of David,” 1668, 8vo. 8. “Two Dialogues concerning the practical use of Infant Baptism,” Lond. 1654 and 1656, 8vo. 9. “A short Catechism, ibid. 1657, 8vo. 10.” A plain and profitable exposition of, and enlargement upon, the Church Catechism,“ibid. 16S4, 1686, 8vo. 11.” A Discourse concerning God’s Judgments,“prefixed to” A just Narrative, or account of a man whose hands and legs rotted off, in the parish of King’s Swinford, in Staffordshire, where he died June 21, 1677,“ibid. 1678, 8vo. The narrative itself was written by James Illingworth, B. D. Dr. Ford published also several occasional sermons, and was one of the translators of” Plutarch’s Morals," published in 1684.

, professor of philosophy in the Marischal college, Aberdeen, and author of several valuable works, was born in that city, in 1711, probably in March, as we find he was baptized on April 1. His father was an eminent merchant, who had a family of twenty children by his wife, a sister to Dr. Thomas Blackwell, of whom we have already given an account. This, their second son, after being educated at the grammar school of his native city, was entered of Marischal college in 1724, where he went through a course of philosophy under professor Daniel Garden, and of mathematics under Mr. John Stewart. He took his degree of M. A. in 1728, when he was but little more than seventeen years old. Being intended for the church, his next application was to the study of divinity, under the professor of that branch, Mr. James Chalmers, a man of great learning and piety, whom the editor of this Dictionary is proud to record as his grandfather. Mr. Fordyce studied divinity with great ardour, the utmost of his ambition being ordination in a church that affords her sons but a moderate emolument. Circumstances with which we are unacquainted, appear to have prevented his full intention, as he never became a settled minister in the establishment of his native country. He was admitted, however, to what may be termed the first degree of orders in the church of Scotland, that is, he was licensed to preach, and continued to preach occasionally for some time. He is said, indeed, to have been once domestic chaplain to John Hopkins, esq. of Bretons, near Rumford, in Essex, who had a regular service every Sunday in the chapel of the house; but there is reason to think he did not continue long in this situation, and that he returned home, as in Sept. 1742 he was appointed one of the professors of philosophy in the Marischal college. The duties of the philosophic professorship at that time included natural history, chronology, Greek and Roman antiquities, mechanics, optics, and astronomy, which were taught during three sessions, or years, to the same pupils. This system is now altered, but that My. Fordyce was well qualified for the above-mentioned laborious task was universally acknowledged.

About this time he received the degree of D. D. from the university of Glasgow, and was invited by the society of protestant dissenters in Monkwell-street, London, to be co-pastor with Dr. Lawrence, then aged and infirm. This invitation he accepted, and upon Dr. Lawrence’s death, which happened soon after, he became sole pastor, and continued to discharge the duties of that office till 1782, when his health, which had long been declining, rendered it necessary to discontinue his public services. But during his ministry in this place he acquired a higher degree of popularity than probably ever was, or will be attained by the same means. It was the strong force of his eloquence, which drew men of all ranks and all persuasions to hear him. His action and elocution were original, and peculiarly striking, and not a little assisted by his figure, which was tali beyond the common standard, and by a set of features which in preaching displayed great variety of expression and animation. Besides his regular attendants who subscribed to his support, his meeting was frequented by men curious in eloquence; and it is said that the celebrated David Garrick was more than once a hearer, and spoke of Dr. Fordyce’s skill in oratory with great approbation. With respect to his theological sentiments, he appears to have possessed that general liberality which is civil to all systems, without being attached to any. From his printed works, it would be easier to prove that he belonged to no sect, than that he held the principles of any. As to the matter, morality appears to have been his chief object; and as to the manner, he evidently studied a polish and a spirit which is seldom met with in English pulpits, although it has not been unusual in those of France. In private life his piety was so conspicuous as to be universally acknowledged, and there was a fervour in his language and expression when he conversed on religious subjects of the general kind, which procured him the highest respect. During the prosperity of his brother, the banker, whose failure has made the name memorable in the annals of bankruptcy, he had probably access to much company of the upper ranks; and it is certain, that from this, or from a disposition naturally graceful, his manners were peculiarly elegant and courtly.

, another brother of the preceding, was born in 1724, and educated in the Marischal college, Aberdeen, of which he died rector magnijicus, or lord rector, an office of great dignity in the Scotch universities, and to which he bequeathed a legacy of \000l. At the age of eighteen, he had completed the usual course of academical studies, and had distinguished himself for his proficiency in Greek and mathematics. He had also studied physic and surgery under an able practitioner, and then joined the army as a volunteer, and afterwards served as surgeon to the brigade of guards on the coast of France, and in all the wars of Germany, and some part of that time, if we mistake not, under sir John Pringle. The warm support of his military friends, and of some persons of high rank to whom he had been serviceable, concurred with his own merit and address in recommending him to very extensive practice in London. His publications, likewise, added considerably to his fame: and he was sent for to greater distances, and received larger sums, than almost any physician of his time. By these means he might have acquired an immense fortune, had he not been a very great sufterer by the bankruptcy of his brother Alexander, and had he not proved himself a man of most unbounded liberality to his family and friends, and a generous patron to many of his young countrymen, who were, from time to time, recommended to his good offices. His address had much of the courtly manner of past times, and his conversation, while unassuming, was replete with elegant anecdote and solid information. His practice lay much among persons of rank, whose manners became familiar to him. Few men died more generally lamented by a very extensive circle of friends. Although originally of a delicate constitution, by temperance and exercise he preserved his health for many years, but suffered at last a long and severe illness, which ended in his death, Dec. 4, 1792, at his house in Brook-street, Grosvenor-square. His first publication was “A Treatise on the Venereal Disease,” which was followed, some years after, by another on “Fevers,” and a third on “The ulcerated Sore Throat.” In all these, except perhaps the first, he gave the result of long practice and judicious observation. Just before his death he published "The great importance and proper method of cultivating and curing Rhubarb in Britain, for medicinal uses/* 1792, 8vo. For his successful attempts to cultivate this valuable medicine, the importation of which at that time cost the nation annually 200,000l. the society for the encouragement of arts unanimously voted him a gold medal. Sir William was a fellow of the royal society, and received the honour of knighthood from his majesty about 1787.

, another eminent physician, nephew to the preceding, was born in Aberdeen, November 18, 1736, and was the only and posthumous child of Mr. George Fordyce, the proprietor of a small landed estate, called Broadford, in the neighbourhood of that city. His mother, not long after, marrying again, he was taken from her when about two years old, and sent to Fovran, at which place he received his school-education. He was removed thence to the university of Aberdeen, where, it is said, he was made M. A. when only fourteen years of age, but this we much doubt. In his childhood he had taken great delight in looking at phials of coloured liquors, which were placed at the windows of an apothecary’s shop. To this circumstance, and to his acquaintance with the late learned Alexander Garden, M. D. F. R. S. many years a physician in South Carolina, and in this city, but then apprentice to a surgeon and apothecary in Aberdeen, he used to attribute the resolution he very early formed to study medicine. He was in consequence sent, when about fifteen years old, to his uncle, Dr. John Fordyce, who at that time practised medicine at Uppingham, in Northamptonshire. With him he remained several years, and then went to the university of Edinburgh, where, after a residence of about three years, he received the degree of M. D. in October 1758. His inaugural dissertation was upon catarrh. While at Edinburgh, Dr. Cullen was so much pleased with his diligence and ingenuity, that, besides shewing him manyother marks of regard, he used frequently to give him private assistance in his studies. The pupil was ever after grateful for this kindness, and was accustomed to speak of his preceptor in terms of the highest respect, calling him often “his learned and revered master.” About the end of 1758 he came to London, but went shortly after to Leyden, for the purpose, chiefly, of studying anatomy under Albinus. He returned in 1759 to London, where he soou determined to fix himself as a teacher and practitioner of medicine. When he made known this intention to his relations, they highly disapproved of it, as the whole of his patrimony had been expended upon his education. Inspired, however, with that confidence which frequently attends the conscious possession of great talents, he persisted in his purpose, and, before the end of 1759, commenced a course of lectures upon chemistry. This was attended by nine pupils. In 1764 he began to lecture also upon materia medica and the practice of physic. These three subjects he continued to teach nearly thirty years, giving, for the most part, three courses of lectures on each of them every year. A course lasted nearly four months; and, during it, a lecture of nearly an hour was delivered six times in the week. His time of teaching commenced about 7 o'clock in the morning, and ended at 10; his lectures upon the three above-mentioned subjects being given one immediately after the other. In 1765 he was admitted a licentiate of the college of physicians. In 1770 he was chosen physician to St. Thomas’s hospital, after a considerable contest; the number of votes in his favour being 109, in that of his antagonist, Dr. Watson, 106. In 1774 he became a member of Dr. Johnson’s, or the literary club and in 1776 was elected a fellow of the royal society. In 1787 he was admitted a fellow of the college of physicians. No circumstance can demonstrate more strongly the high opinion entertained of his abilities by the rest of his profession in London, than his reception into that body. He had been particularly active in the dispute, which had existed about twenty years before, between the fellows and licentiates, and had, for this reason, it was thought, forfeited all title to be admitted into the fellowship through favour. But the college, in 1787, were preparing a new edition of their Pharmacopoeia; and Knowing his talents in the branch of pharmaceutical chemistry, suppressed their resentment of his former conduct, and, by admitting him into their body, secured his assistance in the work. In 1793 he assisted in forming a small society of physicians and surgeons, which has since published two volumes, under the title of “Medical and Chirurgical Transactions;” and continued to attend its meetings most punctually till within a month or two of his death. Having thus mentioned some of the principal events of his literary life, we shall next give a list of his various medical and philosophical works; and first of those which were published by himself, 1. “Elements of Agriculture and Vegetation.” He had given a course of lectures on these subjects to some young men of rank; soon after, the close of which, one of his hearers, the late Mr. Stuart Mackenzie, presented him with a copy of them, from uotes he had taken while they were delivered. Dr. Fordyce corrected the copy, and afterwards published it under the above-mentioned title. 2. “Elements of the Practice of Physick.” This was used by him as a text-book for a part of his course of lectures on that subject. 3. “A Treatise on the Digestion of Food.” It was originally read before the college of physicians, as the Gulstonian lecture. 4. “Four Dissertations on Fever.” A fifth, which completes the subject, was left by him in manuscript, and has since been published. His other works appeared in the Philosophical Transactions, and the Medical and Chirurgical Transactions. In the former are eight papers by him, with the following titles: 1. Of the light produced by inflammation. 2. Examination of various ores in the museum of Dr. W. Hunter. 3. A new method of assaying copper ores. 4. An account of some experiments on the loss of weight in bodies on being melted or heated. 5. An account of an experiment on heat. 6. The Cronian lecture on muscular motion. 7. On the cause of the additional weight which metals acquire on being calcined, &c. Account of a new pendulum, being the Bakerian lecture. His papers in the Medical and Chirurgical Transactions are, 1. Observations on the small-pox, and causes of fever. 2. An attempt to improve the evidence of medicine. 3. Some observations upon the composition of medicines. He was, besides, the inventor of the experiments in heated rooms, an account of which was given to the royal society by the present sir Charles Blagden; and was the author of many improvements in various arts connected with chemistry, on which he used frequently to be consulted by manufacturers. Though he had projected various literary works in addition to those which have been mentioned, nothing has been left by him in manuscript, except the dissertation on fever already spoken of; and two introductory lectures, one to his course of materia medica, the other to that of the practice of physic. This will not apear extraordinary to those who knew what confidence he ad in the accuracy of his memory. He gave all his lectures without notes, and perhaps never possessed any; he took no memorandum in writing of the engagements he formed, whether of business or pleasure, and was always most punctual in observing them; and when he composed his works for the publick, even such as describe successions of events found together, as far as we can perceive, by no necessary tie, his materials, such at least as were his own, were altogether drawn from stores in his memory, which had often been laid up there many years before. In consequence of this retentiveness of memory, and of great reading and a most inventive mind, he was, perhaps, more generally skilled in the sciences, which are either directly subservient to medicine, or remotely connected with it, than any other person of his time. One fault, however, in his character as an author, probably arose, either wholly or in part, from the very excellence which has been mentioned. This was his deficiency in the art of literary composition; the knowledge of which he might have insensibly acquired to a much greater degree than was possessed by him, had he felt the necessity in his youth of frequently committing his thoughts to writing, for the purpose of preserving them. But, whether this be just or not, it must be confessed, that notwithstanding his great learning, which embraced many subjects no way allied to medicine, he seldom wrote elegantly, often obscurely and inaccurately; and that he frequently erred with respect even to orthography. His language, however, in conversation, which confirms the preceding conjecture, was not less correct than that of most other persons of good education. As a lecturer, his delivery was slow and hesitating, and frequently interrupted by pauses not required by his subject. Sometimes, indeed, these continued so long, that persons unaccustomed to his manner, were apt to fear that he was embarrassed. But these disadvantages did not prevent his having a considerable number of pupils, actuated by the expectation of receiving from him more full and accurate instruction than they could elsewhere obtain. His person is said to have been handsome in his youth; but his countenance, from its fulness, must have been always inexpressive of the great powers of his mind. His manners too, were less refined, and his dress in general less studied, than is usually regarded as becoming the physician in this country. From these causes, and from his spending a short time with his patients, although sufficient to enable him to form a just opinion of their disorders, he had for many years but little private employment in his profession; and never, even in the latter part of his life, when his reputation was at its height, enjoyed nearly so much as many of his contemporaries. This may have partly resulted too, from his fondness for the pleasures of society, to which he often sacrificed the hours that should have been dedicated to sleep; he has frequently indeed, been known in his younger days, to lecture for three hours in a morning, without having undressed himself the preceding night. The vigour of his constitution enabled him to sustain for a considerable time, without apparent injury, this debilitating mode of life; but at length he was attacked with the gout, which afterwards became irregular, and for many years frequently affected him with excruciating pains in his stomach and bowels; in the latter part of his life, also, his feet and ankles were almost constantly swollen, and a little time before his death he had symptoms of water in the chest. To the first mentioned disease (gout), he uniformly attributed his situation, which, for several weeks previous to his dissolution, he knew to be hopeless. This event took place at his house in Essex-­street, May 25, 1802.

, perhaps better known by the name of Philip of Bergamo, was born at Soldio, an estate belonging to his family near Bergamo, in 1434. He was of the order of Augustines, and was famous in his time as an historian, which he did not much deserve. He published a chronicle from Adam to 1503, which, except in those events that fell under his own knowledge, is a tasteless compilation from the most credulous authors. It was first published by him in 1482, and a fourth edition in 1505. He died June 15, 1520. There is also extant by him a “Confessional, or Interrogatorium,” printed at Venice, in 1487, folio, and “A Treatise of illustrious Women,” in Latin, published at Ferrara, in 1497, folio.

, or Peter Van Foueest, an eminent physician, was born at Alcmaer in 1522. He was sent by his father to Louvain, in order to study with a view to the profession of the law; but, preferring that of medicine, cultivated it in the universities of Bologna, Padua, and Rome; at the former of which he graduated, and afterwards proceeded to complete his studies at Paris. He settled, at the request of his friends, in his native town; but at the end of twelve years removed to Delft, in consequence of a petition from the inhabitants of that place, which was at that time ravaged by a fatal contagious epidemic. Forestus in obeying the call of humanity, not only preserved his own health, but was so successful in his administration of remedies to others, that the town of Delft retained him in the capacity of physician, with a considerable pension, for nearly thirty years; after which he was invited to Leyden, to give the first lectures on medicine at the opening of the university in 1575. He afterwards returned to Delft, and resided there about ten years more, when his attachment to his native city impelled him to visit Alcmaer, where he terminated his life in 1597, in the seventy-fifth year of his age.

, a Prussian writer of various talents, originally of a French refugee family, was born at Berlin in 17 1L He was educated at the royal French college for the church, and being ordained in his twentieth year, he was chosen one of the officiating ministers of the French congregation in Berlin. In 1737 he was appointed professor of eloquence in the French college, and in 1739 succeeded to the philosophical chair of the same college. On the restoration of the royal academy of sciences and belles lettres at Berlin in 1744, M. Formey was made secretary to the philosophical class, and four years afterwards sole and perpetual secretary of -the academy. His talents and fame procured him admission into many foreign learned bodies, as those of London, Petersburg, Haarlem, Mantua, Bologna, and many others in Germany, and he was personally acquainted with several of the most eminent and illustrious characters throughout Europe. Besides his academical employments, he rttas agent or secretary to the dowager princess of Wirtemberg: he filled several offices in the French colony at Berlin, and at length became a privy counsellor in its superior directory. He was twice married, and by his second wife had many children, seven of whom survived him. He died in the month of March 1797, at the great age of eighty-five years and eight months. In Thiebault’s “Anecdotes of Frederic II.” there are some of Formey, by which it would appear that he was apt to be very unguarded, and almost licentious in conversation, but often procured his pardon by the ingenuity of his excuses. His publications were extremely numerous, but we have nowhere seen a complete list. The following, however, probably includes the principal: 1. “Articles des Pacte Conventa, dresses et conclus entre les etats de Pologne et le roi Frederic-Auguste,” 1733, 4to, translated from the Latin. About this time he was concerned in the publication of several political pieces on the affairs of Poland. 2. “Le fidele fortifie par la grace,” a sermon, Berlin, 1736. 3. “Ducatianaj ou remarques de feu M. leDuchat, &c.” Amst. 2 vols. 8vo. 4. “Bibliotheque Germanique;” in this journal he wrote from vol. XXVII. The lives of Duchat, Beausobre, Baratier, &c. are from his pen. 5. “Mercure et Minerve% ou choix de nouvelles, &c.” another periodical work, begun in Dec. 1737, and concluded in March 1738. C. “Amusemens litteraires, moraux, et politiques,” a continuation of the preceding, as far as July of the last mentioned year. 7. “Correspondence entre deux amis sur la succession de Juliers et de Bergues,” Hague, 1738. 8. “Sermons sur le mystere de la naissance de Jesus Christ,” from the German of lleinbeck, Berlin, 1738. 9. “Sermons sur divers textes de Tecriture sainte,” ibid. 1739, 8vo. 10. “Remarques historiques sur les medaille* et monnoies,” ibid. 1740, 4to, from the German of Koehler. II.“Journal de Berlin,” 1740, of which he edited the last six months of that year. 12. “La Belle Wolfienne,” 1741, 8vo. Formey had adopted the philosophy of Leibnitz, as explained by Wolf, and in this publication endeavoured, but without success, to render their principles familiar to the ladies. 13. “Memoires pour servir a Tbistoire de Pologae,” Hague, 1741, 8vo, from the Latin of Lengnich. 14. “La yie de Jean-Philippe Baratier,” Berlin, ifo. 15. ‘ Le iriomphe de i’evidence, ou refnta.­tion du Pyrrhonisme ancien et moderne,“2 vols. 8vo, an abridgment from Crousaz. 16.” Traite sur la reformation de la justice en Rrusse,“to which is added a treatise on dreams. 17.” Eloges des academicians de Berlin et de divers autres savans,“Berlin, 1757, 2 vols. 12mo. 18.” Principes du droit naturel et des gens,“Amst. 3 vols. 12mo, from Wolff’s Latin work. 19.” Conseils pour former une bibliotheque,“Francfort, 1746, of which the sixth edition appeared in 1775, 8vo. 20.” Le systeme du vrai bonheur,“1761. 21.” Melanges philosophiques,“Leyden, 1754, 2 vols. 12mo, translated afterwards into English. 22.” La comtesse Suedoise,“Berlin, 1754, 8vo, from the German of Gellert. 23.” Examen philosophique de la liaison reelle entre les sciences et les mceurs,“1755, 8vo. 24.” L'Abeille du Parnasse,“1750 1754, 10 vois. 8vo. 25.” Le Philosophe Paien, ou pensees de Pline, avec un commentaire literal et moral,“Leyden, 3 vols. 12mo. 26.” Principes elementaires des Belles Lettres,“Berlin, 1759. 27.” Diversite’s historiques,“1764, 8vo f from ^lian, with notes. 28.” Abrege de toutes les sciences a Tusage des adolescens,“Berlin, 1764—1778, 8 vols. 12mo. 9-9.” Introduction generate aux sciences, avec des conseils pour former un bibliotheque choisie,“Amst. 1764. 30.” Discours de Gellert sur la morale,“Berlin, 1766. 31.” Traduction Franchise de l'Histoire des Protestans,“by Hansen, Halle, 1767. Some of these have been published in English, particularly his small work on the belles lettres, and another not noticed above,” Histoire abrege*e de la Philosophic," which we can remember a very popular book in this country. Formey, indeed, if not one of the most profound, was one of the most pleasing of writers, and all his works were calculated by clearness and precision of style for popular reading. He deserves credit also as one of the defenders of revelation against Diderot and Rousseau; and for this reason Voltaire endeavoured to prejudice the king of Prussia against him. Besides the extensive labours we have enumerated, and the list is by no means complete, Formey wrote many articles in the French Encyclopaedia, and in that of Yverdun. His correspondence with literary men was most extensive, and almost all the booksellers on the continent occasionally engaged his services as an editor.

Hitherto we have seen onjy the laudable efforts of a young man to overcome the difficulties of adverse fortune. In what follows he is less entitled to respect. He now applied himself to the study of physic and astrology, and after having travelled to Holland for that purpose, set up in Philpot-lane, London, where his practice being opposed by the physicians, and himself four times fined and imprisoned, he went to study at Cambridge, where he took a doctor’s degree, and a licence to practise; and settling at Lambeth, openly professed the joint occupation of physician and astrologer. “Here he lived,” says Lilly, “with good respect of the neighbourhood, being very charitable to the poor, and was very judicious and fortunate in horary questions and sicknesses.” His charity to the poor, however, was not wholly disinterested. Quacks of this description are generally well repaid for their charity by the good report of the poor, wh.o are illiterate and credulous. In 1601 a complaint was made to Whitgift, archbishop of Canterbury, against him for deluding the people, but it does not appear what steps were taken against him. In the mean time he was much resorted to by all ranks of people; among others the famous, or rather infamous, countess of Essex, applied to him for his assistance in her wicked designs, as appeared by the trials of that lady and of Mrs. Anne Turner, for the murder of sir Thomas Overbury. He died suddenly in a boat on the Thames, Sept. 12, 1611, and if we may believe Lilly, predicted his death on that day. He wrote a great many books, on the philosopher’s stone, magic, astronomy, natural history, and natural philosophy, two treatises on the plague, and some religious tracts, of which Anthony Wood has given a catalogue from the Ashmolean museum, where his Mss. were deposited, but it seems doubtful whether any of them were printed. There are also some of his Mss. on astrology in the British Museum. He was a man of considerable learning in all the above sciences, as they were then understood, but seems to have been either an egregious dupe, or unprincipled impostor, in the use he made of his knowledge.

, an eminent naturalist, was the son of a burgomaster at Dirschaw, in Polish Prussia, where he was born Oct. 22, 1729. We learn nothing of his education until his fifteenth year, when he was admitted into the gymnasium of Joachimsthal at Berlin, where his application to the study of ancient and modern languages was incessant and successful. From 1748, when he went to the university of Halle, he studied theology, and continued his application to the learned languages, among which he comprehended the Oriental, and after three years he removed to Dantzic, and distinguished himself as a preacher, imitating the French rather than the Dutch manner; and in 1753 he obtained a settlement at Nassenhuben. In the following year he married his cousin, Elizabeth Nikolai. During his residence in this place he employed his leisure hours in the study of philosophy, geography, and the mathematics, still improving his acquaintance with the ancient and modern languages. With a small income, and increasing family, the difficulties he experienced induced him to accept the proposal of removing to Russia, in order to superintend the new colonies at Saratow, but not succeeding in this or any other scheme of a settlement in that country, he removed to London in 1766, with strong recommendations, but with very little money. After his arrival, he received from the government of Russia a present of 100 guineas; and he also made an addition to his stock by the translation of Kalm’s Travels and Osbeck’s Voyage. At this time lord Baltimore proposed to him a settlement in America, as superintendant of his extensive property in that country; but he preferred the place of teacher of the French, German, and natural history in the dissenting academy at Warrington. For the first department he was by no means well qualified, his extraordinary knowledge of languages being unaccompanied by a particle of taste, and his use of them being barbarous, though fluent; and his knowledge of natural history was of little value in his academical department. This situation, however, for these or other reasons which we never heard assigned, he soon abandoned; and returning to London, he was engaged, in 1772, to accompany captain Cook, as a naturalist, in his second voyage round the world. At this time he was forty-three years of age, and his son George, who went with him, was seventeen. Upon his return to England in 1775, the university of Oxford conferred upon him the degree of LL. D. At this time he was projecting, with the assistance of his son, a botanical work in Latin, containing the characters of many new genera of plants, which they had discovered in the course of their voyage. An account of the voyage having been published by his son in English and German, the father was supposed to have had a considerable share in it; and as he had entered into an engagement not to publish any thing separately from the authorized narrative, he thus incurred the displeasure of government, and gave offence to his friends. Independently of the violation of his engagement, he was also chargeable with having introduced into his work several reflections on the government which appointed, and some falsehoods respecting the navigators who conducted the expedition. The father and son, finding that, in consequence of these circumstances, their situation in London was become unpleasant, determined to quit EnglaiYd. Before the execution of their purpose, their condition became embarrassed and distressing; but Mr. Forster was invited, in 1780, to be professor of natural history at Halle, and inspector of the botanical garden and in the following year he obtained the degree of M. D. His health, however, began to decline and the death of his son George so deeply impressed his mind as to aggravate his other complaints. Towards the commencement of 1798, his case became desperate; and before the close of this year, viz. on the 9th of December, he died. Mr. Forster’s disposition was most unamiable, and extremely irritable and litigious; and his want of prudence involved him in perpetual difficulties. Yet these seem to have all been virtues in the eyes of the celebrated Kurt Sprengel of Halle, who thus embellishes his character, which we should not copy if it did not mention some particulars of his studies and works: “To a knowledge of books in all branches of science, seldom to be met with, he joined an uncommon fund of practical observations, of which he well knew how to avail himself. In natural history, in geography, both physical and moral, and in universal history, he was acquainted with a vast number of facts, of which he who draws his information from works only has not even a distant idea. This assertion is proved in the most striking manner by his ‘ Observations made in a Voyage round the World.’ Of this book it may be said, that no traveller ever gathered so rich a treasure on his tour. What person of any education can read and study this work, which is unparalleled in its kind, without discovering in it that species of instructive and pleasing information which most interests man, as such The uncommon pains which Forster took in his literary compositions, and his conscientious accuracy in historical disquisitions, are best evinced by his * History of Voyages and Discoveries in the North, 7 and likewise by his excellent archaeological dissertation ‘ On the Byssus of the Ancients.’ Researches such as these were his favourite employment, in which he was greatly assisted by his intimate acquaintance with the classics. Forster had a predilection for the sublime in natural history, and aimed at general views ratUer than detail. His favourite author, therefore, was Buffon, whom he used to recommend as a pattern of style, especially in his ‘ Epoques de la Nature,’ his description of the horse, camel, &c. He had enjoyed the friendship of that distinguished naturalist; and he likewise kept up an uninterrupted epistolary intercourse with Linna3us, till the death of the latter. Without being a stickler for the forms and ceremonies of any particular persuasion, he adored the eternal Author of all which exists in the great temple of nature, and venerated his wisdom and goodness with an ardour and a heart-felt conviction, that, in my opinion, alone constitute the criterion of true religion. He held in utter contempt aM those who, to gratify their passions, or imitate the prevailing fashion, made a jest of the most sacred and respectable feelings of mankind. His moral feelings were equally animated: he was attracted with irresistible force by whatever was true, good, or excellent. Great characters inspired him with an esteem which he sometimes expressed with incredible ardour.”

The Mayencois, who had formed themselves into a national convention, sent him to Paris, in order to solicit their re-union with the French republic. But, in the course of his mission, the city of Mentz was besieged and retaken by the Prussian troops. This event occasioned the loss of all his property; and what was still more disastrous, that of his numerous manuscripts, which fell into the hands of the prince of Prussia. One Charles Pougens, who has written his life, after conducting our hero through these scenes of public life, proceeds to give us a view of his domestic habits and private principles. He tells us, that he formed a connexion (whether a njarriage or not, the studied ambiguity of his language leaves rather uncertain) with a young woman named Theresa Hayne, who, by, the illumination of French philosophy, had divested herself of all the prejudices which, we trust, the ladies of this country still consider as their honour, as they are certainly the guardians of domestic peace. Miss Hayne was indignant at the very name of duty. With Eloisa, she had taken it into her head, that

To the number of his friends, who were at all known in the learned world, besides those already mentioned, may be added the rev. Zachary Mudge, author of a translation of the Psalms, and a volume of sermons Dr. Burton, Dr. Bentham, Dr. Benson, bishop of Gloucester and his great successor, Dr. Warburton, with the last of whom he occasionally held a literary correspondence. In private life, Dr. Forster was a man of much discernment, mildness, and benevolence. He always shewed his contempt of what was absurd, and his abhorrence of what he thought wicked, in a manner the most likely to produce a good effect on those whom he wished to convince or reform; at the same time with the most perfect command of his temper. By an uniform application to study, he acquired and deserved the character of very considerable erudition, and great critical acumen; possessing a knowledge of the Greek, Latin, and Hebrew languages, not exceeded by any man of his time.

Dr. Forster published, 1. “Reflections on the natural antiquity of government, arts, and sciences, in Egypt,” Oxford, 1743. 2. “Platonis dialogi quinque, Recensuit, notisque iilustravit, N. Forster, A. M. &c.” ibid. 1745. This is a very correct text of the Amatores, Euthyphro, Apologia Socratis, Criton, and Phaedo; and this edition of 1745 is preferred to those of 1752, and 1765, afterwards published. 3. “Appendix Liviana, continens, 1. ‘ Selectas codicum Mss. et editionum antiquaruru lectiones, prsecipuas variorum emendationes, et supplementa lacunarum in iis T. Livii qui supersunt libris; 2. J. Freinshewiii supplementorum lib. decem in locum decadis secundac Livianae deperdittp,’” ibid. 1746. This was a joint publication of Dr, Forster and another fellow of Corpus college, and was published without a name. 4. “Popery destructive of the evidence of Christianity.; a sermon before the university of Oxford, Nov. 5, 1746,” ibid. 1746. 5. “A Dissertation upon the account supposed to have been give*i of Jesus Christ by Josephus: being an attempt to show that this celebrated passage, some slight corruptions only excepted, may reasonably be esteemed genuine,” ibid. 1749. The criticism contained in this dissertation is allowed to be ingenious, even by Mr. Bryant, who, in deciding the controversy, defended the passage as it stands. Bishop Warburton’s opinion of it was still more favourable, as appears by his testimony to the author’s “abilities, candour, and address,” in his Julian, p. 93; and by part of a letter of his to Dr. Forster, in which, after having noticed some judicious observations of Dr. Forster, made on his Julian in manuscript, Warburton says, “I have often wished for a hand capable of collecting all the fragments remaining of Porphyry, Celsus, Hierocles, and Julian, and giving them to us with a just, critical, and theological comment, as a ‘ Defy to Infidelity.’ It is certain we want something more than what their ancient answerers have given us. This would be a very noble work. I know of none that has all the talents fit for it but yourself. What an opening will this give to all the treasures of sacred and profane antiquity and what an opportunity would this be of establishing a great character The author of the dissertation on the passage of Josephus (which I think the best piece of criticism of this age) would shine here. Think of it: you cannot do a more useful thing to religion or your own character. Controversies of the times are things that presently vanish. This will be always of the same importance.” (Dated Oct. 15, 1749.) 6. “Biblia Hebraica, sine punctis,” Oxon. 1750, 2 vols. 4to. 7. “Remarks on the rev. Dr. Stebbing’s Dissertation on the power of states to deny civil protection to the Marriages of Minors, &c.” Lond. 1755.

, an eminent English lawyer in the reign of Henry VI. was descended from an ancient family in Devonshire: but we cannot learn either the place or time of his birth. It is also uncertain in which ^university he studied, or whether he studied in any. Prince, in his -Worthies of Devonshire, supposes him to havebeen educated at Oxford, and bishop Tanner fixes him to Exeter, college: and the great learning every where shewn in his writings makes these conjectures probable. When he turned his thoughts to the municipal laws of the land, he settled at Lincoln’s Inn, where he quickly distinguished himself by his knowledge of civil as well as common law. The first date that occurs, with respect to his preferments, is the fourth year of Henry VI.; when, as Dugdale informs us, he was made one of the governors of Lincoln’s Inn, and honoured with the same employment three years after. In 1430 he was made a serjeant at law; and, as himself tells us, kept his feast on that occasion with very great splendour, In 1441 he was made a king’s serjeant at law; and, the year after, chief justice of the king’s bench. He is highly commended by our most eminent writers, for the wisdom, gravity, and uprightness, with which he presided in that court for many years. He remained in great favour with the king, of which he received a signal proof, by an unnsual augmentation of his salary. He held his office through the reign of Henry VI. to whom he steadily adhered, and served him faithfully in all his troubles; for which, in the first parliament of Edward IV. which began at Westminster, Nov. 1461, he was attainted of high treason, in the same act by which Henry VI. queen Margaret, Edward their son, and many persons of the first distinction, were likewise attainted. After this, Henry fled into Scotland, and it is generally believed, that he then made Fortescne chancellor of England. His name, indeed, upon this occasion, is not found recorded in the patent rolls; because, as Selden says, “being with Henry VI. driven into Scotland by the fortune of the wars wijth the house of York, he was made chancellor of England while he was there.” Several writers have styled him chancellor of England; and, in his book “De laudibus legum Anglia;,” he calls himself “Cancellarius Angliae.”

In April 1463, he embarked with queen Margaret, prince Edward, and many persons of distinction, who followed the fortunes of the house of Lancaster, at Hamburg, and landed at Sluys in Flanders; whence they were conducted to Bruges, thence to Lisle, and thence into Lorrain. lu this exile he remained for many years, retiring from place to place, as the necessities of the royal family required: for though, during that space, the queen and prince were often in motion, and great efforts were made to restore. Henry, yet, considering the age of Fortescue, it is not probable that he was suffered to expose himself to such hazards; especially as he might do them better service by soliciting their interest at different courts. It is certain, that he was not idle; but, observing the excellent understanding of prince Edward, who applied himself wholly to military exercises, and seemed to think of nothing but qualifying himself for an expert commander, he thought it high time to give him other impressions, and to infuse into his mind just notions of the constitution of his country, as well as due respect to its laws; so that, if Providence should favour his designs, he might govern as a king, and not as a tyrant, or a conqueror. With this view 1 as we learn from his introduction, he drew up his famous work, entitled “De Laudibus Legtirn Anglise;” which, though it failed of its primary intention, that hopeful prince being not long after cruelly murdered, will yet remain an everlasting monument of this great and good man’s respect and affection for his country. This very curious and concise vindication of our laws was received with great esteem when it was communicated to the learned of that profession; yet it was not published till the reign of Henry VIII. when it was printed hy Edward Whitchurch, in 16mo, but without a date. In 1516 it was translated by Robert Mulcaster, and printed by R. Tottel, and again in 1567, 1573, and 1575; also by Thomas White in 1598, 1599, and 1609. Fortescue, with HenghamVs “Summa magna et parva,” was likewise printed in 1616 and 1660, 12mo, and again, with Selden’s notes, 1672, 12mo. In 1737 Fortescue was printed in folio; and lastly, in 1775, an English translation with the original Latin, was published in 8vo, with Selden’s notes, and a great variety of remarks relative to the history, antiquities, and laws of England, with a large historical preface by F. Gregor, esq. In 1663, E. Waterhouse, esq. published “Fortescue illustratuV” a commentary on the “De Laudibus,” which, although prolix and defective in style, Mr. Hargrave thinks may be resorted to with great advantage, and may very much facilitate the labours of more judicious and able inquirers. When lord chancellor, sir John is said to have drawn up the statute 2$ Henry VI. “of resumption of certain grants of the crown,” which, though much relied upon by the writers on that subject, is not extant in any present edition of the statutes. The house of Lancaster having afterwards a prospect of retrieving their fortunes, the queen and the prince went over to England, Fortescue with many others accompanying them. They did not succeed, so that this chancellor was forced to reconcile himself as well as he could to the victorious Edward IV.; for which purpose he wrote a kind of apology for his own conduct. Tlws treatise, though it has never been published, Selden had seen; as he tells us in his preface to Fortescue' s book, “L)e Laudibus, <kc.” After all these extraordinary changes of masters and fortunes, he preserved his old principles in regard to the English constitution; as appears from another valuable and learned work, written by him in English, and published in the reign of queen Anne, with this title: “The difference between an absolute and limited monarchy, as it more particularly regards the English constitution: being a treatise written by sir John Fortescue, knight, lord chief justice, and lord high chancellor of England, under king 'Henry VI. Faithfully transcribed from the manuscript copy in the Bodleian library, and collated with three other manuscripts (which were afterwards printed). Published with some remarks by John Fortescue Aland, of the Inner Temple, esq. F. R. S. 1714,” 8vo. There is a manuscript of this work in the Cotton library, in the title of which it is said to be addressed to Henry VI. but many passages in it shew it to have been plainly written in favour of, and for the service of, Edward IV. A second edition, with amendments, was published in 1719, 8vo. As for this author’s other writings, which were pretty numerous, as they were never printed, we know nothing more of them than we learn from the titles, and the commendations bestowed upon them by those who had perused them. They have, however, been carefully preserved in libraries, some of them being still extant under the following titles “Opusculum de natura Legis Naturae, et de ejus censura in successione regnorum supremorum;” “Defensio juris Domus Lancastriae” “Genealogy of the House of Lancaster” “Of the title of the House of York” “Genealogise Ilegum Scotios” “A Dialogue between Understanding and Faith” "A Prayer Book which savours touch of the times we live in,' 1 &c. It would certainly be a gratification, if not a benefit, to the learned world, if his manuscripts were printed; for he was a man of general knowledge, great observation, and his writings would probably throw much light upon the dark parts of our history and antiquities.

, an English dissenting minister, was born at Exeter, Sept. 16, 1697. His grandfather was 9, clergyman at Kettering in Northamptonshire; but his father, being educated by an uncle who was a dissenter, imbibed the same principles, and was afterwards by trade a tucker, or fuller, in Exeter. He was sent early to the free school in that town, where the foundation of a friendship between him and Dr. Conybeare, afterwards bishop of Bristol, is said to have been laid; and thence was removed to an academy in the same city, where he finished his studies. He there displayed pre-eminent natural abilities, a quick apprehension, a solid judgment, a happy memory, and a free commanding elocution.

From this place he removed to Trowbridge in Wiltshire, where he boarded with Mr. Norman, a reputable glover. Here his congregation did not consist of more than twenty or thirty persons; and his finances were so very insufficient for his support, that he began to entertain thoughts of quitting the ministry, and learning the glove trade of Mr. Norman; choosing-rather to recur to some secular employment, than seek for succour in the established church. About this time he was convinced, by reading Dr. Gale, that baptism of the adult by immersion was the true scripture-doctrine, and accordingly was baptised that way in Lpndon: but this caused no misunderstanding between him and his presbvterian congregation. While he was meditating on the poverty of his condition, and looking abroad for better means of subsistence, Robert Houlton, esTj. took him into his house as a chaplain, and treated him with much huiiiniiity. Tins event seems to have opened his way to public notice; for, in 1724, he was chosen to succeed Dr. Gale at Barbican, in London, where he laboured as a pastor above twenty years. In 1731 he published a “Defence of the usefulness truth, and excellency of the Christian Revelation,” against Tindal’s “Christianity as old as the Creation.” This Defence is written with great force of argument, and great moderation has been well accepted, and much esteemed by the candid and judicious of all parties and, as is said, was spoken of with great regard by Tindal himself. In 1744 he was chosen pastor of the independent church of Pinners-hall. In 1748 the university of Aberdeen conferred on him the degree of D. D. by diploma: for at this time the Scottish divines had the highest opinion of his merit.

In August 1746 he attended lord Kilmarnock, who was concerned in the rebellion the year before; and they who lived with him imagined that this attendance made too deep an impression on his tender, sympathizing spirit. His vivacity at least was thenceforward observed to abate; and, in April 1750, he was visited with a violent disorder, of which he never thoroughly recovered, though he continued to preach more or less till January 1752. Three days after, he h'nd another shock of the paralytic kind, which so impaired his understanding that he never possessed it rightly afterwards. About ten days before his death he was paralytic, but did not entirely lose his senses till the last, Nov. 5, 1753. Besides the pieces already mentioned, he published “Tracts on Heresy,” on which subject he had a controversy with Dr. Stebbing; several “Funeral Sermons,” one among the rest for the rev. Mr. Thomas Emlyn “An Account of lord Kilmarnock” four volumes of “Sermons,” in 8vo and two volumes of “Discourses on Natural Religion and Social Virtue,” in 4to.

Dr. Foster’s character has been spoken of by his friends in the highest terms, and they dwell with peculiar emphasis on his humanity, as a man perfectly free from every thing gross and worldly. His benevolence and charities were so extraordinary, that he never reserved any thing for his own future use: and had it not been for two thousand subscribers to his “Discourses on Natural Religion and Social Virtue,” he would have died extremely poor. His way of thinking is thus described by himself: “I always had,” says he, “I bless God, ever since I began to understand, or think, to any purpose, large and generous principles; and there never was any thing either in my temper or education, which might incline me to narrowness and bigotry: and I am heartily glad of this opportunity, which now offers itself, of making this public, serious profession, that I value those who are of different persuasions from me, more than those who agree with me in sentiment, if they are more serious, sober, and charitable.” His talent for preaching was very eminent and extraordinary. His voice was naturally sweet, strong, distinct, harmonious: and his ear enabled him to manage it exactly. He was also a perfect master of action; his action, however, was grave, expressive, natural, free from violence, free from distortions: in short, such as became the pulpit, and was necessary to give force and energy to the truths there delivered. The Sunday evening lecture, begun in 1728, which he carried on at the Old Jewry above twenty years, shewed indisputably, that nobody ever went beyond him for popularity in preaching. Hither resorted persons of every rank, station, and quality clergy, wits, freethinkers: and hither curiosity might probably draw Pope himself, who, in the epilogue to his satires, has taken occasion to praise him for this talent in the following lines:

, an excellent classic scholar, was born in 1731, at Windsor, the propinquity of which to Eton was, fortunately for him, the motive for sending him to that college for education, where, at a very early age, he manifested great abilities, and, in an uncommon manner, baffled all the hardships which other boys in their progress usually encounter. He, however, had two considerable advantages the first, being received as a pupil by the late rev. Septimius Plumptree, then one of the assistants and the second, that he was -noticed by the reverend and very learned Dr. John Burton, vice-provost of Eton; by the abilities of the former in the Greek language, and of the latter in the Hebrew, Mr. Foster profited exceedingly. It was a matter highly pleasing to them, that they did not throw their seed on a barren soil whatever instruction he received, he cultivated incessantly and it is but justice to add, that he in a great measure excelled his contemporaries. His learning and his sobriety recommended him to many friends while he continued at Eton, which was till 1748, when he was elected to King’s college in Cambridge; a college to which, as Mr. Pote observes in his advertisement to his " Registrum Regale,' 7 Eton annually sendeth forth her ripe fruit. Mr. Foster here improved himself under the provost Dr. Wm. George, an excellent Greek, and general scholar. At the expiration of three years he there (as usual) became a fellow, and shortly afterwards was sent for to Eton by the late Dr. Edward Barnard, to be one of his assistants. Great honour was sure to attend Mr. Foster from this summons, for no man distinguished better, or could form a stronger judgment of his abilities and capacity, than Dr. Barnard: and such was his attention to the school, that he made it his primary consideration, that it should be supplied with assistants the most capable and the most deserving. At the resignation of this great master, which happened Oct. 25, 1765, when he was chosen provost on the death of Dr. Sleech, he exerted his whole interest for Dr. Foster to succeed him in the mastership, and by his weight in the college he carried his point. But it did not prove fortunate for his successor, or for the seminary; the temper, the manner, the persuasion, the politeness, the knowledge of the world, which Dr. Barnard so eminently displayed, did not appear in his successor. His learning justly entitled him to the situation; but learning is not the sole ingredient to constitute the master of such a school; more, much more, is required and Dr. Foster appeared to the greater disadvantage, from immediately succeeding so great a man. Nor could he long support himself in his situation his passions undermined his health and, notwithstanding his abilities as a scholar, his government was defective, his authority insufficient, and he judged it best to resign, that he might not destroy a fabric which he found himself unequal to support. Dr. Foster, however, did not retire unrewarded; his majesty, on the death of Dr. Sumner in 1772, bestowed on him a canonry of Windsor. But this he did not long enjoy; his ill health carried him to the German Spa, where he died in September the year following, and where his remains were interred; but afterwards were removed to Windsor, and deposited near those of his father, who had been mayor of that corporation.

Having greatly distinguished himself on many occasions after his settlement at Bristol, Mr. serjeant Foster, in the vacation after Hilary term J 8 Geo. II. (1745) on the recommendation of the lord chancellor Hardwicke, was appointed to succeed sir William Chappie, as one of the judges of the court of King’s Bench; and being knighted by the iking, was sworn into the office, April 22 of the above year. In this office he continued to Nov. 7, 1763, during which period many points of singular importance, as well in civil as criminal cases, in which he bore a considerable share, were determined. The criminal cases are reported by himself in his Crown Law, and many of the others may be seen in the Reports of Strange, Wilson, Burrow, and Blackstone. But although sir Michael Foster generally concurred in opinion with the other judges (who were in succession, sir William Lee, sir Martin Wright, sir Thomas Denison, sir Dudley Ryder, lord Mansfield, and sir John Eardley Wilmot) yet on several important questions, instances of which are given hy his biographer, he differed from some, if not from all of the judges. Indeed, his life, as drawn up by his nephew, Mr. Dodson, for the Biog. Britannica, and lately published separately, is merely a lawpamphlet, and contains, unless in a very general way, very little biography, very little of personal character, habits, or manners. At the conclusion, we are told that Mr. Justice Foster was blessed with a good constitution, and generally enjoyed a good state of health until some few years before his death. In no long time after the death of lady Foster (which happened in 1758) his health began to decline, and he complained of a loss of appetite, which made it necessary for him occasionally to spend some time at Bath. He received considerable benefit from the use of the Bath waters but wheresoever he was, he was patient and resigned, composed and cheerful rejoicing in the glorious prospect beyond the grave, which Christianity opened to his view. In Hilary, Easter, and Trinity terms, 1763, he seldom attended at Westminster-hall. He was confined to his bed a short time only, and on Monday, Nov. 7, he expired. He never had any children. By his own direction, he was buried in the parish church of StantonDrew, in Somersetshire, where lady Foster had been buried. The doctrines of our criminal law are very learnedly discussed by sir Michael Foster, in his “Report of the proceedings on the commission for the Trial of the Rebels in 1746, and other crown cases.” The first edition of these reports was published in folio, 1763; the second in 8vo, 1776, to which were added, some discourses on several branches of the crown law, with notes and references, by Michael Dodson, esq. his nephew; and the third, with a few discourses on high treason, on homicide, on accomplices, and some observations on the writings of lord Hale, and an appendix containing sir M. Foster’s opinion on several difficult and important cases, in royal 8vo, 1792, by the same Mr. Dodson.

, an English mathematician, and professor of astronomy at Gresham college, was born in Northamptonshire or as Aubrey says, at Coventry, where he adds that he was some time usher of the school and was sent to Emanuel college, Cambridge, in 1616. He took the degree of B. A. in 1619, and of master in 1623. He applied early to the mathematics, and attained to great proficiency in that kind of knowledge, of which he gave the first specimen in 1624. He had an elder brother at the same college with himself, which precluded him from a fellowship; in consequence of which, he offered himself a candidate for the professorship of astronomy in Gresham college, Feb. 1636, and was elected the 2 d of March. He quitted it again, it does not appear for what reason, Nov. 25, the same year, and was succeeded therein by Mr. Mungo Murray, professor of philosophy at St. Andrew’s in Scotland. Murray marrying in 1641, his professorship was thereby vacated; and as Foster bad before made way for him, so he in his turn made way for Foster, who was re-elected May 22, the same year. The civil war breaking out soon after, he became one of that society of gentlemen, who had stated meetings for cultivating philosophy, and afterwards were established by charter, under the name of the royal society, in the reign of Charles II. In 1646, Dr. Wallis, another member of that society, received from Foster a mathematical theorem, which he afterwards published in his “Mechanics.” Neither was it only in this branch of science that he excelled, but he was likewise well versed in the ancient languages; as appear! from his revising and correcting the “Lemmata” of Archimedes, which had been translated from an Arabic manuscript into Latin, but not published, by Mr. John Greaves. He made also several curious observations upon eclipses, both of the sun and moon, as well at Gresham college, as in Northamptonshire, at Coventry, and in other places; and was particularly famous for inventing, as well as improving, astronomical and other mathematical instruments. After being long in a declining state of health, he died in July 1652, at his own apartment at Gresham college, and, according to Aubrey, was buried in the church of St. Peter le poor. His works are, 1. “The Description and use of -a small portable Quadrant, for the more easy finding of the hour of azimuth/' 1624, 4to, This treatise, which has been reprinted several times, is divided into two parts, and was originally published at the end of Gunter’s” Description of the Cross Staffe in three hooks,“to which it was intended as an appendix. 2.” The Art of Dialling,“1638, 4to. Reprinted in 1675, with several additions and variations from the author’s own manuscript, as also a supplement by the editor William Leybourne. Our author himself published no more, yet left many other treatises, which, though not finished in the manner he intended, were published by his friends after his death as, 3.” Posthuinu Fosteri containing the description of a Ruler, upon which are inscribed divers scales, &c.“1652, 4to. This was published by Edmund Wingate, esq. 4.” Four Treatises of Dialling,“1654, 4to. 5.” The Sector altered, and other scales added, with the description and use thereof, invented and written by Mr. Foster, and now published by William Leybourne, 1661,“4to. This was an improvement of Gunter’s Sector, and therefore published among his works. 6.” Miscellanies, or Mathematical Lucubrations of Mr. Samuel Foster, published, and many of them translated into English, by the care and industry of John Twysden, C. L. M. D. whereunto he hath annexed some things of his own." The treatises in this collection are of different kinds, some of them written in Latin, some in English.

, an eminent physician, son of John and Margaret Fothergill, quakers, was born March 8, 6r, according to Dr. Thompson’s account, Oct. 12, 1712, at Carr End in Yorkshire, where his father, who had been a brewer at Knaresborough (after having travelled from one end of America to the other), lived retired on a small estate which he cultivated. The eldest son Alexander, who studied the law, inherited that estate. John was the second son. Joseph, the third son, was an ironmonger at Stockport, in Cheshire, where he died a few years ago. Samuel, the fourth son, went to America, and became a celebrated preacher among the quakers. There was also a sister, Anne, who lived with the doctor, and survived him. John received his education under the kind care of his grandfather Thomas Hough, a person of fortune in Cheshire (which gave him a predilection for that county), and at Sedburg in Yorkshire. About 1718 he was put apprentice to Benjamin Bartlett, apothecary, at Bradford, whence he removed to London, Oct. 20, 1736, and studied two years as a pupil of doctor (afterwards sir Edward) Wilmot, at St. Thomas’s hospital. He then went to the university of Edinburgh, to study physic, and there took his doctor’s degree. His Thesis was entitled, “De emeticorum usu in variis morbis tractandis;” and it has been republished in a collection of theses by Smellie. From Edinburgh he went to Leyden, whence, after a short stay, he travelled through some parts of France and Germany, and, returning to England, began his practice in London about 1740, in a house in Whitehart-court, Lombard-street (where he resided till his removal to Harpur-street in 1767), and acquired both reputation and fortune. He was admitted a licentiate of the college of physicians of London, 1746, and in 1754, fellow of Edinburgh, to which he was a considerable benefactor. In 1753, he became a member both of the royal and antiquarian societies; and was at his death a member of the royal medical society at Paris. He continued his practice with uninterrupted success till within the last two years of his life, when an illness, which he had brought on himself by his unremitted attention, obliged him greatly to contract it. Besides his occupation in medical science, he had imbibed an early taste for natural history, improved by his -friend Peter Collinson, and employed himself particularly on the study of shells, and of botany. He was for many years a valuable contributor to the Gentleman’s Magazine; which in return considerably assisted his rising fame. His observations on the weather and diseases were begun there in April 1751, and discontinued in the beginning of 1756, as he was disappointed in his views of exciting other experienced physicians in different parts to imitate the example. Though, his practice was very extensive, he did not add to his art any great or various improvements. His pamphlet on the ulcerous sore throat is, on every account, the best of his publications, and that owes much of its merit to the information of the late doctors Letherland or Sylvester. It was first printed in 1748, on the re-appearance of that fatal disorder whick in 1739 had carried off the two only sons of Mr. Pelham. It may be here added, that 0r. Wilmot preserved lady Catherine Pelham, after her sons had died of it, by lancing her throat; a method which, he said, he had once before pursued with the same success. In 1762, Dr. Fothergill purchased an estate at Upton in Essex, and formed an excellent botanic garden, with hot-houses and green-houses, to the extent of 260 feet. In 1766, he began regularly to withdraw, from Midsummer to Michaelmas, from the excessive fatigue of his profession, to Lee Hall, near Middlewich in Cheshire; which, though he only rented it by the year, he had spared no expence to improve. During this recess he took no fees, but attended, to prescribe gratis at an inn at Middlewich once a week. Some time before his death he had been industrious to contrive a method of generating and preserving ice in the West Indies. He was the patron of Sidney Parkinson, and drew up the preface prefixed to his account of the voyage to the South Seas. At his expence also was made and printed an entire new translation of the whole Bible, from the Hebrew and Greek originals, by Anthony Purver , a quaker, in two volumes, 1764, folio, and also, in 1780, an edition of bishop Percy’s “Key to the New Testament,” adapted to the use of a seminary of young quakers, at Acworth, near Leeds, which the doctor first projected, and afterwards endowed handsomely by his will. It now contains above 300 children of both sexes, who are clothed and instructed. Among the other beneficent schemes suggested by Dr. Fothergill, was that of bringing fish to London by land carriage, which, though it did not in every respect succeed, was supposed to defeat a monopoly; and, that of rendering bread much cheaper, though equally wholesome, by making it with one part of potatoes, and three parts of household flour. But his public benefactions, his encouragements ef science, the instances of his attention to the health, the police, the convenience of the metropolis, &c. are too numerous to specify . The fortune which Dr. Fothergill acquired, was computed at 80,000l. His business when he was in "full practice, was calculated at near 7000l. per annum. In the Influenza of 1775 and 1776*, he is said to have had sixty patients on his list daily, and his profits were then estimated at 8000l. The disorder which hastened his death was an obstruction in the bladder, occasioned by a delicacy which made him unwilling to alight from his carriage for relief. He died at his house in Harpur-street, Dec. 26, 1780; and his remains were interred, Jan. 5, in the quakers burying-ground at Winchmore-hill. The executors, who were his lister, and Mr. Ghorley, linen-draper, in Gracechurch-street, who married one of his nieces, intended the burial to be private; but the desire of the quakers to attend the funeral rendered it impossible. Only ten coaches were ordered to convey his relations and friends, but there were more than seventy coaches and post-chaises attending; and many of the friends came above 100 miles, to pay their last tribute of respect. The doctor by his will appointed, that his shells, and other pieces of natural history, should be offered to the late Dr. Hunter at 500l. under the valuation he ordered to be taken of them. Accordingly, Dr. Hunter bought them for 1200l. The drawings and collections in natural history, which he had spared no expence to augment, were also to be offered to Mr. (now sir Joseph) Banks, at a valution. His English portraits and prints, which had been collected by Mr. John Nickolls of Ware, and purchased by him for 80 guineas, were bought for 200 guineas by Mr. Thane. His books were sold by auction, April 30, 1731, and the eight following days. His house and garden, at Upton, were valued at 10,000l. The person of Dr. Fothergill was of a delicate rather than an extenuate4 make. His features were all expressive, and his eye had a peculiar brilliancy. His understanding was comprehensive and quick, and rarely embarrassed on the most sudden occasions. There was a charm in his conversation and address that conciliated the regard and confidence of all who employed him; and so discreet and uniform was his conduct, that he was not apt to forfeit the esteem which he had once acquired. At his meals he was uncommonly abstemious, eating sparingly, and rarely exceeding two glasses of wine at dinner or supper. By this uniform and steady temperance, he preserved his mind vigorous and active, and his constitution equal to all his engagements.

, marquis of Belle-Isle, wag born in 1615. His father was a counsellor of state; his mother, Mary de Meaupeou, was almost canonized for her charities, and lived to the age of 91 (1681). Nicolas Foucquet was early distinguished for talents, and early advanced. At the age of twenty he was master of requests, at thirty-five procurator-general of the parliament of Paris, and at thirty-eight superintendant of the finances, at a time when they were much in want of management, in consequence of wars, and the peculation of Mazarin. Foucquet, however, was not the proper person to restore them; for he squandered the public money for his own use with so little remorse, that he expended near 36 millions of livres (150,000l.) to build and adorn his house at Vaux. This profusion raised suspicions of dangerous designs; and an attempt to rival his master, Louis XIV. in the affections of madame de la Valliere, contributed to irritate that monarch against him. His ruin was completed, like that of Wolsey, by his magnificence and pride. The king visited him at Vaux, and there saw a feast more splendid than he was used to give himself, and a place, more beautiful than St. Germain, or Fontainbleau. His motto and device were also offensive: the latter was a, squirrel pursued by a snake, (coleuvrc, the arms of Colbert), with these words, “Quo non ascendam” “Whither shall I not rise” From this moment his disgrace was fixed. The entertainment was given late in August 1661, and he was arrested at Nantes early in September. He was tried after a time by commissaries appointed for the purpose, and, in 1664, condemned to perpetual banishment; but the sentence was changed to perpetual imprisonment. He was confined in the citadel of Pignerol, where he is supposed to have died in March 1680, at the age of 65, a memorable example of the folly and danger of extravagance and ambition. It has been pretended by some authors, that he died in private, among his own family, but in the utmost obscurity. His best quality was that of liberality, during his elevation, to men of letters, some of whom he pensioned, who did not forget him, such, as Fontaine and Pelisson, which last has greatly extolled his resignation after his disgrace.

, a celebrated licentiate of the Sorbonne, was born in 1670 at Rochelle, where he studied ethics in the Jesuits’ college. He went afterwards to> Paris, and continued his studies in the community of M. Gillot, at the college of St. Barbe, including the time of his being licentiate, and was immediately nominated theologal of Rochelle; this office, however, he declined, nor had he ever any benefice, but the commendatory priory of St. Martin de Prunieres, in the diocese of Mende. M. Fouillou having engaged in the affair of the “Case of Conscience,” was obliged to conceal himself in 1703, and to retire into Holland about 1705; but the air of that country not agreeing with him, he was seized with an asthma, which proved incurable. He returned to Paris about 1720, and died there September 21, 1736, aged sixty-six, leaving several theological works, all anonymous, and all discovering great opposition to the bull Unigenitus. The principal are, 1. “Considerations sur la Censure (of the Cas de Conscience) de M. TEveque d'Apt.” 2. “Defense des Theologiens centre M. de Chartres,” 12mo. 3. “Traite” sur le Silence respectueux,“3 vols. 12mo. 4.” La Chime-re du Jansenisme, et le Kenversement de la Doctrine de St. Augustin, par rOrdonuance de Luron, et de la Rochelle,“12mo. 5.” Traits de l'Equilibre,“a small piece containing observations on the 101 propositions censured by the bull Umgenitus. Fouillou had also a great share in the first edition of” L' Action de Dieu sur let Creatures,“4to, or 6 vols. 12mo;” Gemissemens sur PertRo'ial,“12mo;” Grands Hexaples,“1721, 7 vols. 4to, and” l'Histotre du Caa de Conscience," 1705, 8 vols. 12mo.

, two learned printers of Scotland, were, it is supposed, natives of Glasgow, and passed their early days in obscurity. Ingenuity and perseverance, however, enabled them to establish a press from which have issued some of the finest specimens of correct and elegant printing which the eighteenth century has produced. Even Bodoni of Parma, or Barbou of Paris, have not gone beyond some of the productions from the press of Robert and Andrew Foulis. It would b highly agreeable to trace the progress of these ingenious men, but their history has been neglected by their countrymen, and at this distance little can be recovered. Robert Foulis began printing about 1740, and one of his first essays was a good edition of Demetrius Phalereus, in 4to. In 1744 he brought out his celebrated immaculate edition, of Horace, 12mo, and soon afterwards was in partnership with his brother Andrew. Of this edition of Horace, the sheets, as they were printed, were hung up in the college of Glasgow, and a reward was offered to those who should discover an inaccuracy. It has been several times reprrnted at Glasgow, but not probably with the same fidelity. The two brothers then proceeded in producing, for thirty years, a series of correct and well printed books, particularly classics, which, either in Greek or Latin, are as remarkable for their beauty and exactness as any in the Aldine series. Among those classics we may enumerate J. “Homer,” 4 vols. fol. Gr. 2. “Herodotus,” 9 vols. J2mo. 3. “Thucydides,” 8 vols. 12mo. 4. “Xenophon,” 8 vols. 12mo. 5. “Epictetus,” 12mo. 6. “Longiniis,” 12mo. 7. “Ciceronis Opera,” 20 vols. 12mo. %. “Horace,” 12mo and 4to. 9. “Virgil,” I3mo. 10. ' Tibullus and Propertius,“12mo. 11.” Cornelius Nepos,“3 vols. 12mo. 12.” Tacitus,“4 vols. 12mo. 13. 11 Juvenal and Persius,” 12mo. 14. “Lucretius,” 12mo. To these may be added a beautiful edition of the Greek Testament, small 4to; Gray’s Poems; Pope’s Works; Hales of Eton, &c. &c. &c.

In 1736 he was admitted into the corps; and was employed under marshal d'Asfeld. His activity, zeal, and knowledge above his years, procured him the confidence of his commander; but, remarking an error in a project which the marshal communicated to him, he informed him of it For this at first be received thanks; but unluckily he was imprudent enough to entrust this little secret of his vanity to his mother, and her maternal tenderness was equally indiscreet. The marshal had not greatness of mind enough to be indulgent, or ability enough not to be afraid of avowing that he was liable to mistake; and it was long evident that he had not forgiven M. de Fourcroy, both from the commissions which he gave him, and his general regulations, which always tended to prevent his promotion. From this treatment M. de Fpurcroy learnt at an early period to expect nothing but from his services; and he was destined to prove by his example, that virtue is one of the roads to fortune, and perhaps not the least secure.

A life thus busy was rendered more happy by a sentiment, which, born at an early period, expired but with his life. The daughter of M. Le Maistre, the neighbour and friend of his father, and like him famous at the bar, was the companion of his youthful sports, and insensibly chosen by him as the partner of his future days. Whilst M. de Fourcroy was studying under able masters to render himself useful to his country by his talents and acquirements, miss Le Maistre learned from a pious and charitable mother to succour and console the sufferings of her fellowcreatures. The vacations of each year brought together the two young friends, whose minds were so attuned to each other, as if they had never been separated. At that age, when the heart experiences the want of a more lively sentiment, the tender friendship which united them left them at liherty for no other choice. Both without fortune, they contented themselves with loving each other always, and seeing each other sometimes, till prudence should permit them a closer union. Both sure of themselves, as of the objects of their affection, fourteen years passed without any inquietude but what absence occasioned. After marriage, enjoyment weakened not their passion, as the sacrifice they had made of it to reason had not disturbed their tranquillity. Similar in opinion, their thoughts and their sentiments were common. Separated from the world equally by the simplicity of their tastes, and the purity of their principles, they reciprocally found in the esteem of each other the sole support, the sole reward, of which their virtue had need. Every day they tasted the pleasure of that intimate union of souls, which every day saw renewed. The difference of their characters, which offered the striking contrast of gentleness and inflexibility, served only to show them the power of the sympathy of their hearts. Different from most both in their love and in their virtues, time, which almost always seems to approach us to happiness only to carry us the farther from it afterwards, seemed to have fixed it with them. Perhaps we have not another instance of a passion continuing seventy years, always tender, always the chief (nay the sole, since that they bore for an only daughter constituted a part of it), which lasted uniformly from infancy to old age, not weakened, not once obscured by the least cloud, not once disturbed by the slightest coldness or negligence.

He afterwards was employed in reading lectures: he explained the Greek fathers to some, and the Hebrew and Syriac languages to others. After. that, he undertook the education of the sons of the duke d'Antin, who were committed to his care, and studied in the college of Harcourt. He was at the same time received an advocate; but the law not being suited to his taste, he returned to his former studies. He then contracted an acquaintance with the abbé Bignon, at whose instigation he applied himself to the Chinese tongue, and succeeded beyond his expectations, for he had a prodigious memory, and a particular turn for languages. He now became very famous. He held conferences at his own house, once or twice a week, upon subjects of literature; at which foreigners, as well as French, were admitted and assisted. Hence he became known to the count de Toledo, who was infinitely pleased with his conversation, and made him great offers, if he would go into Spain; but Fourmont refused. In 1715 he succeeded M. Galland to the Arabic chair in the royal college. The same year he was admitted a member of the academy of inscriptions; of the royal society at London in 1738; and of that of Berlin in 1741. He was often consulted by the duke of Orleans, who had a particular esteem for him, and made him one of his secretaries. He died at Paris in 1743.

, a clergyman originally of the church of England, was the son of John Fowler of Marlborough, in Wiltshire, where he was born in 1610 or 1611. In 1627 he was admitted a servitor at Magdalencollege, Oxford, and continued there until he took his bachelor’s degree; and then went to Edmund-hall, and took that of master. Having entered into holy orders, he preached some time in and near Oxford; and afterwards at West-Woodhay, near Donnington castle, in Berkshire. In 1641 he took the covenant, and joined the presbyterians being then, as Wood imagines, minister of Margaret’s, Lothbury, but his name does not occur in the registers until 1652. In 1641 he became vicar of St. Mary’s, Reading, and an assistant to the commissioners of Berkshire, for the ejection of such as were then styled “scandalous, ignorant, and insufficient ministers and schoolmasters.” He was at length, a fellow of Eton college, though he had refused the engagement, as it was called. After the restoration, he lost his fellowship of Eton, and, being deprived of the vicarage of St. Mary’s for non-conformity, he retired to London, and afterwards to Kennington, in Surrey, where he continued to preach, although privately. For some time before his death, he was much disordered in his understanding, and died in Southwark, Jan. 15, 1676, and was buried within the precincts of St. John Baptist’s church, near Dowgate. He is said by Wood to have used odd gestures and antic behaviour in the pulpit, unbecoming the serious gravity of the place, but which made him popular in those times. His character by Mr. Cooper, who preached his funeral sermon, is more favourable, being celebrated “as an able, holy, faithful, indefatigable servant of Christ. He was quick in apprehension, solid in his notions, clear in his conceptions, sound in the faith, strong and demonstrative in arguing, mighty in convincing, and zealous for ther truth against all errors.” We are told, likewise, that “he had a singular gift in chronology, not for curious speculation or ostentation, but as a key and measure to know the signs of the times,” &c.

His works are, 1. “Daemonium meridianum, or Satan at noon; being a sincere and impartial relation of the pro-; ceedings of the commissioners of the county of Berks, authorized by the ordinance for ejection, against John Pordage, late minister of Bradfield, in the same county,'” Lond. 1655, 4to. This Pordage appeared to these commissioners to be unsound in the doctrine of the Trinity. 2. “Daemonium meridianum, the second part, discovering the slanders and calumnies cast upon some corporations, with forged and false articles upon the author, in at pamphlet entitled `The case of Reading rightly stated,' by the adherents and abettors of the said J. Pordage,” Lond. 1656, 4to. To this is subjoined “A Word to Infent Baptism,” &c. Fowler likewise published a few occasional Sermons; and “A sober answer to an angry epistle directed to all public teachers in this nation,” prefixed to a book called “Christ’s innocency pleaded against the cry of the Chief Priests,” by Thomas Speed, qnaker, &c. Lond. 1656. In this he was" assisted by Simon Ford, vicar of St. Laurence, Reading, and it was animadverted on by George Fox, in one of his publications.

He was the author of many excellent works, as, 1. “The Principles and Practices of certain moderate divines of the Church of England, abusively called Latitudinarians, greatly misunderstood, truly represented and defended,” 1670, 8vo. This is written in the way of dialogue. 2. “The Design of Christianity or, a plain demonstration and improvement of this proposition, viz. that the enduing men with inward real righteousness and true holiness, was the ultimate end of our Saviour’s coming into the world, and is the great intendment of his blessed Gospel,” 1671, 8vo. John Bunyan, the author of the Pilgrim’s Progress, having attacked this book, the author vindicated it in a pamphlet with a very coarse title; 3. “Dirt wiped out; or, a manifest discovery of the gross ignorance, erroneousness, and most unchristian and wicked spirit of one John Bunyan, Lay-preacher in Bedford, c.” 1672, 4to. 4. “Libertas Evangelica; or, a Discourse of Christian Liberty. Being a further pursuance of The Design of Christianity,” 1630, 8vo. 5. Some pieces against popery; as, “The Resolution of this case of conscience, whether the Church of England’s symbolizing, so far as it doth with the Church of Rome, makes it lawful to hold communion with the Church of Rome?” 1683, 4to. “A Defence of the Resolution, &c.” 1684, 4to. “Examination of Cardinal Bellarmine’s fourth note of the Church, viz. Amplitude, or Multitude and Variety of Believers.” “The texts which Papists cite out of the Bible, for the proof of their doctrine concerning the obscurity of the Holy Scriptures, examined,” 1687, 4to. The two last are printed in “The Preservative against Popery,” folio. He published, also, 6. Two pieces on the doctrine of the Trinity, “Certain Propositions, by which the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is so explained, according to the ancient fathers, as to speak it not contradictory to natural reason. Together with a defence of them, &c.” 1694, 4to. “A Second Defence of the Propositions, &c.” 1695, 4to. 7. Eighteen Occasional Sermons; one of which was on “The great wickedness and mischievous effects of Slandering, preached in the parish church of St. Giles’s, Nov. 15, 1685, on Psalm ci. 5, with a large preface of the author, and conclusion in his own vindication,” 1685, 4to. 8. “An Answer to the Paper delivered by Mr. Ashton at his execution,” 1690, 4to. 9. “A Discourse on the great disingenuity and unreasonableness of repining at afflicting Providences, and of the influence which they ought to have upon us, published upon occasion of the death of queen Maw; with a preface containing some observations touching her excellent endowments and exemplary life,” 1695, 8vo.

, a celebrated English printer, was born at Bristol, educated at Winchester school, and admitted fellow of New college, in Oxford, in 1555, after two years of probation, where also he took his master’s degree. But refusing to comply with the terms of protestant conformity in queen Elizabeth’s reign, he resigned his fellowship, after holding it about four years, and, leaving England, took upon him the trade of printing, which he exercised partly at Antwerp, and partly at Louvain; and thus did signal service to the papists, in printing their books against the protestaut writers. Wood says that he was well skilled in Greek and Latin, a tolerable poet and orator, a theologist not to be contemned; and so versed also in criticism and other polite literature, that he might have passed for another Robert or Henry Stephens. He reduced into a compendium the “Summa Theologiæ” of Thomas Aquinas, under the title of “Loca Communia Theologica,” and wrote “Additiones in Chroiiica Genebrandi;” a “Psalter for Catholics,” which was answered by Sampson Dean, of Christ-church, Oxford, 1578; also epigrams, and other verses. He also translated from Latin into English, “The Epistle of Osorius,” and “.The Oration of Pet. Frarin, of Antwerp, against the unlawful insurrection of the protestants, under pretence to reform religion,” Antwerp, 1566. This was answered by William Fulke, divinity-professor in Cambridge. Fowler^died at Newmark, in Germany, Feb. 13, 1579.

, an English, physician, was born at York, Jan. 22, 1736, and, after having gone through a course of classical and medical education, set up as an apothecary in his native city, in 1760. In 1774, however, he relinquished this branch of practice, in order to apply himself more closely to the study of medical science; and for this purpose he went to Edinburgh, where he graduated in 1778. He then settled at Stafford, and was soon after elected physician to the infirmary at that place, where he practised with considerable reputation and success until 1791, when he returned to York. Here he met with the most flattering encouragement; but his ardent attention to his professional duties and studies was considerably interrupted in July 1793, by an attack of a painful anomalous disease of the chest, which he described as “fits of spasmodic asthma, attended with most of the painful symptoms of the angina pectoris.” After consulting many eminent physicians, and trying a variety of medicines, with partial and transient relief, for two years, he was agreeably surprised by a spontaneous and gradual decline of the symptoms, and was at length totally free from them. Notwithstanding the check to his exertions which he received from this complaint, his professional emoluments and reputation continued to increase; and m 1796 he was appointed, without solicitation, and even without his knowledge, physician to the lunatic asylum, near York, called the “Retreat,” established by the society of quakers, for the relief of the insane members of their community. He was a member of the medical societies of Edinburgh, of the medical society of London, and of the Bristol medical society. Dr. Fowler continued his useful career, active in every duty that benevolence could dictate, or friendship demand, and, in the exercise of his profession, an example of generosity, unwearied diligence and humanity, until 1901, when he died, on July 22d, while upon a visit to some friends in London.

In the course of his studies and practice, he exemplified the method recommended by lord Bacoir for the improvement of medicine, perhaps more than any of his predecessors or contemporaries; and some idea of his indefatigable labours may be conceived, when we mention that he left in manuscript the history of more than six thousand cases, which fell under his own inspection and treatment. From this store of experimental knowledge he published several works. The first of these was entitled “Medical Reports on the effects of Tobacco/' which was published in 1785; and in the year following his second treatise appeared, under the title of” Medical Reports on the Effects of Arsenic.“Both works tended in a considerable degree to instruct the profession in the means of rendering these medicines safe and manageable, and accordingly they are now, especially the latter, in daily and familiar use, and rank among the valuable articles of the materia medica. In 1795 he dedicated to the medical professors of Edinburgh a volume of” Medical Reports on the acute and chronic Rheumatism," and was the author of several papers printed in different volumes of the Medical Commentaries, and Annals of Medicine, edited by Drs. Duncan of Edinburgh.

In 1530 he was employed with Stephen Gardiner at Cambridge, to obtain the university’s determination in the matter of Henry VIIL's divorce. In 1531 he was promoted to the archdeaconry of Leicester, and in 1533 to that of Dorset It was he that apprized the clergy of their having fallen into a prawunire, and advised them to make their submission to the king, by acknowledging him supreme head of the church, and making him a present of 1 -00,0001. In 1535 he was promoted to the bishopric of HerefordHe was the principal pillar of the reformation, as to the politic and prudential part of it; being of more activity, and no less ability, than Cranmer himself: but he acted more secretly than Cranmer, and therefore did not bring himself into danger of suffering on that account. A few months after his consecration he was sent ambassador to the protestaut princes in Germany, then assembled at Smalcald; whom he exhorted to unite, in point of doctrine, with the church of England. He spent the winter at Wirtemberg, and held several conferences with some of the German divines, endeavouring to conclude a treaty with them upon many articles of religion: but nothing was effected. Burnet has given a particular account of this negociation in his “History of the Reformation.” He returned to England in 1536, and died at London, May 8, 1533. He was a very learned man, as we are assured by Godwin, who calls him “vir egregie doctus.” Wood also styles him an eminent scholar of his time; and Lloyd represents him as a tine preacher, but adds, that “his inclination to politics brake through all the ignoble restraints of pedantique studies, to an eminency, more by observation and travel, than by reading and study, that made him the wonder of the university, and the darling of the court.” When he was called,“says he,” to the pulpit or chair, he came off not ill, so prudential were his parts in divinity; when advanced to any office of trust in the university, he came off very well, so incomparable were his parts for government."

, an English clergyman, of whose early history we have no account, was educated at Edmund Hall, Oxford, where he took his master’s degree, July 5, 1704. He afterwards became vicar of Pottern, in Wiltshire, prebendary of that prebend in the church of Salisbury, and chaplain to lord Cadogan. In 1722 he published “The New Testament explained,” 2 vols. 8vo. This work has the several references placed under the text in words at length, so that the parallel passages may be seen at one view; to which are added, the chronology, the marginal readings, and notes on difficult or mistaken texts, with many more references than in any other edition then published, of the English New Testament. He likewise wrote “The duty of Public Worship proved, to which are added directions for a devout behaviour therein, drawn chiefly from the holy scriptures and the liturgy of the church of England; and an account of the method of the Common Prayer, by way of question and answer.” The fourth edition of this was printed in 1727, -and it is now in the list of books distributed by the society for promoting Christian knowledge. In 1726 he was presented to the vicarage of St. Mary’s, Reading. Having preached a sermon on moral obligations, from Matt, xxiii. 23, at the Reading lecture, he afterwards preached it as an assize sermon, at Abingdon, July 18, 1727. It was then printed, and dedicated to the chancellor. Some expressions in the discourse being liable to an unfavourable interpretation, it gave offence to several members of the lecture, and produced a controversy between the author and Mr. Joseph Slade, who had been curate of St. Mary’s, was then lecturer of St Lawrence’s, and afterwards vicar of South Molton. Mr. Slade published the letters which had passed between himself and the author; and preached a lecture sermon on Tuesday, Oct. 31, 1727, containing several severe strictures on Mr. Fox’s sermon, and some personal reflections, which he published. To this a reply was made by Lancelot Carleton, rector of Padworth, in “A Letter to the rev. Joseph Slade, &c.” printed at Reading. Mr. Fox published also a few other occasional sermons. He died at Reading in 1738, and was buried in St. Mary’s church.

, founder of the society of quakers, was born at Drayton, in Leicestershire, in 1624. His father was a weaver, who seems to have taken great pains in educating his son in the principles of piety and virtue. He was, at a proper age, apprenticed to a dealer in wool, and grazier, and being also employed in keeping sheep, he had many opportunities for contemplation and reflection. When he was about nineteen years of age he experienced much trouble and anxiety on observing the intemperance of some persons, professing to be religious, with whom he had gone to an inn for refreshment; and on the following night he was persuaded that a divine communication was made to him, urging him to forsake all, and devote his life to the duties of religion. He now quitted his relations, dressed himself in a leathern doublet, and wandered about from place to place. Being discovered in the metropolis, his friends persuaded him to return, and settle in some regular employment. But he did not remain with them many months; determining to embrace an itinerant mode of life. He fasted much and often, walked abroad in retired places, with no other companion but the bibje, and sometimes sat in the hollow of a tree for a day together, and walked in the fields by night, as if in a state of deep melancholy. He occasionally attended upon public teachers, but did not derive that benefit from them that he looked for: and hearing, as he supposed, a voice exclaiming, “There is one, even Christ Jesus, that canspeak to thy condition/' he forsook the usual outward means of religion; contending, that as God did not dwell in temples made with hands, so the people should receive the inward divine teaching of the Lord, and take that for their rule of life. About 1648 he felt himself called upon to propagate the opinions which he had embraced, and commenced public teacher in Manchester, and some of the neighbouring towns and villages, insisting on the certainty and efficacy of experiencing the coming of Christ in the heart, as a light to discover error, and the knowledge of one’s duty. He now made more extensive journeys, and travelled through the counties of Derby, Leicester, and Northampton, addressing the people in the market-places, and inveighing strongly against injustice, drunkenness, and the other prevalent vices of the age. About this time he apprehended that the Lord had forbidden him to take off his hat to any one; and required him to speak to the people in the language of thou and thee; that he must not bend his knee to earthly authorities; and that he must on no account take an oath. His peculiarities exposed him to much unjustifiable treatment, although it must be allowed that he sometimes provoked harsh usage by his intemperate zeal. At Derby the followers of Fox were first denominated” quakers,“as a term of reproach, either on account of the trembling accent used in the delivery of their speeches, or, because, when brought before the higher powers, they exhorted the magistrates and other persons present” to tremble at the name of the Lord." In 1655 Fox was sent prisoner to Cromwell, who contented himself with obtaining a written promise that he would not take up arms against him or the existing government; and having discussed various topics with mildness and candour, he ordered him to be set at liberty. Fox probably now felt himself bold in the cause, re-commenced his ministerial labours at London, and spent some time in vindicating his principles by means of the press, and in answering the books circulated against the society which he had founded, and which began to attract public notice in many parts of the kingdom. Notwithstanding the moderation of Cromwell towards Fox, he was perpetually subject to abuse and insult, and was frequently imprisoned and hardly used by magistrates in the country whither he felt himself bound to travel; and more than once he was obliged to solicit the interference of the Protector, to free him from the persecutions of subordinate officers. Once he wrote to Cromwell, soliciting his attention to the sufferings of his friends; and on hearing a rumour that he was about to assume the title of king, Fox solicited an audience, and remonstrated with him very freely upon the measure, as what must bring shame and ruin on himself and his posterity. He also addressed a paper to the heads and governors of the nation, on occasion of a fast appointed on. account of the persecutions of the protestants abroad, in which he embraced the opportunity that such appointment offered, of holding up, in proper colours, the impropriety and iniquity of persecution at home. The history of Fox, for several years previously to 1666, consists of details of his missions, and accounts of his repeated imprisonments. In this last-mentioned year he was liberated by order of the king, and he immediately set about forming the people who had embraced his doctrines into a compact and united body: monthly meetings were established, and other means adopted to provide for the various exigences to which they might be liable.

, an eminent English divine and churchhistorian, was born at Boston in Lincolnshire, of honest and reputable parents in 1517, the very year that Luther began to oppose the errors of the church of Rome. His father dying when he was young, and his mother marrying again, he fell under the tutelage of a father-in-law, with whom he remained till the age of sixteen. He was then entered of Brazen Nose college in Oxford, where he had for his chamber-fellow, the celebrated dean Nowell, and perhaps the same tutor, Mr. John Hawarden or Harding, who was afterwards principaj of the college, and to whom Fox dedicated his work on the Eucharist. In May 1538, he took, the degree of bachelor of arts. He was soon distinguished for his uncommon abilities and learning; was chosen fellow of Magdalen college, and became master of arts in 1543. He discovered in his younger years a genius for poetry, and wrote in an elegant style several Latin comedies, the subjects of which were taken from the scriptures. We have a comedy of his, entitled, “De Christo Triumphante,” printed in 1551, and at Basil in 1556, 8vo; which was translated into English by Richard Day, son of John Day, the famous printer in the reign of queen Elizabeth, and published with this title, “Christ Jesus Triumphant, wherein is described the glorious triumph and conquest of Christ over sin, death, and the law,” &c. 1579; and in 1607, in 8vo. It was again published in the original in 1672, and dedicated to all schoolmasters, in order that it might be admitted into their respective schools, for the peculiar elegance of its style, by T. C. M. A. of Sidney-college, in Cambridge. The date of the first edition (1551), shows that Anthony Wood was mistaken in asserting that Fox wrote it at Basil, to which place he did not go until after the accession of queen Mary in 1553.

Mr. Fox, for some time after his going to the university, was attached to the popish religion, in which he had been brought up, but afterwards applied himself to divinity, with somewhat more fervency than circumspection; and discovered himself in favour of the reformation then going on, before he was known to those who maintained the cause, or those who were of ability to protect the maintainers of it. In order to judge of the controversies which then divided the church, his first care was to search diligently into the ancient and modern history of it; to learn its beginning, by what arts it flourished, and by what errors it began to decline; to consider the causes of those controversies and dissensions which had arisen in the churd), and to weigh attentively of what moment and consequence they were to religion. To this end he applied himself with such zeal and industry, that before he was thirty years of age, he had read over all the Greek and Latin fathers, the schoolmen, the councils, &c. and had also acquired a competent skill in the Hebrew language. But from this strict application by day and by night while at Oxford, from forsaking his friends for the most solitary retirement, which he enjoyed in Magdalen grove, from the great and visible distractions of his mind, and above all, from absenting himself from the public worship, arose suspicions of his alienation from the church; in which his enemies being soon confirmed, he was accused and condemned of heresy, expelled his college, and thought to have been favourably dealt with, that he escaped with his life. This was in 1545. Wood represents this affair somewhat differently he says in one place, that Fox resigned his fellowbliip to avoid expulsion, and in another that he was " in a manner obliged to resign his fellowship/ 1 The stigma, however, appears to have been the same, for his relations were greatly displeased at him, and afraid to countenance or protect one condemned for a capital offence; and his father-in-law basely took advantage of it to withhold his paternal estate from him, thinking probably that he, who stood in danger of the law himself, would with difficulty find relief from it. Being thus forsaken by his friends, he was reduced to great distress; when he was taken into the house of sir Thomas Lucy of Warwickshire, to be tutor to his children. Here he married a citizen’s daughter of Coventry, and continued in sir Thomas’s family, till his children were grown up; after which he spent some time with his wife’s father at Coventry. He removed to London a few years before king Henry’s death; where having neither employment nor preferment, he was again driven to great necessities and distress, but was reIjeved, according to his son’s account, in a very remarkable manner. He was sitting one day, he says, in St. Paul’s church, almost spent with long fasting, his countenance wan and pale, and his eyes hollow, when there came to him a person, whom he never remembered to have seen before, who, sitting down by him, accosted him very familiarly, and put into his hands an untold sum of money; bidding him to be of good cheer, to be careful of himself, and to use all means to prolong his life, for that in a few days new hopes were at band, and new means of subsistence. Fox tried all methods to find out the person by whom he was so seasonably relieved, but in vain; the prediction, however, was fulfilled, for within three days he was taken into the service of the duchess of Richmond, to be tutor to the children of her nephew, the celebrated earl of Surrey. Upon the commitment of this amiable nobleman and his father the duke of Norfolk to the Tower, these children were sent to be educated under the care and inspection of their unnatural aunt the duchess of Richmond.

After queen Mary’s death, which bishop Aylrner says Fox foretold at Basil the day before it happened, and Elizabeth was settled on the throne, and the protestant religion established, Fox returned to his native country, where he found a very faithful friend in his former pupil, now fourth duke of Norfolk; who maintained him at his house, and settled a pension on him, which was afterwards confirmed by his son. In 1572, when this unhappy duke of Norfolk was beheaded for his treasonable connection with Mary queen of Scotland, Mr. Fox and dean Nowell attended him upon the scaffold. Cecil also obtained for Fox, in 1563, of the queen a prebend in the church of Salisbury, though Fox himself would have declined accepting it; and though he had many powerful friends, as Walsingham, sir Francis Drake, sir Thomas Gresham, the bishops Grindal, Pilkington, Aylmer, &c. who would have raised him to considerable preferments, he declined them: being always unwilling to subscribe the canons, and disliking some ceremonies of the church. When archbishop Parker summoned the London clergy to Lambeth, and inquired of them whether they would yield conformity to the ecclesiastical habits, and testify the same by their subscriptions, the old man produced the New Testament in Greek, “To this’ (says he) will I subscribe.” And when a subscription to the canons was required of him, he refused it, saying, “I have nothing in the church save a prebend at Salisbury and much good may it do you, if you will take it away from me.” Such respect, however, did the bishops, most of them formerly his fellow exiles, bear to his age, parts, and labours, that he continued in it to his death. But though Fox was a non-conformist, he was a very moderate one, and highly disapproved of the intemperance of the rigid puritans. He expresses himself to the following effect in a Latin letter, written on the expulsion of his son by the puritans from 'Magdalen-college, on the groundless imputation of his having turned papist; in which are the following passages. “I confess it has always been my great care, if I could not be serviceable to many persons, yet not knowingly to injure any one, and least of all those of Magdalen college. I cannot therefore but the more wonder at the turbulent genius, which inspires those factious puritans, so that violating the laws of gratitude, despising my letters and prayers, disregarding the intercession of the president himself (Dr. Humphreys), without any previous admonition, or assigning any cause, they have exercised so great tyranny against me and my son; were I one, who like them would be violently outrageous against bishops and. archbishops, or join myself with them, that is, would become mad, as they are, I had not met with this severe treatment. Now because, quite different from them, I have chosen the side of modesty and public tranquillity; hence the hatred, they have a long time conceived against me, is at last grown to this degree of bitterness. As this is the case, 1 do not so much ask you what you will do on my account, as what is to be thought of for your sakes: you who are prelates of the church again and again consider. As to myself, though the taking away the fellowship from my son is a great affliction to me, yet because this is only a private concern, I bear it with more moderation: I am much more concerned upon account of the church, which is public. I perceive a certain race of men rising up, who, if they should increase and gather strength in this kingdom, I am sorry to say what disturbance I foresee must follow from it. Your prudence is not ignorant how much the Christian religion formerly suffered by the dissimulation and hypocrisy of the monks. At present in these men I know not what sort of new monks seems to revive; so much more pernicious than the former, as with more subtle artifices of deceiving, under pretence of perfection, like stage-players who only act a part, they conceal a more dangerous poison; who while they require every thing to be formed according to their own `strict discipline' and conscience, will not desist until they have brought all things into Jewish bondage.” Conformably to these sentiments, he expresses himself on many other occasions, in which he had no private interest, and the two succeeding reigns proved that he had not judged rashly of the violent tempers and designs of some of the puritans. Those, however, who detest their proceedings against the son of a man who had done so much for the reformation, will be pleased to hear that he was restored to his fellowship a second time, by the queen’s mandate.

None of these, however, are likely to add much to his fame, which is now exclusively founded on his “Acts and Monuments,” 'more familiarly known as “Fox’s Book of Martyrs.” Of this vast undertaking, some brief account cannot be uninteresting. We have before noticed that he conceived the plan, and executed some part of it when he was at Basil, but reserved the greatest part of it until his return home, when he might avail himself of living authorities. It appears by his notes that the completion of it occupied him for eleven years, during which his labour must have been incessant. His assistants, however, were numerous. Among those who pointed out sources of information, or contributed materials, was Grindal, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury, who, when an exile for his religion, established a correspondence in England for this purpose, and received accounts of most of the acts and sufferings of the martyrs in queen Mary’s reign. It is said also to have been owing to GrindaPs strict regard to truth, that the publication of the work was so long delayed, as he rejected all common reports that were brought over, unless confirmed by the most satisfactory evidence. It was this scrupulous fidelity which induced him to advise Fox at first only to print separately, such memoirs of certain individuals as could be authenticated, which accordingly was done, although these separate publications are now seldom to be met with. At length after a residence of some years in England, employed in collecting written and oral information, the first edition was published at London in 1563, in one thick vol. folio, with the title “Acts and Monuments of these latter and periilous days touching matters of the Churcbe, wherein are comprehended and described the great persecutions and horrible troubles, that have been wrought and practised by the Romish prelates, speciallye in this realms of England and Scotland, from the year of our Lorde a thousand unto the time now present, &c. Gathered and collected according to the true copies and wrytinges certificatorie, as well of the parties themselves that suffered, as out of the bishops registers, which were the doers thereof.” Mr. Fox presented a copy of this edition to Magdalen-college, Oxford, and at the same time wrote a Latin letter to Dr. Lawrence Humphreys, printed by Hearne in his Appendix, No. V. to his preface to “Adami de Domersham Hist, de rebus gestis Glastonensibus,” Oxon. 1727. This volume, which relates principally to the history of martyrdom in England, was afterwards enlarged, first to two, and at length to three volumes, folio, embracing a history of the Christian church, from the earliest times, and in every part of the world. The ninth edition appeared in 1684, with copper-plates, those in the former editions being in wood, which last, however, are preferred by collectors, some of them containing real portraits. The publishers of the last editioa had almost obtained a promise from Charles II. to revive the order made in queen Elizabeth’s time for placing the work in the common halls of archbishops, bishops, deans, colleges, churches. But, if we look at the date, 1684, and recollect the hopes then entertained, of re-establishing popery, we shall 'not be much surprized that this order was not renewed, nor perhaps, from the improved state of the press, and of education, was it necessary. Since that time, however, there has been no republication of the complete work, although the English part continues to this day a standard book among the publishers of works in the periodical way, who have also furnished their readers with innumerable abridgments in every form. Yet as the original has long been rising in price, we may hope that the liberal spirit of enterprise which has lately produced new editions of the English Chronicles, will soon add to that useful collection a reprint of Fox, with notes, corrections, and a collation of the state papers and records.

The effect of Fox’s work, in promoting, or rather confirming the principles of the reformation, to which we owe all that distinguishes us as a nation, is acknowledged with universal conviction. It is proved even by the antipathy of his enemies, who would not have taken such pains to expose his errors, and inveigh against the work 2t large, if they had not felt that it created in the public mind an abhorrence of the persecuting spirit of popery, which has suffered little diminution, even to the present day. All the endeavours of the popish writers, however, from Harpsfield to Milner, “have not proved, and it never will be proved, that John Fox is not one of the most faithful and authentic of all historians.” And in the words of the writer from whom we borrow this assertion, we add, although with some reluctance from respect to the gentleman’s name, “We know too much of the strength of Fox’s book, and of the weakness of those of his adversaries, to be farther moved by Dr. John Milner’s censures, than to charge them with falsehood. All the many researches and discoveries of later times, in regard to historical documents, have only contributed to place the general fidelity and truth of Fox’s’ melancholy narrative on a rock which cannot be shaken.”

, an eminent prelate, and the munificent founder of Corpus Christi college, Oxford, was the son of Thomas Fox, and born at Ropesley, near Grantham, in Lincolnshire, about the latter end of the reign of Henry VI. His parents are said to have been in mean circumstances, but they must at least have been able to afford him school education, since the only dispute on this subject between his biographers, is, whether he was educated in grammar learning at Boston, or at Winchester. They all agree that at a proper age he was sent to Magdalen-college, Oxford, where he was acquiring distinction for his extraordinary proficiency, when the plague, which happened to break out about that time, obliged him to go to Cambridge, and continue his studies at Pembrokehall. After remaining some time at Cambridge, he repaired to the university at Paris, and studied divinity and the canon law, and here, probably, he received his doctor’s degree. This visit gave a new and important turn to his life, and introduced him to that eminence which he preserved for many years as a statesman. In Paris he became acquainted with Dr. Morton, bishop of Ely, whom Richard III. had compelled to quit his native country, and by this prelate he was recommended to the earl of Richmond, afterwards Henry VII. who was then providing for a descent upon England. Richmond, to whom he devoted himself, conceived such an opinion of his talents and fidelity, that he entrusted to his care a negotiation with France for supplies of men and money, the issue of which he was not able himself to await; and Fox succeeded to the utmost of his wishes. After the defeat of the usurper at the battle of Bosworth, in 1485, and the establishment of Henry on the throne, the latter immediately appointed Fox to be one of his privy-council, and about the same time bestowed on him the prebends of Bishopston and South Grantham, in the church of Salisbury. In 1487, he was promoted to the see of Exeter, and appointed keeper of the privy seal, with a pension of twenty shillings a day. He was also made principal secretary of state, and master of St. Cross, near Winchester. His employments in. affairs of state both at home and abroad, were very frequent, as he shared the king’s confidence with his early friend Dr. Morton, who was now advanced to the archbishopric of Canterbury. In 1487, Fox was sent ambassador, with sir Richard Edgecombe, comptroller of the household, to James III. of Scotland, where he negociated a prolongation of the truce between England and Scotland, which was to expire July 3, 1488, to Sept. 1, 1489. About the beginning of 1491, he was employed in an embassy to the king of France, and returned to England in November following. In 1494 he went again as ambassador to James IV. of Scotland, to conclude some differences respecting the fishery of the river Esk, in which he was not successful. Having been translated in 1492 from the see of Exeter to that of Bath and Wells, he was in 1494 removed to that of Durham. Jn 1497, the castle of Norham being threatened by the king of Scotland, the bishop caused it to be fortified and supplied with troops, and bravely defended it in person, until it was relieved by Thomas Howard, earl of Surrey, who compelled the Scots to retire. Fox was then, a third time, appointed to negociate with Scotland, and signed a, seven years truce between the two kingdoms, Sept. 30, 1497. He soon after negociated a marriage between James IV. and Margaret, king Henry’s eldest daughter, which was, after many delays, fully concluded Jan. 24, 1501-.

His retirement at Winchester was devoted to acts of charity and munificence, although he did not now for the first time appear as a public benefactor. He had bestowed large sums on the repairs of the episcopal palace at Durham, while bishop of that see, and on every occasion of this kind discovered a considerable taste for architecture. In 1522 he founded a free-school at Taunton, and another at Grantham, and extended his beneficence to many other foundations within the diocese of Winchester. But the triumphs of his munificence and taste are principally to be contemplated in the additions which he built both within and without the cathedral of Winchester. Of these we shall borrow a character from one whose fine enthusiasm cannotbe easily surpassed. “Itis impossible to survey the works of this prelate, either on the outside of the church, or in the inside, without being? struck with their beauty and magnificence. In both of them we see the most exquisite art employed to execute the most noble and elegant designs. We cannot fail in particular of admiring the vast but well-proportioned and ornamented arched windows which surround this (the eastern) part, and give light to the sanctuary; the bold and airy flying buttresses that, stretching over the said ailes, support the upper walls; the rich open battlement which surmounts these walls; and the elegant sweep that contracts them to the size of the great eastern window: the two gorgeous canopies which crown the extreme turrets, and the profusion of elegant carved work that covers the whole east front, tapering up to a point, where we view the breathing statue of the pious founder resting upon his chosen emblem, the Pelican. In a word, neglected and mutilated as this work has been during the course of nearly three centuries, it still warrants us to assert, that if the whole cathedral had been finished in the style of this portion of it, the whole island, and perhaps all Europe, could not have exhibited a gothic structure equal to it.”

“His character,” says Mr. Gough, “may be briefly summed up in these two particulars: great talents and abilities for business, which recommended him to one of the wisest princes of the age; and not less charity and munificence, of which he has left lasting monuments.” Of his writings, we have only an English translation of the “Rule ofSt. Benedict,” for the use of his diocese, printed by Pinson, 1516, and a Letter to cardinal Wolsey, the subject of which is the cardinal’s intended visitation and reformation of the clergy. Fox expresses his great satisfaction at any measures which might produce so desirable an effect. The general and respectful style of this letter either affords a proof of Fox’s meek and conciliatory temper, or suggests a doubt whether our historians have not too implicitly followed each other in asserting that Wolsey’s ingratitude was the principal cause of his retiring from court. That Wolsey was ungrateful may be inferred from the preceding quotation from archbishop Parker, but Fox’s discovery of it, there implied, was long subsequent to his leaving the court;and it is certain that in the letter now mentioned, and in another written in 1526, he addresses the cardinal in terms of the utmost respect and affection. Of these circumstances Fiddes and Grove, the biographers of Wolsey, have not neglected to avail themselves, but they have suppressed all notice of his offer to Fox respecting the resignation of the bishopric.

The foundation of Corpus Christi college was preceded by the purchase of certain pieces of land in Oxford, belonging to Merton college, the nunnery of Godstow, and the priory of St. Fridesvvyde, which he completed in 1513, But his design at this time went no farther than to found a college for a warden and a certain number of monks and secular scholars belonging to the priory of St. Svvithin, in Winchester, in the manner of Canterbury and Durham colleges, which were similar nurseries in Oxford for the priories of Canterbury and Durham. The buildings for this purpose were advancing under the care of William Vertue, mason, and Humphrey Cook, carpenter and master of the works, when the judicious advice of Hugh Oldham, bishop of Exeter, induced him to enlarge his plan to one pf more usefulness and durability. This prelate, an emir nent patron of literature, and a man of acute discernment, is said to have addressed him thus: “What! my lord, shall we build houses, and provide livelihoods fo/ a company of monks, whose end and fall we ourselves may live to see? No, no, it is more meet a great deal, that we should have care to provi.de for the increase of learning, and for such as who by their learning shall do good to the church and commonwealth.” These arguments, strengthened probably by others of a similar tendency, induced Fox to imitate those founders who had already contributed so largely to the fame of the university of Oxford. Accordingly, by licence of Henry VIII. dated Nov. 26, 1516, he obtained leave to found a college for the sciences of divinity, philosophy, and arts, for a president and thirty scholars, graduate and not graduate, more or less according to the revenues of the society, on a certain ground between Mefton college on the east, a lane Dear Canterbury college (afterwards part of Christ-church), and a garden of the priory of St. Frideswyde on the west, a street or lane of Oriel college on the north, and the town wall on the south, and this new college to be endowed with 3 50l. yearly. The charter, dated Cal. Mar. 151 G, recites that the founder, to the praise and honour of God Almighty, the most holy body of Christ, and the blessed Virgin Mary, as also of the apostles Peter, Paul, and Andrew, and of St. Cuthbert and St. Swithin, and St. Birin, patrons of the churches of Exeter, Bath and Wells, Durham, and Winchester, (the four sees which he successively rilled) doth found and appoint this college always to be called Corpus Christi College. The statutes are dated Feb. 13, 1527, in the 27th year of his translation to Winchester, and according to them, the society was to consist of a president, twenty fellows, twenty scholars, two chaplains, two clerks, and two choristers.

, Lord Holland, the first nobleman of that title, was the second and youngest son of the second marriage, of sir Stephen Fox, and brother of Stephen first earl of Ilchester. He was born in 1705, and was chosen one of the members for Hendon, in Wiltshire, on a vacancy, in March 1735, to that parliament which met Jan. 23, 1734; and being constituted surveyor-general of his majesty’s board of works, a writ was ordered June 17, 1737, and he was re-elected. In the next parliament, summoned to meet June 25, 1741, he served for Windsor; and in 1743, being constituted one of the commissioners of the treasury, in the administration formed by the Pelhams, a writ was issued Dec. 21st of that year, for a new election, and he was re-chosen. In 1746, on the restoration of the old cabinet, after the short administration of earl Granville, he was appointed secretary at war, and sworn one his majesty’s most honourable privy-council. On tbis occasion, and until he was advanced to the peerage, he continued to represent Windsor in parliament. In 1754, the death of Mr. Pelham produced a vacancy in the treasury, which was filled up by his broker the duke of Newcastle, who, though a nobleman of high honour, unblemished integrity, and considerable abilities, yet was of too jealous and unstable a temper to manage the house of commons with equal address and activity, and to guide the reins of government without a coadjutor at so arduous a conjuncture. The seals of chancellor of the exchequer and secretary of state, vacant by the death of Mr. Pelham, and by the promotion of the duke of Newcastle, became therefore the objects of contention. The persons who now aspired to the management of the house of commons, were Mr. Fox and Mr. Pitt (afterwards earl of Chatham) whose parliamentary abilities had for some time divided the suffrages of the nation; who had so long fosterod reciprocal jealousy, and who now became public rivals for power. Both these rival statesmen were younger brothers, nearly of the same age; both were educated at Eton, both distinguished for classical knowledge, both commenced their parliamentary career at the same period, and both raised themselves to eminence by their superior talents, yet no two characters were ever more contrasted. Mr. Fox inherited a strong and vigorous constitution, was profuse and dissipated in his youth, and after squandering his private patrimony, went abroad to extricate himself from his embarrassment*. On his return he obtained a seat in parliament, and warmly attached himself to sir Robert Walpole, whom he idolized; and to whose patronage he was indebted for the place of surveyor-general of the board of works. His marriage in 1744 with lady Caroline Lennox, daughter of the duke of Richmond, though at first displeasiug to the family, yet finally strengthened his political connections. He was equally a man of pleasure and business, formed for social and convivial intercourse; of an unruffled temper, and frank disposition. No statesman acquired more adherents, not merely from political motives, but swayed by his agreeable manners, and attached to him by personal friendship, which he fully merited by his zeal in promoting their interests. He is justly characterized, even by Lord Chesterfield, “as having no fixed principles of religion or morality, and as too unwary in ridiculing and exposing them.” As a parliamentary orator, he was occasionally hesitating and perplexed; but, when warmed with his subject, he spoke with an animation and rapidity which appeared more striking from his former hesitation. His speeches were not crowded with flowers of rhetoric, or distinguished by brilliancy of diction; but were replete with sterling sense and sound argument. He was quick in reply, keen in repartee, and skilful in discerning the temper of the house. He wrote without effort or affectation; his public dispatches were manly and perspicuous, and his private letters easy and animated. Though of an ambitious spirit, he regarded money as a principal object, and power only as a secondary concern. He was an excellent husband, a most indulgent father, a kind master, a courteous neighbour, and one whose charities demonstrated that he possessed in abundance the milk of human kindness. Such is said to have been the character of lord Holland, which is here introduced as a prelude to some account of his more illustrious son. It may therefore suffice to add, that in 1756 he resigned the office of secretary at war to Mr. Pitt, and in the following year was appointed paymaster of the forces, which he retained until the commencement of the present reign; his conduct in this office was attended with some degree of obloquy; in one instance, at least, grossly overcharged. For having accumulated a considerable fortune by the perquisites of office, and the interest of money in hand, he was styled in one of the addresses of the city of London, “the defaulter of unaccounted millions.” On May 6, 1762, his lady was created baroness Holland; and on April 16, 1763, he himself was created a peer by the title of lord Holland, baron Holland, of Foxley, in the county of Wilts. In the latter part of his life he amused himself by building, at a vast expence, a fantastic villa at Kingsgate, near Margate, His lordship was also a lord of the privy-council, and clerk of the Pells, in Ireland, granted him for his own life and that of his two sons. Lord Holland died at Holland-house, near Kensington, July 1, 1774, in the sixty-ninth year of his age, leaving three sons, Stephen, his successor; Charles James, the subject of the next article; and Henry Edward, a general in the army. Stephen, second lord Holland, survived his father but a few months, dying Dec. 26, 1774, and was succeeded by Henry Richard, the present peer.

After having displayed his talents to the greatest advantage in favour of the minister for about six years, the latter (lord North) procured his dismissal from office in a manner not the most gracious, and which, if it did not leave in Mr. Fox’s mind some portion of resentment, he must have been greatly superior to the infirmities of our nature, a pre-eminence which he never arrogated. It is said, that on Feb. 19, 1774, while he was actually engaged in conversation with the minister on other subjects in the house of commons, he received the following laconic note by the hands of one or the messengers of the house:

This event was not occasioned by any opposition on the part of Mr. Fox to lord North’s measures, but to a difference of opinion as to the best mode of carrying them into effect, and that in an instance of comparatively smalt importance. This was a question respecting the committal of Mr. H. S. Woodfall, the printer of the Public Advertiser, who had been brought to the bar of the house for inserting a letter supposed to have been written by the rev. J. Home, afterwards J. Home Tooke, in which most unjustifiable liberties had been taken with the character of the speaker, sir Fletcher Norton, with a coarse virulence of language peculiar to Tooke. Mr. Woodfall having given up the author, and thrown himself on the mercy of the house, it was moved by Mr. Herbert that he should be committed to the custody of the serjeant at arms. Mr. Fox, at that period a zealous advocate for the privileges of the house, declared that the punishment was not sufficiently severe, and moved “that he be committed to Newgate, as the only proper place to which offenders should be sent; though hints,” he said, “had been thrown out that the sheriffs would not admit him.” To this lord North replied, that he was very sorry that hints had been thrown out of what the sheriffs would or would not do; he hoped there were no persons who would dispute the power of that house; he therefore moved that the printer be committed to the Gate-house, as he thought it imprudent to force themselves into a contest with the city; but Mr. Herbert carried his motion in opposition both to lord North and Mr. Fox, by a majority of 152 to f>8, to the great displeasure of lord North, who asserted that it was entirely owing to the interference of Mr. Fox, that he was left in a minority.

In 1788, Mr. Fox repaired to the continent, in company with the lady who was afterwards acknowledged as his wife, and after spending a few days with Gibbon, the historian, at Lausanne, departed for Italy, but was suddenly recalled home, in consequence of the king’s illness, and the necessity of providing for a regency. On this memorable occasion, Mr. Fox, and his great rival, Mr. Pitt, appeared to have exchanged systems; Mr. Pitt contending for the constitutional measure of a bill of limitations, while Mr. Fox was equally strenuous for placing the regency in the hands of the heir apparent, without any restrictions; and powerful as he and his party were at this time, and perhaps they never shone more in debate, Mr. Pitt was triumphant in every stage of the bill, and was supported by the almost unanimous voice of the nation. Yet the ministers must have retired, as it was well known that Mr. Fox and his party stood high in favour with the future Regent, and Mr. Pitt had actually meditated on the ceconomy of a private station, when the intemperance of Mr. Burke, who was never less Joyal than at this crisis, delayed the passing of the bill, on one pretence or another, until by his majesty’s recovery, it became happily useless. On this great question Mr,' Fox had again the misfortune to forfeit the regard of those who have been considered as the depositories of constitutional principles, and consequently appeared to have traversed the system of which he had been considered,as the most consistent and intrepid advocate. In 1790 and 1791 he recovered some of the ground he had lost, by opposing with effect a war with Spain, and another with Russia, for objects which he thought too dearly purchased by such an experiment; and in 1790 he appeared again the friend of constitutional liberty, by his libel bill respecting the rights of juries in criminal cases. This, although strongly opposed, terminated at last in a decision that juries are judges of both the law and the fact. But the time was now arrived when he was, by a peculiarity in [his way of thinking, to be for ever separated from the political friends who had longest adhered to him, and many of whom he loved with all the ardour of affection.

When the revolution took place in France, Mr. Fox perhaps was not singular in conceiving that it would be attended with great benefit to that nation; in some of his speeches he went farther; and continued an admirer of what was passing in France long after others had begun to foresee the most disastrous consequences. While Mr. Fox perceived nothing but what was good, Mr. Burke predicted almost all, indeed, that has since happened, and an accidental altercation in the house of commons, (See Burke,) separated these two friends for ever. “This,” says one of his biographers, “was a circumstance that affected Mr. Fox more than any other through life; he had seen his plans for the public good disappointed; he had been deserted by a crowd of political adherents; a thousand times his heart and his motives had been slandered, still he had abundant resources in himself to bear up against the tide setting in against him. No opposition, no injuries could excite in him the spirit of revenge, or the principles of acrimony; even when his friend, on whom he hung with almost idolatrous regafd, broke from him in the paroxysm of political madness, and with furious cruelty explored, in his attack on him, every avenue to pain, far from repelling enmity with enmity, he discovered his sensibilities of wrong only with tears, and he subsequently wept, with a pertinacity of affection almost vrithout example, over the sepulchre of that very man, who had unrelentingly spurned all his offers of reconciliation, and who, with reference to him, had expired in the bitterness of resentment.” We have little scruple in adopting these sentiments; for whatever may be thought of Mr. Fox’s opinions, there are few, we hope, whose hearts would hav permitted them to act the part of Mr. Burke in this interesting scene.

The present lord Holland has said, in the preface to Mr. Fox’s historical work, that although “those who admired Mr. Fox in public, and those who loved him in private, must naturally feel desirous that some memorial should be preserved of the great and good qualities of his head and heart;” yet, “the objections to such an undertaking ai present are obvious, and after much reflection, they have appeared to those connected with him insuperable.” Such a declaration, it is hoped, may apologize for what we have admitted, and for what we have rejected, in this sketch of Mr. Fox’s life. We have touched only on a few memorable periods, convinced that the present temper of the times is unfavourable to a more minute discussion of the merits of his long parliamentary life. Yet this consideration has not had much weight with those who profess to be his admirers, and soon after his death a number of “Characters” of him appeared sufficient to fill two volumes 8vo, edited by Dr. Parr. Of one circumstance there can be no dispute. Friends and foes are equally agreed in the amiable, even, and benign features of his private character. “He was a man,” said Burke, “made to bo loved,” aud he was loved by all who knew him. Mr. Fox must now be considered as an author. While at Eton, his compositions were highly distinguished, some of which are in print; as one composed in or about 1761, beginning, “Vocat ultimus labor;” another, “I, fugias, celeri volitans per nubila cursu,” written in 1764; and his “Quid miri faciat Natura,” which was followed by a Greek dialogue in 1765. See “Musse Etonenses,” &c. He was also author of the 14th, 16th, and perhaps, says the present lord Holland, his nephew, a few other numbers of a periodical publication in 1779, called the “Englishman.” In 1793 he published “A Letter to the Electors of Westminster,” which passed through thirteen editions within a few months. This pamphlet contains a full and ample justification of his political conduct, with respect to the discussions in which he had engaged on the French revolution.

To lord Holland, however, the world is indebted for an important posthumous publication of this great statesman, entitled “A History of the early part of the Reign of James the Second, with an introductory chapter,” &c. It is not known when Mr. Fox first formed the design of writing a history; but in 1797 he publicly announced in parliament his intention of devoting a greater portion of his time to his private pursuits, and when he had determined to oonscv crate a part in writing history, he was naturally led, from his intimate knowledge of the English constitution, to prefer the history of his own country, and to select a period favourable to the general illustration of the great principles of freedom on which it is founded. With this view he fixed on the revolution pf 1688, but had made a small progress in this work when he was called to take a principal part in the government of the country. The volume comprehends only the history of the transactions of the first year of the reign of James II. with an introductory chapter on the character and leading events of the times immediately preceding. Whatever opinion may be entertained of the views Mr. Fox takes of those times, or of some novel opinions advanced, there is enough in this work to prove that he might have proved an elegant and sound historian, and to make it a subject of regret that he did not employ his talents on literary composition when they were in their full vigour.

, or Sebastianus Foxius Morzillus, a learned Spaniard, originally of the family of Foix, in Aquitaine, was born at Seville in 1528, and passed the whole of his short life in the study of philosophy and the belles lettres, acquiring such reputation from his works as made his untimely death a subject of unfeigned regret with his countrymen. After being educated in grammar learning at Seville, he studied at Lou vain e and other universities, and acquired the esteem of some of the most eminent professors of his time. Before he was twenty years of age he had published his “Paraphrasis in Ciceronis topica,” and in his twenty-fourth year his Commentary on the Timaeus of Plato. About this time the reputation he had acquired induced Philip II. king of Spain, to invite him home, and place his son the infant Carlos under his care; but returning by sea, he unhappily perished by shipwreck in the flower of his age, leaving the following works as a proof that his short space of life had been employed in arduous and useful study: 1. “De Studii philosnphici ratione,” of which there is an edition joined to Nunnesius’s “De recte conficiendo curriculo Philosophico,” Leyden, 1621, 8vo. 2. “De usu et exercitatione Dialectica,” and “De Demonstratione,” Basil, 1556, 8vo. 3. “In Topica Ciceronis paraphrasis et scholia,” Antwerp, 1550, 8vo. 4. “De naturae philosophise seu de Platonis et Aristotelis consensione, libri quinque,” Louvaine, 1554, 8vo, often reprinted. 5. “De Juventute atqtie de Honore,” Basil. 6. “Compendium Ethices, &c.” Basil, 1554, 8vo. 7. “In Platonis Timaeum seu de universo commentarius,” ibid. 1554, fol. 8. “In Phaedonem; et in ejusdem decem libros de republica commentarii,” Basil. 9. “De Imitatione,” Antwerp, 1S54, 8vo. 10. “De conscribenda historia,” Antwerp and Paris, 1557, 8vo, and Antwerp again, 1564. Mirseus, Gerard Vossius, Gabriel Naudeus, and others, speak of this author as one of the most learned men of his time.

He was the author of many productions, both as a poet and as a physician; yet never man was more disinterested in both these capacities, evidently so as a physician, for he practised without fees; and as a poet, whose usual reward is glory, no man could be more indifferent. It is owing to this indifference that we have so little of his poetry, in comparison of what he wrote; and that among other compositions his odes and epigrams, which were read in manuscript with infinite admiration, and would have been most thankfully received by the public, yet not being printed, were lost. He wrote in Latin, and with great elegance. His poems now extant are the three books of “Siphilis, or De Morbo Gallico,” a book of miscellaneous poems, and two books of his^ poems, entitled “Joseph,” which he began at the latter end of his life, but did not live to finish. And these works, it is said, would have perished with the rest, if his friends had not taken care to preserve and communicate them: for Fracastorius, writing merely for amusement, never took any care respecting his works, when they were out of his hands.

Perhaps the productions of no modern poet have beea more commended by the learned, than those of Fracastorio. His poems are, in general, written with a spirit which never degenerates into insipidity. But on his “Siphilis” the high poetical reputation of Fracastorio is principally founded. Sannazarius, on reading this poem, declared he thought it superior to any thing produced by himself, or his learned contemporaries, and Julius Scaliger was not content to pronounce him the best poet in the world next to Virgil, but affirmed him to be the best in every thing else; and, in sh.-irt, though he was not generally lavish of his praise, ith respect to Fracastorio he scarcely retained himself within the bounds of adoration. Fracastorio’s medical pieces /are, “De sympathia et antipathia, De contagione et contagiosis morbis, De causis criticorum dierum De vim temperature, &c.” His works have been printed separately and collectively. The best edition of them is that of Padua, 1735, in 2 vols. 4to.

, a French writer, was born of a noble family at Paris in 1666. His first studies were under the Jesuits; and father La Baune had the forming of his taste to polite literature. He was also a v disciple of the fathers Rapin, Jouvenci, La Rue, and Commire; and the affection he had for them induced him to admit himself of their order in 1683. After his noviciate, and when he had finished his course of philosophy at Paris, he was sent to Caen to teach the belles lettres, where he contracted a friendship with Huet and Segrais, and much improved himself under their instructions. The former advised him to spend one part of the day upon the Greek authors, and another upon the Latin: by pursuing which method, he became an adept in both languages. Four years being passed here, he was recalled to Paris, where he spent other four years in the study of divinity. At the end of this course, he was shortly to take upon him the occupation of either preaching, or teaching; but finding in himself no inclination for either, he quitted his order in 1694, though he still retained his usual attachment to it. Being now at liberty to indulge his own wishes, he devoted himself solely to improve and polish his understanding. He soon after assisted the abbé Bignon, under whose direction the “Journal des Scavans” was conducted; and he had all the qualifications necessary for such a work, a profound knowledge of antiquity, a skill not only in the Greek and Latin, but also Italian, Spanish, and English tongues, a soundjudgment, an exact taste, and a very impartial and candid temper. He afterwacds formed a plan of translating the works of Plato; thinking, very justly, that the versions of Ficinus and Serranus had left room enough for correction and amendments. He had begun this work, but was obliged to discontinue it by a misfortune which befel him in 1709. He had borrowed, as we are told, of his friend father Hardouin, a manuscript commentary of his upon the New Testament, in order to make some extracts from it; and was busy at work upon it one summer evening, with the window half open, and himself inconsiderately almost undressed. The cold air had so unhappy an efiect in relaxing the muscles of his neck, that he could never afterwards hold his head in its natural situation. The winter increased his malady; and he was troubled with involuntary convulsive motions of the head, and with pains which often hindered him from sleeping; yet he lived nineteen years after; and though he could not undertake any literary work, constantly received visits from the learned, and conversed with them not without pleasure. He died suddenly of an apoplexy, 1728, in his sixty-second year. He had been made a member of the academy of inscriptions in 1705, and of the French academy in 1708. His works consist of Latin poems, and a great number of very excellent dissertations in the Memoirs of the French academy . His poems were published at Paris in 1729, in 12mo, with the poems of Huet, under the care of the abbé d'Olivet, who prefixed an eulogy of Fraguier; and at the end of them are three Latin dissertations concerning Socrates, which is all that remains of the Prolegomena he had prepared for his intended translation of Plato. These dissertations, with many others upon curious and interesting subjects, are printed in the Memoirs above-mentioned.

, or Fiuncia Bigio, was an historical painter, born in 1483. He studied for a short time under Albertinelli, but is chiefly known as the competitor, and in some works the partner of Andrea del Sarto. Similar in principle, but inferior to him in power, he strove to supply by diligence the defects of nature; with what success, will appear on comparison of his work in the cloister of the Nunziata at Florence, with those of Andrea at the same place. On its being uncovered by the monks, the painter in a fit of shame or rage gave it some blows with a hammer, nor ever after could be induced to finish it. He appears to have succeeded better in two histories which he inserted among the frescos of Andrea at the Scalzo, nor is he there much inferior. He likewise emulated him at Poggio a Cajano, where he represented the return of M. Tullius from exile, a work, which though it remained unfinished, shews him to great advantage. This artist died in 1524, in the prime of life.

, a celebrated saint of the Romish church, and founder of one of the four orders of mendicant friars, called Franciscans, was born at Assisi in Umbria, in 1182. He was the son of a merchant, and was christened John, but had the name of Francis added, from his facility of talking French, which he learned to qualify him for his father’s profession. He was at first a young man of dissolute manners, but in consequence of an illness about 1206, he became so strongly affected with religious zeal, that he took a resolution of retiring from the world. He now devoted himself so much to solitude, mortified himself to such a degree, and contracted so ghastly a countenance, that the inhabitants of Assisi thought him distracted. His father, thinking to make him resume his profession., employed a very severe method for that purpose, by throwing him into prison; but finding this made no impression on him, he took him before the bishop of Assisi, in order to make him resign all claim to his paternal estate, which he not only agreed to, but stripped off all his clothes, even to his shirt. He then prevailed with great numbers to devote themselves, as he had done, to the poverty which he considered as enjoined by the gospel; and drew up an institute or rule for their use, which was approved by pope Innocent III. in 1210. The year after, he obtained of the Benedictines the church of Portiuncula, near Assisi, and his order increased so fast, that when he held a chapter in 1219, near 5000 friars of the order of Minors (so they were called) were present. Soon after he obtained also a bull in favour of his order from pope Honorius III. About this time he went into the Holy Land, and endeavoured in vain to convert the sultan Meledin. It is said, that he offered to throw himself into the flames to prove his faith in what he taught. He returned soon after to his native country, and died at Assiai in 1226, being then only fortyfive. He was canonized by pope Gregory IX. the 6th of May, 1230; and Oct. the 4th, on which his death happened, was appointed as his festival.

, was born at the castle of Sales, in the diocese of Geneva, August 21, 1567. He descended from one of the most ancient and noble families of Savoy. Having taken a doctor of law’s degree at Padua, he was first advocate at Chambery, then provost of the church of Geneva at Annecy. Claudius de Granier, his bishop, sent him as missionary into the valleys of his diocese to. convert the Zuinglians, and Calvinists, which he is said to have performed in great numbers, and his sermons were attended with wonderful success. The bishop of Geneva chose him afterwards for his coadjutor, but was obliged to use authority before he could be persuaded to accept the office. Religious aftairs called him afterwards into France, where he was universally esteemed; and cardinal du Perron said, “There were no heretics whom he could not convince, but M. de Geneva must be employed to convert them.” Henry IV. being informed of his merit, made him considerable offers, in hopes of detaining hioi in France; but he chose rather to return to Savoy, where he arrived in 1602, and found bishop Grimier had died a few days before. St. Francis then undertook the reformation of his diocese, where piety and virtue soon flourished through his zeal; he restored regularity in the monasteries, and instituted the order of the Visitation in. 1610, which was confirmed by Paul V. 1618, and of whicli the baroness de Chantal, whom he converted by his preaching at Dijon, was the foundress. He also established a congregation of hermits in Chablais, restored ecclesiastical discipline to its ancient vigour, and converted nnmerous heretics to the faith. At the latter end of 1618 St. Francis was obliged to go again to Paris, with the cardinal de Savoy, to conclude a marriage between the prince of Piedmont and Christina of France, second daughter of Henry IV. This princess, herself, chose de Sales for her chief almoner; but he -would accept the place only on two conditions; one, that it should not preclude his residing in his diocese; the other, that whenever he did not execute his office, he should not receive the profits of it. These xinusual terms the princess was obliged to consent to, and immediately, as if by way of investing him with his office, presented him with a very valuable diamond, saying, “On condition that you will keep it for my sake.” To which he replied, “I promise to do so, madam, unless the poor stand in need of it.” Returning to Annecy, he continued to visit the sick, relieve those in want, instruct the people, and discharge all the duties of a pious bishop, till 1622, when he died of an apoplexy at Lyons, December 28, aged fifty-six, leaving several religious works, collected in 2 vols. fol. The most known are, “The Introduction to a devout Life;” and “Philo,” or a treatise on the love of God. MarsoHier has written his life, 2 yols. 12mo, which was translated into English by Mr. Crathornc. He was canonized in 16 65.

king of France, surnamed “the Great, and the restorer of learning,” succeeded his father-in-law Louis XII. who died without a son in 1515. Francis I. was the only son of Charles duke of Orleans, constable of AngoulSroe, and born at Cognac, September 12, 1494. Immediately after his coronation he took the title of cluke of Milan, and put himself at the head of a powerful army to assert his right to that duchy. The Swiss, who defended it, opposed his enterprize, and attacked him. near Marignana; but they were cut to pieces in a sanguinary contest, and about 15,000 left dead on the field. The famous Trivulce, who had been engaged in eighteen battles, called this “The battle of the Giants,” and the others “Children’s play.” It was on this occasion that the king desired to be knighted by the famous Bayard. That rank was originally the highest that could be aspired to: princes of the blood were not called monseigneur, nor their wives madaine, till they had been knighted; nor might any one claim that honour, unless he could trace his nobility at least three generations back, both on his father’s and mother’s side, and also bore an unblemished character, especially for military courage and valour. The creation of a knight was attended with few ceremonies, except at some festivals, inwhich case a great number were observed. This institution, which may be traced up to the first race, contributed not a little to polish the minds of the French, by restraining them within the bounds of a benevolent morality. They swore to spare neither life or fortune in defence of religion, in fighting against the infidels, and in protecting the widow, the orphan, and all who were defenceless. By this victory at Marignana, Francis I. became master of the Milanese, which was ceded to him by Maximilian Sforza, who then retired into France. Pope Leo X. alarmed by these conquests, held a conference with the king at Bologna, obtained from him the abolition of the Pragmatic Sanction, and settled the Concordate, which was confirmed the year following in the Latcran council. From that time the kings of France appointed to all consistorial benefices, and the pope received one year’s income upon every change. The treaty of N.oyon was concluded the same year between Charles V. and Francis I. one principal article or' which was the restoration of Navarre. Charles V. on the death of Maximilian I. being elected emperor, 1519, in opposition to Francis, the jealousy which subsisted between those two princes broke out immediately, and kindled a long war, which proved fatal to all Europe. The French, commanded by Andrew de Foix, conquered Navarre in 1520, and lost it again almost directly; they drove the English and Imperialists from Picardy; took Hesdin, Fontarabia, and several other places; but lost Milan and Tournay in 1521. The following year, Odet de Foix, viscount of Lautrec, was defeated at the bloody battle of Bicoque, which was followed by the loss of Cremona, Genoa, and a great part of Italy. Nor did their misfortunes end here. The constable of Bourbon, persecuted by the duchess of Angouleme, joined the emperor 1523, and, being appointed commander of his forces in 1524, defeated admiral Bonevet’s rear at the retreat of Rebec, and retook all the Milanese. He afterwards entered Provence with a powerful army, but was obliged to raise the siege of Marseilles, and retired with loss. Francis I. however, went into Italy, retook Milan, and was going to besiege Pavia; but, having imprudently detached part of his troops to send them to Nappies, he was defeated by the constable de Bpurbon in a bloody battle before Pavia, February 24, 1525, after, having two horses killed under him, and displaying prodigious valour. His greatness of mind never appeared more conspicuously than after this unfortunate engagement. In a letter to his mother he says, “Every thing is lost but honour.” He was conducted as a prisoner to Madrid, and returned the following year, after the treaty which was concluded in that city, January 14, 1526. This treaty, extorted by force, was not fulfilled; the emperor had insisted on the duchy of Burgundy being ceded to him but, when Lannoi went to demand it in his master’s name, he was introduced to anaudience given to the deputies of Burgundy, who declared to the king, that he had no power to give up any province of his kingdom. Upon this the war re-commenced immediately. Francis I. sent forces into Italy, under the command of Lautrec, who rescued Clement VII. and at first gained great adVantages, but perished afterwards, with his army, by sickness. The king, who had been some years a widower, concluded the treaty of Cambray in 1529, by which he engaged to marry Eleanor of Austria, the emperor’s sister; and his two sons, who had been given as hostages, were Ransomed at the king’s return for two millions in gold. The ambition of possessing Milan, caused peace again to be broken. Francis took Savoy in 1535, drove the emperor from Provence in 153G, entered into an alliance with 8olyman II. emperor of the Turks; took Hesdin, and seyeral other places, in 1537, and made a truce of ten years with Charles V. at Nice, 1538, which did not, however, Jast long. The emperor, going to punish the people of Ghent, who had rebelled, obtained a passage through France, by promising Francis the investiture of the duchy of Milan for which of his children he pleased; but. after being received in France with the highest honours in 1539, he was no sooner arrived in Flanders than he refused to keep his promise. This broke the truce; the war was renewed, and carried on with various success on both sides. The king’s troops entered Italy, Roussillorr, and Luxemburg. Francis of Bourbon, comte d‘Enguien, won the battle of Cerizoles in 154*, and took Montferrat. Francis I. gained over to his side Barbarossa, and Gustavus Vasa, Icing of Sweden; while, on the other hand, Henry VIII. of England espoused the interests of Charles V. and took Bologna, ’1544. A peace was at last concluded with he emperor at Cressy, September 18, 1544, and with Henry VIII. June 7, 154fi; but Francis did not long enjoy the tranquillity which this peace procured him; he died at the castle of Rambouillet the last day of March, 1547, aged fifty-three. This prince possessed the most shining qualities: he was witty, mild, magnanimous, generous, and benevolent. The revival of polite literature in Europe was chiefly owing to his care; he patronized the learned, founded the royal college at Paris, furnished a library at Fountainbleau at a great expence, and built several palaces, which he ornamented with pictures, statues, and costly furniture. When dying, he particularly requested his son to dimiuish the taxes which he had been obliged to levy for defraying the expences of the war; and put it in his power to do so, for he left 400,000 crowns of gold in his coffers, with a quarter of his revenues which was then due. It was this sovereign who ordered all public acts to "be written in French. Upon the whole he appears to have been one of the greatest ornaments of the French throne.

Some time after the publication of Horace, he appears to have come over to England, where, in 1753, he published a translation of part of the “Orations of Demosthenes,” intending to comprise the whole in two quarto volumes. It was a matter of some importance at that time to risk a large work of this kind, and the author had the precaution therefore to secure a copious list of subscribers. Unfortunately, however, it had to contend with the acknowledged merit of Leland’s translation, and, allowing their respective merits to have been nearly equal, Leland’s had at least the priority in point of time, and upon comparison, was preferred by the critics, as being more free and eloquent, and less literally exact. This, however, did not arise from any defect in our author’s skill, but was merely an error, if an error at all, in judgment; for he conceived, that as few liberties as possible ought to be taken with the style of his author, and that there was an essential difference between a literal translation, which only he considered as faithful, and an imitation, in which we can never be certain that we have the author’s words or precise meaning. Jn 1755 he completed his purpose in a second volume, which was applauded as a difficult work well executed, and acceptable to every friend of genius and literature; but its success was by no means correspondent to the wishes of the author or of his friends. The year before the first volume of his “Demosthenes” appeared, he determined to attempt the drama, and his first essay was a tragedy entitled “Eugenia.” This is profesedly an adaptation of the French “Cenie” to English feelings and habits, hut it had not much success on the stage. Lord Chesterfield, in one of his letters to his Son, observes that he did not think it would have succeeded so well, considering how long our British audiences had been accustomed to murder, racks, and poison in every tragedy; yet it affected the heart so much, that it triumphed over habit and prejudice. In a subsequent letter, he says that the boxes were crowded till the sixth night, when the pit and gallery were totally deserted, and it was dropped. Distress without death, he repeats, was not sufficient to arlect a true British audience, so long accustomed to daggers, racks, and bowls of poison; contrary to Horace’s rule, they desire to see Medea murder her children on the stage. The sentiments were too delicate to move them; and their hearts were to be taken by storm, not by parley. In 1754, Mr. Francis brought out another tragedy at Cuvent-garden theatre, entitled “Constantino,” which was equilly unsuccessful, but appears to have suffered principally by the improper distribution of the parts among the actors. This he alludes to, in the dedication to lord Chesterfield, with whom he appears to have been acquainted, and intimates at the same time that these disappointments bad induced him to take leave of the stage.

, or Franciscus Francken, but more generally called Old Francks, was an artist of the sixteenth century. Very few circumstances relative to him are handed down, although his works are as generally known in these kingdoms as they are in the Netherlands: nor are the dates of his birth, death, or age, thoroughly ascertained; for Dcscamps supposes him to be born in 1544, to be admitted into the society of painters at Antwerp in 1561, which was at seventeen years of age; and fixes his death in 1666, by which computation Francks must have been a hundred and twenty-two years old when he died, which appears utterly improbable; though others fix his birth in 1544, and his death in 1616, aged seventy-two, which seems to be nearest the truth. He painted historical subjects taken froni the Old orNewTestameut, and was remarkable for introducing a great number of figures into his compositions, which he had the skill to express very distinctly. He had a fruitful invention, and composed readily; but he wanted grace and elegance in his figures, and was apt to crowd too many histories into one scene. His touch was free, and the colouring of his pictures generally transparent; yet a predominant brown or yellowish tinge appeared over them, neither natural nor agreeable. But, in several of his best performances, the colouring is clear and lively, the design good, the figures tolerably correct, and the whole together very pleasing. -At Wilton is his “Belshazzar’s Feast,” a very curious composition.

, commonly called Young Francks, the son of the preceding, and of both his names, was born in 1580, and instructed in the art of painting by his father, whose style and manner he imitated in a large and small size; but when he found himself sufficiently skilled to be capable of improvement by travel, he went to Venice, and there perfected his knowledge of colouring, by studying and copying the works of those artists who were most eminent. But it seems extraordinary that a painter so capable of great things in his profession, should devote his pencil to the representation of carnivals and other subjects of that kind, preferably to historical subjects of a much higher rank, which might have procured for him abundantly more honour. At his return, however, to Flanders, his works were greatly admired and coveted, being superior to those of his father in many respects; his colouring was more clear, his pencil more delicate, his designs had somewhat more of elegance, and his expression was much better. The taste of composition was the same in both, and they seemed to have the same ideas, and the same defects’, multiplying too many historical incidents into one subject, and representing a series of actions, rather than one principal action or event. The subjects of both painters were usually taken from the Old and New Testament, and also from the Roman history (except the subjects of young Francks while he continued in Italy); and it might have been wished that each of them had observed more order and propriety in the disposition of their subjects.

The court of Gotha, uninfluenced by these clamours, and convinced of his innocence and worth, lost no time in offering a suitable employment for his talents. He was About the same time offered a professorship in the college of Cobourg, and another at Weimar, but he preferred the offers made to him by the elector of Brandenbourg, (afterwards Frederic I. of Prussia), the very day that he was ordered to quit Erfurt. The university of Halle, in Saxony, had been just founded, and Mr. Francke was in 1691 appointed professor of the Greek and oriental languages, and pastor of Glaucha, a suburb of Halle. In 1698 he resigned Iiis professorship of the languages for that of divinity, but although he had a principal hand in establishing the new university, which soon became pre-eminent among the eminaries of Germany, he acquired greater fame as the founder of the celebrated school, hospital, or rather college, for the poor at Glaucha. The wholehistory of education does not produce an instance more remarkable in its origin and progress than this singular foundation, by the labour, industry, and perseverance, of professor Francke.

There was a very ancient custom in the city and neighbourhood of Halle, for such persons as give relief to the poor, to appoint a particular day on which they were to come to their doors to receive it. When professor Fraucke came to be settled at Glaucha, he readily adopted this practice, and fixed on Thursday as his day. But, as his profession led him, he endeavoured to confer with the poor on the subject of religion, in which he found them miserably deficient, and incapable of giving their children any religious instruction whatever. His first contrivance to supply their temporal wants was by supplicating the charity of well-disposed students; but finding that mode inconvenient, he contented himself with fixing up a box in his parlour, with one or two suitable texts of scripture over it. In 1695, when this box had been set up about a quarter of a year, he found in it the donation of a single person amounting to 1 8.s. 6d. English, which he immediately determined should be the foundation of a charity, school. Unpromising as such a scheme might appear, he began the same day by purchasing eight-shillings-worth of school-books, and then engaged a student to teach the poor children two hours each day. He met at first with the common fate of such benevolent attempts; most of the children making away with the books entrusted to them, and deserting the school; for this, however, the remedy was easy, in obliging the children to leave them behind them; but still his pious endeavours were in a great measure frustrated by the impressions made on their minds in school being effaced by their connections abroad. To remedy this greater evil, he resolved to single out some of the children, and to undertake their maintenance, as well as instruction. Such of the children, accordingly, as seemed most promising, he put out to persons of known integrity and piety to be educated by them, as he had as yet no house to receive them. The report of so excellent a design, induced a person of quality to contribute the sum of 1000 crowns, and another 400, which served to purchase a house into which twelve orphans, the whole number he had selected, were removed, and a student of divinity appointed master and teacher. This took place in 1696. The number of children, however, which demanded his equal sympathy, increasing, he conceived the project of buildiopr an hospital, such as might contain about two hundreirpeople, and this at a time, he informs us, when he hauf not so much in hand as would answer the cost of a small cottage, and when his project was consequently looked upon as visionary and absurd. His reliance on Providence, however, was so firm, that having procured piece of ground, he laid the foundation stone on July 5, 1698, and within the space of a year the workmen were ready to cover it with the roof. During this time as well as the time it subsequently required to complete it, the expences were defrayed from casual donations. He never appears to have had any kind of annual subscription, or other help on which the least dependence could be placed; he sometimes knew the names of his benefactors, but more generally they were totally unknown to him, and yet one succeeded another at short intervals, and often when he was reduced to the utmost distress. By such unforeseen and unexpected supplies, an establishment was formed, in which, in 1727, 2196 children were provided for, under 130 teachers. The whole progress of this great work, as related by professor Francke, is beyond measure astonishing and unprecedented; for he had applied none of the methods which have since been found useful in the foundation of similar establishments, and appears to have had nothing to support his zeal, but the strongest confidence in the goodness of Providence; and although the assistance he received was great in the aggregate, it not unfrequently happened that his mornings were passed in anxious fears lest the subjects of his care might want bread in the day. These supplies consisted principally in money, but many to whom that mode of contribution was inconvenient, sent in provisions, clothing, and utensils of various sorts, and a very considerable number sold trinkets of all kinds, lace, jewels, plate^ &c. for the benefit of an hospital, the good effects of which were now strikingly visible, as its progress advanced. Some very considerable contributions came even from England, in consequence of a short account of the hospital having been sent over and published there in 1705. Dr. White Kennett, in particular, noticed it with high commendation, from the pulpit, and added that “nothing in the world seemed to him more providential, or rather more miraculous.” In the following year, 1706, it had grownup, not only into an hospital for orphans, and a refuge for many other distresse'd objects, but into a kind of university, in which all the languages and sciences were taught, and a printing-house established on a liberal plan, an infirmary, &c.

In 1753, he published a poem called “Translation,” in which he announced his intention of giving a translation of “Sophocles.” In January 1757, on the periodical paper called “The World” being finished, he engaged to publish a similar one, under the title of “The Centinel,” but after extending it to twenty-seven numbers, he was obliged to drop it for want of encouragement, The next year he published “A Fast Sermon” preached at Queen-street chapel, of which he was minister, and at St. Paul’s Coveut-garden, of which he was lecturer; and he afterwards published a few sermons on occasional topics, or for charities. In 1759 appeared his translation of “Sophocles,” 2 vols. 4to, which was allowed to be a bold and happy transfusion into the English language of the terrible simplicity of the Greek tragedian. This was followed by a “Dissertation on ancient Tragedy,” in which he mentioned Arthur Murphy by name, and in terms not the most courtly. Murphy, a man equally, or perhaps more irritable, replied in a poetical “Epistle addressed to Dr. Johnson,” who calmly permitted the combatants to settle their disputes in their own way, which, we are told, amounted to a cessation of hostilities, if not to an honourable peace. At this time Francklin is said to have been a writer in the Critical Review, which indeed is acknowledged in an article in that review, and might perhaps be deduced from, internal evidence, as, besides his intimacy with Smollet, his works are uniformly mentioned with very high praise. In 1757 he had been preferred by Trinity-college to the livings of Ware and Thundrich, in Hertfordshire, and although his mind was more intent on the stage than the pulpit, he published in 1765 a volume of “Sermons on the relative duties,” which was well received by the publick. Next year he produced at Drury-lane theatre, the tragedy of “The Earl of Warwick,” taken, without any acknowledgement, from the French of La Harpe. In Nov. 1767, he was enrolled in the list of his majesty’s chaplains. In 1768 he published apiece of humour, without his name, entitled “A Letter to a Bishop concerning Lectureships,” exposing the paltry shifts of the candidates for this office at their elections; and next year he wrote “An Ode on the Institution of the Royal Academy.” In March of the same year, he translated Voltaire’s “Orestes” for the stage. In July 1770 he took the degree of D. D. but still debased his character by producing dramatic pieces of no great fame, and chiefly translations; “Electra,” “Matilda,” and “The Contract,” a farce. About 1776 he was presented to the living of Brasted, in Surrey, which he held until his death. He had for some years employed himself on his excellent translation of the works of *' Lucian,“which he published in 1780, in 2 vols. 4to. He was also concerned with Smollet, in a translation of Voltaire’s works, but, it is said, contributed little more than his name to the title-pages. There is a tragedy of his still in ms. entitled” Mary Queen of Scots.“Dr. Francklin died at his house in Great Queen-street, March 15, 1784. He was unquestionably a man of learning and abilities, but from peculiarities of temper, and literary jealousy, seems not to have been much esteemed by his contemporaries. After his death 3 volumes of his” Sermons" were published for the benefit of his widow and family. Mrs. Francklin died in May 1796. She was the daughter of Mr. Venables, a wine-merchant.

, an Italian poet of the infamous class which disgraced the sixteenth century, was born at Benevento, in 1510, and under his father, who was a schoolmaster, acquired a knowledge of the learned languages. In his youth he became acquainted with Peter Aretino, and from being his assistant in his various works, became his rival, and whilst he at least equalled him in virulence and licentiousness, greatly surpassed him in learning and abilities. His first attempt at rivalship was his “Pistole Vulgari,” in 1539. A fierce war was commenced between them, and sustained on each side with the greatest rancour and malignity. Franco left Venice, and took up his abode at Montserrat, where he published a dialogue, entitled “Delle Belleze;” and a collection of sonnets against Aretino with a “Priapeia Italiana,” which contained the grossest obscenity, the most unqualified abuse, and the boldest satire against princes, popes, the fathers of the council of Trent, and other eminent persons. Yet all this did not injure his literary reputation; he was a principal member of the academy of Argonauti at Montserrat, and in this capacity wrote his “Rime Maritime,” printed at Mantua in 1549. At Mantua he followed the profession of a schoolmaster thence he removed to Rome, where he published commentaries on the “Priapeia,” attributed to Virgil, the copies of which were suppressed and burned by order of pope Paul IV, Under Pius IV. he continued to indulge his virulence, and found a protector in cardinal Morone. His imprudence, however, in writing a Latin epigram against Pius V. with other defamatory libels, brought upon him the punishment which he amply deserved. He was taken from his study in his furred robe, and hanged on the common gallows without trial or ceremony. He was author of several other works besides those already enumerated, and he left behind him in ms. a translation of Homer’s Iliad.

, a French abbé and very useful writer, was born at Arinthod, in Franche-comte, Nov. 2, 1698, and for some time belonged to the chevaliers of St. Lazarus, but quitting that society, came to Paris and engaged in teaching. He afterwards wrote several works, in a style perhaps not very elegant, but which were admired either for their intrinsic usefulness, or as antidotes to the pernicious doctrines of the French philosophers and deists, who, conscious of his superiority in argument, affected to regard him as a man of weak understanding, and a bigot; reproaches that are generally thrown upon the advocates of revealed religion in other countries as well as in France. The abbé François, however, appears from his works to have been a man of learning, and an able disputant. He died at Paris, far advanced in years, Feb. 24, 1782, escaping the miseries which those against whom he wrote, were about to bring on their country. His principal works are, I. “Geographic,” 12tno, an excellent manual on that subject, often reprinted, and known by the name of “Crozat,” the lady to whom he dedicated it, and for whose use he first composed it. 2. “Prenves de la religion de Jesus Christ,” 4 vols. 12mo. 3. “Defense de la Religion,” 4 vols. 12mo. 4. “Examen du Catechisme de i'honnete homme,” 12mo. 5. “Examen des faits qui servent de fondement a la religipn Chretienne,” 1767, 3 vols. 12mo. 6. “Observation sur la philosophic de i'histoire,” 8vo. He left also some manuscripts, in refutation of the “.Philosophical Dictionary,” the “System of Nature,” and other works which emanated from the philosophists of France.

“I walked towards the top of the street, looking eagerly on both sides, till I came to Market-street, where I met a child with a loaf of bread. Often had I made my dinner on dry bread. I enquired where he bought it, and went straight to the baker’s shop which he pointed out to me. I asked for some biscuits, expecting to find such as we had 0t Boston; but they made, it seems, none of that sort at Philadelphia. I then asked for a three-penny loaf. They made no loaves of that price. Finding myself ignorant of the prices as well as of the different kinds of bread, I desired him to let me have three-pennyworth of bread of some kind or other. He gave me three large rolls. I was surprised at receiving so much: I took them, however, and having no room in my pockets, I walked on with a roll under each arm, eating the third. In this manner I went through Market-street to Fourth-street, and passed the house of Mr. Read, the father of my future wife. She was standing at the door, observed me, and thought, with reason, that I made a very singular and grotesque appearance.”

A little before this, he had, gradually associated a number of persons, like himself, of an eager and inquisitive turn of mind, and formed them into a club, or society, to hold meetings for their mutual improvement in all kinds of useful knowledge, which was in high repute for many years after. Among many other useful regulations, they agreed to bring such books as they had into one place, to form a common library; but this furnishing only a scanty supply, they resolved to contribute a small sum monthly towards the purchase of books for their use from London. In this way their stock began to increase rapidly; and the inhabitants of Philadelphia, being desirous of profiting by their library, proposed that the books should be lent out on paying a small sum for this indulgence. Thus in a fewyears the society became rich, and possessed more books than were perhaps to be found in all the other colonies; and the example began to be followed in other places.

About 1728 or 1729, Franklin setup a newspaper, the second in Philadelphia, which proved very profitable, and afforded him an opportunity of making himself known as a political writer, by his inserting several attempts of that kind in it. He also set up a shop for the sale of books and articles of stationary, and in 1730 he married a lady, now a widow, whom he had courted before he went to England, when she was a virgin. He afterwards began to have some leisure, both for reading books, and writing them, of which he gave many specimens from time to time. In 1732, he began to publish “Poor Richard’s Almanack,” which was continued for many years. It was always remarkable for the numerous and valuable concise maxims which it contained, for the Œconomy of human life; all tending to industry and frugality; and which were comprized in a well-known address, entitled “The Way to Wealth.” This has been transiated into various languages, and inserted in almost every magazine and newspaper in Great Britain or America. It has also been printed on a large sheet, proper to be framed, and hung up in conspicuous places in all houses, as it very well deserves to be. Mr. Franklin became gradually more known for his political talents. In 1736, he was appointed clerk to the general assembly of Pennsylvania; and was re-elected by succeeding assemblies for several years, till he was chosen a representative for the city of Philadelphia; and in 1737 he was appointed post-master of that city. In 1738, he formed the first fire-company there, to extinguish and prevent fires and the burning of houses; an example which was soon followed by other persons, and other places. And soon after, he suggested the plan of an association for insuring houses and ships from losses by fire, which was adopted; and the association continues to this day. In 1744, during a war between France and Great Britain, some French and Indians made inroads upon the frontier inhabitants of the province, who were unprovided for such an attack; the situation of the province was at this time truly alarming, being destitute of every means of defence. At this crisis Franklin stepped forth, and proposed to a meeting of the citizens of Philadelphia, a plan, of a voluntary association for the defence of the province. This was approved of, and signed by 1200 persons immediately. Copies of it were circulated through the province; and in a short time the number of signatures amounted to 10,000. Franklin was chosen colonel of the Philadelphia regiment; but he did not think proper to accept of the honour.

Pursuits of a different nature now occupied the greatest part of his attention for some years. Being always much addicted to the study of natural philosophy, and the discovery of the Leyden experiment in electricity having rendered that science an object of general curiosity, Mr. Franklin applied himself to it, and soon began to distinguish himself eminently in that way. He engaged in a course of electrical experiments with all the ardour and thirst for discovery which characterized the philosophers of that day. By these he was enabled to make a number of important discoveries, and to propose theories to account for various phenomena; which have been generally adopted, and which will probably endure for ages. His observations he communicated in a series of letters to his friend Mr. Peter Collinson; the first of which is dated March 28, 1747. In these he makes known the power of points in drawing and throwing off the electric matter, which had hitherto escaped the notice of electricians. He also made the discovery of a plus and minus, or of a positive and negative state of electricity; from whence, in a satisfactory manner he explained the phenomena of the Leyden phial, first observed by Cuneus or Muschcnbroeck, which had much perplexed philosophers. He shewed that the bottle, when charged, contained no more electricity than before, but that as much was taken from one side as was thrown on the other; and that, to discharge it, it was only necessary to make a communication between the two sides, by which the equilibrium might be restored, and that then no signs of electricity would remain. He afterwards demonstrated by experiments, that the electricity did not reside in the coating, as had been supposed, but in the pores of the glass itself. After a phial was charged, he removed the coating, and found that upon applying a new coating the shock might still be received. In 1749, he first suggested his idea of explaining the phenomena of thunder-gusts, and of the aurora borealis, upon electrical principles. He points out many particulars in which lightning and electricity agree; and he adduces many facts, and reasoning from facts, in support of his positions. In the same year he conceived the bold and grand idea of ascertaining the truth of his doctrine, by actually drawing down the forked lightning, by means of sharp-pointed iron rods raised into the region of the clouds; from whence he derived his method of securing buildings and ships from being damaged by lightning. It was not until the summer of 1752 that he was enabled to complete his grand discovery, the experiment of the electrical kite, which being raised up into the clouds, brought thence the electricity or lightning down to the earth; and M. D'Alibard made the experiment about the same time in France, by following the track which Franklin had before pointed out. The letters which he sent to Mr. Collinson, it is said, were refused a place among the papers of the royal society of London; and Mr. Collinson published them in a separate volume, under the title of “New Experiments and Observations on Electricity, made at Philadelphia, in America,” which were read with avidity, and soon translated into different languages. His theories were at first opposed by several philosophers, and by the members of the royal society of London; but in 1755, when he returned to that city, they voted him the gold medal which is annually given to the person who presents the best paper on some interesting subject. He was also admitted a member of the society, and had the degree of LL. D. conferred upon him by different universities; but at this time, by reason of the war which broke out between Britain and France, he returned to America, and interested himself in the public affairs of that country. Indeed, he had done this long before; for although philosophy was a principal object of Franklin’s pursuit for several years, he did not confine himself to it alone. In 1747 he became a member of the general assembly of Pennsylvania, as a burgess for the city of Philadelphia. Being a friend to the rights of man from his infancy, he soon distinguished himself as a steady opponent of the unjust schemes of the proprietaries. He was soon looked up to as the head of the opposition; and to him have been attributed many of the spirited replies of the assembly to the messages of the governors. His influence in the body was very great, not from any superior powers of eloquence; he spoke but seldom, and be never was known to make any thing like an elaborate harangue; but his speeches generally consisting of a single sentence, or of a well-told story, the moral was always obviously to the point. He never attempted the flowery fields of oratory. His manner was plain and mild. His style in speaking was, like that of his writings, simple, tmadorned, and remarkably concise. With this plain manner, and his penetrating and solid judgment, he was able to confound the most eloquent and subtle of his adversaries, to confirm the opinions of his friends, and to make converts of the unprejudiced who had opposed him. With a single observation he has rendered of no avail a long and elegant discourse, and determined the fate of a question of importance.

As a philosopher the distinguishing characteristics of Franklin’s mind, as they have been appreciated by a very judicious writer, seem to have been a clearness of apprehension, and a steady undeviating common sense. We do not rind him taking unrestrained excursions into the more difficult labyrinths of philosophical inquiry, or indulging in conjecture and hypothesis. He is in the constant habit of referring to acknowledged facts and observations, and suggests the trials by which his speculative opinions may be put to the teat. He does not seek for extraordinary occasions of trying his philosophical acumen, nor sjts down with the preconceived intention of constructing a philosophical system. It is in the course of his familiar correspondence that he proposes his new explanations of phenomena, and brings into notice his new discoveries. A question put by a friend, or an accidental occurrence of the day, generally form the ground-work of these speculations. They are taken up by the author as the ordinary topics of friendly intercourse; they appear to cost him no Jahour; and are discussed without any parade. If an ingenious solution of a phenomenon is suggested, it is introduced with as much simplicity as if it were the most natural and obvious explanation that could be offered; and the author seems to value himself so little upon it, that the reader is in danger of estimating it below its real importance: If a mere hypothesis be proposed, the author himself is the first to point out its insufficiency, and abandons it with more facility than he had constructed it. Even the letters on electricity, which are by far the most finished of Franklin’s performances, are distinctly characterized by all these peculiarities. They are at first suggested by the accidental present of an electrical tube from a correspondent in London; Franklin and his friends are insensibly engaged in a course of electrical experiments; the results are from time to time communicated to the London correspondent; several important discoveries are made; and at length there arises a finished and ingenious theory of electricity. On this account the writings of Franklin possess a peculiar charm. They excite a favourable disposition and a friendly interest in the reader. The author never betrays any exertion, nor displays an. unwarrantable partiality for his own speculations; he assumes no superiority over his readers, nor seeks to elevate the importance of his conceptions, by the adventitious aid of declamation, or rhetorical flourishes. He exhibits no false zeal, no enthusiasm, but calmly and modestly seeks after truth; and if he fails to find it, has no desire to impose a counterfeit in its stead. He makes a familiar amusement of philosophical speculation; and while the reader thinks he has before him an ordinary and unstudied Jetter to a friend, he is insensibly engaged in deep disqu*­sitions of science, and made acquainted with the ingenious solutions of difficult phenomena. Of Franklin’s more private and personal character, we have few particulars; but it is to be regretted that in his religious principles he was early, and all his life, one of the class of free-thinkers.

surnamed the Great, the third king of Prussia, son of Frederic William I. was born Jan. 24, 1712, and educated in some measure in adversity; for when he began to grow up, and discovered talents for poetry, music, and the fine arts in general, his father, fearing lest this taste should seduce him from studies more necessary to him as a king, opposed his inclinations, and treated him with considerable harshness. In 1730, when the prince was eighteen, this disagreement broke out; he endeavoured to escape, was discovered, and thrown into prison, and Kat, a young officer who was to have attended his flight, was executed before his eyes. His marriage in 1733, with the princess of Brunswick Wolfenbuttel, restored at least apparent harmony in the family. But in his forced retirement, young Frederic had eagerly cultivated his favourite sciences, which continued to divert his cares in the most stormy and anxious periods of his life. He ascended the throne in May 1740, and almost immediately displayed his ambitious and military dispositions, by demanding Silesia from Maria Theresa, heiress of the emperor Charles VI. in his Austrian and Hungarian dominions, and pursuing his claim by force of arms. The emperor died October 20, 1740, and Lower Silesia had submitted to Frederic in November 1741. France stepped forward to support his pretensions; but in June 1742, he had signed a treaty at Breslaw, with the queen of Hungary, which left him in possession of Silesia and the county of Glatz. In the spring of 1744, either suspecting that the treaty of Breslaw would be broken, or moved again by ambition, betook arms under pretence of supporting the election of the emperor Charles VII. and declared war against Maria Theresa, who refused to acknowledge that prince. The war was continued with various success, but on the whole very gloriously for Frederic, till the latter end of 1745. It was concluded by a treaty signed at Dresden on Christmas day, by which the court of Vienna left him in possession of Upper and Lower Silesia (excepting some districts, and the whole county of Glatz) on condition that he should acknowledge Francis I. of Lorraine as emperor.

The year 1772 was remarkable for giving a proof of the insecurity of a small country situated between powerful neighbours, in the seizure of considerable territories belonging to Poland, of which the king of Prussia had his stare with Austria and Russia. The remainder of his reign, with very little exception, was devoted to the arts of peace; and his attention was diligently employed to give his subjects every advantage, consistent with a despotic government, of just laws, improving commerce, and the cultivation of the arts. Whatever were his errors in opinion or practice, which were both of the worst kind, or his offences against other powers, he sought and obtained the attachment of his subjects, by exemplary beneficence, and many truly royal virtues, mixed, however, with acts of extraordinary caprice and cruelty. He died August 17, 1786, in the seventy-fifth year of his age.

Frederic, like Cesar, united the talents of a writer with those of a warrior. He wrote in French, and was a tolerable poet; but his abilities are more displayed in history. His poem on the art of war is, however, valuable, both from his deep knowledge of the subject, ^and the traits of genius it displays. His works compose altogether nineteen volumes, 8vo. His poetical compositions, which, excepting his poem on the Art of War, consist chiefly of odes and epistles, passed through many editions under the title of “Oeuvres melees du Philosophe de Sans Souci.” But all the works published in his life, both in prose and verse, were collected in four vols. 8vo, in 1790, under the title of “Oeuvres primitives de Frederic II. Roi de Prusse, ou collection desouvragesqu'il publia pendant son regne.” Of this publication, the first volume contains his “AntiMachiuvel; military instructions for the general of his army; and his correspondence with M. de la Motte Fouquei.” TJie second, his “Memoirs of the House of Branden burgh.” In the third volume are his poems; and in the fourth, a variety of pieces in prose, philosophical, moral, historical, critical, and literary; particularly “Reflections on the military talents and character of Charles XII. king of Sweden; a discourse on war; letters on education, and on the love of our country; and a discourse on German literature.” His posthumous works hud been published stiil earlier. They appeare4 at Berlin in 1788, in 15 vols. 8vo. The two first of these contain the “History of his own Time, to the year 1745.” The third and fourth, his “History of the Seven Years’ War.” The fifth contains “Memoirs from the Peace of Hubertsbourg in 1763, to the Partition of Poland in 1775.” The sixth is filled with miscellaneous matter, particularly “Considerations on the present state of the political powers of Europe,” and “an Essay on Forms of Government, and on the duties of Sovereigns.” The seventh and eighth volumes contain poetical pieces, and some letters to Jordan and Voltaire. The remaining seven volumes continue his correspondence, including letters to and from Fontenelle, Rollin, Voltaire, D‘Argens, D’Alembert, Condorcet, and others. Of these productions many are valuable, more especially his “History of his own Times,” where, however, he is more impartial in his accounts of his campaigns, than in assigning the motives for his wars, or estimating the merits of his antagonists.

As all particulars respecting a man so eminent are objects of attention, we shall subjoin the account of his habitual mode of life, as it is given by the best authorities. His dress was plain in the extreme, and always military; a few minutes early in the morning served him to arrange it, and it was never altered in the <lay boots always made a part of it. Every moment, from five o‘clock in the morning to ten at night, had its regular allotment. His first employment when he arose, was tr> peruse all the papers that were addressed to him from all parts of his dominions, the lowest of his subjects being allowed to write to him, and certain of an answer. Every proposal was to be made, and every favour to be asked in writing; and a single word written with a pencil in the margin, informed his secretaries what answer to return. This expeditions method, excluding all verbal discussion, saved abundance of time, and enabled the king so well to weigh his favours, that he was seldom deceived by his ministers, and seldom assented or denied improperly. About eleven o’clock the king appeared in his garden, and reviewed his regiment of guards, which was done at the same hour by all the colonels in his provinces. At twelve precisely, he dined; and usually invited eight or nine officers. At table he discarded all etiquette, in hopes of making conversation free and equal; but, though his own bons-mots and liveliness offered all the encouragement in his power, this is an advantage that an absolute monarch cannot easily obtain. Two hours after dinner Frederic retired to his study, where he amused himself in composing verse or prose, or in the cultivation of some branch of literature. At seven commenced a private concert, in which he played upon the flute with the skill of a professor; and frequently had pieces rehearsed which he had composed himself. The concert was followed by a supper, to which few were admitted except literary men and philosophers; and the topics of conversation were suited to such a party. As he sacrificed many of his own gratifications to the duties of royalty, he exacted a severe account from officers, and all who held any places under htm. But in many things he was indulgent, and particularly held all calumny in so much contempt, that he suffered some of the most scurrilous writers to vent their malice with impunity. “It is my business,” said he, “to do the duties of my station, and to let malevolence say what it will.”

, a German, who acquired great reputation by his learned labours, was born at Friburg in the 16th century; his father being a husbandman, who lived near Basil. He studied the law in his native country under Za&ius, and had likewise Henry Glarean and Peter Ramus for his masters. He was strongly attached to the principles and method of Ramus. He first taught at Friburg, and afterwards at Basil but, finding himself not favoured by fortune, he was going to disengage himself from the republic of letters, and to turn peasant. While he was meditating upon this plan, the senate of Nuremberg, at the desire of Jerom Wolfius, offered him the rectorship of the new college at Altorf; of which place he took possession in November 1575. He discharged the duties of it with great zeal, explaining the historians, poets, Justinian’s institutes, c. He returned to Basil, and died there of the plague in 1583, which disorder had a little before deprived him of a very promising son and two daughters. One of the latter was, it seems, a very extraordinary young lady; for, as he tells us in the dedication to his elegies, or “Liber Tristium,” though scarce twelve years old, she had yet made such a progress in the Latin and Greek grammars, and the rudiments of other sciences, that she could translate out of her mother tongue into Latin, decline and conjugate Greek, repeat the Lord’s Prayer in Hebrew, and scan verses: she understood addition and subtraction in arithmetic, could sing by note, and play on the lute. And lest his reader should conclude from hence, that she had none of those qualities which make her sex useful as well as accomplished, he calls her in the same place, “Oeconomise meae fidelem administrain et dispensatricem,” that is, a very notable housewife.

Hitherto he had been employed in reading the poets, orators, and historians of antiquity, by which he had made himself a perfect master in the Greek language, and had acquired a great facility of writing elegant Latin, in verse as well as prose. He now began to apply himself to physic; and his first care, as we are told, was to digest thoroughly the true and rational principles of natural philosophy, chemistry, and anatomy, to which he add.ed a sufficient acquaintance with the mathematics. The first public specimen that he gave of his abilities in the way of his profession was in 1699, when he wrote a letter to Dr. (afterwards sir) HansSloane, concerning an hydrocephalus, or watery head; and, in 1701, another letter in Latin to the same gentleman, “De Spasmi rarioris Historia,” or concerning some extraordinary cases of persons afflicted with convulsions in Oxfordshire, which at that time made a very great noise, and might probably have been magnified into something supernatural, if our author had not taken great pains to set them in a true light. It seems a little strange that these letters should not have been thought worthy of a place in the collection of his medical works; they may be found, however, in the “Philosophical Transactions,” the former being No. 256, for September, 1699, the latter No. 270, for March and April, 1701. Mr. Freind proceeded M. A. in April 1701, and B. M. in June of the same year.

bury, was then lord lieutenant, and had, to reside, or what he intends to do, not

, eldest brother of the preceding, was born in 16'67, and admitted in 1680 at Westminster school, whence he was elected to Christ Church, Oxford, in. 1686. While a student there he wrote some good verses on the inauguration of king William and queen Mary, which were printed in the Oxford collection. In, the celebrated dispute between Bentley and Boyle, Mr. Freind was a warm partizan for the honour of his college, but was eventually more lucky with Bentley than his brother, Dr. John. A neice of our author’s was married to a son of Dr. Bentley, who, after that event, conceived a better opinion of the Christ Church men, and declared that “Freind had more good learning in him than ever he had imagined.” Mr. Freind proceeded M. A. June I, 1693, became second master of Westminster school in 1699, and accumulated the degrees of B. and D. D. July 7, 1709. In 1711 he published a sermon preached before the house of commons, Jan. 30, 1710-11, and in the same year he succeeded Duke, the poet, in the valuable living of Witney, in Oxfordshire; became head master of Westminster school, and is said either to have drawn up, or to have revised the preamble to the earl of Oxford’s patent of peerage. In March 1723, the day after his brother, Dr. John, was committed to the Tower, he caused much speculation in Westminster school and its vicinity, by giving for a theme, tf Frater, ne desere Fratrem.“In 1724 he published Cicero’s” Orator,“and in 1728 Mr. Bowyer, the celebrated printer, was indebted to him for the Westminster verses on the coronation of George II. In April 1729, Dr. Freind obtained a canonry of Windsor, which in 173l i he exchanged for a prebend of Westminster, and in 1733 he quitted Westminster school. In 1734 he was desirous of resigning Witney to his son (afterwards dean of Canterbury); but could not do it without the permission of bishop Hoadly, which he had little reason to expect. On application, however, to that prelate, through queen Caroline and lady Sundon, he received this laconic answer,” If Dr. Freind can ask it, I can grant it." Dr. Freind’s letters to lady Sundon are still existing, and prove that he had as little scruple in asking, as bishop Hoadly had in flattering a lady, who, by her influence with queen Caroline, became for a considerable time the sole arbitress of churchpreferments. In 1744 Dr. Freind resigned his stall at Westminster in favour of his son, and died August 9, 1751. By Jane his wife, one of the two daughters of Dr. Samuel Delangle, a prebendary of Westminster, he had two sons, Charles, who died in 1736, and William, his successor at Witney, and afterwards dean of Canterbury.

Freinshemius rendered many services to the republic of letters, first by his edition of Florus, whom he corrected and explained very happily. His father in-law, Bernegger, engaged him in this work; and was afterwards surprised at the great penetration and judgment which Freinshemius had shewn in discovering what had escaped all the learned before him. This was first published when he was a very young man, in 1632, 8vo, and his notes have been printed entire in the best editions of this author. So have his notes upon Tacitus; which, though short, are very judicious, relating to such particulars as Lipsius and the other critics either knew not or omitted. This was published in 1638 and 1664, with an admirable index.

But the works by which he has been most distinguished, are his famous supplements to Quintus Curtius and Livy. There was a supplement, indeed, to Quintus Curtius before; but as that was nothing more than a miserable compilation from Justin and Arrian, without either judgment or order, Freinshemius thought it expedient to draw up a new one. For this purpose he consulted every author, Greek and Latin, ancient and modern, which could be of the least use, and executed his task so much to the approbation and satisfaction of the public, that they almost ceased to deplore the loss of the two first books of this entertaining historian. His edition appeared at Strasburgh, 1640, 2 vols. Some, however, have still more admired his supplement to Livy, which is composed with equal judgment and learning, and must have been a Herculean labour. Le Clerc has printed this supplement with his inaccurate edition of Livy at Amsterdam, 1710. He declares the whole to be very ingenious and learned, but thinks that there is most purity and elegance in the first ten books of it; some speeches in which are incomparable. The fact is, that these ten books were published in the author’s life time; the others after his death. Besides what has been mentioned above, Freinshemius wrote noies upon Phadrus, inserted in Holstius’s edit. Amst. 1664, and other philological performances.

, a learned physician, was born at Nieder Wesel, in the duchy of Cleves, Oct. 30, 1581 but his relations being compelled, by the troubles of the times, to retire to Osnaburg, he began his classical studies there. He was afterwards sent to Cologne, Wesel, and Helmstadt; but his disposition being early turned to medicine, as a profession, he studied at Rostock, afterwards returned to Helmstadt to attend the lectures of Duncan Liddell and of Francis Parcovius; he likewise derived much advantage from the lectures of the celebrated Meibomius, in whose house he resided in the capacity of tutor to his son, and was soon thought fit to give private lectures to the younger students on the practice of physic. He afterwards lectured in public as professor extraordinary; and in 1604, at the age of twenty-three, he obtained the ordinary professorship in the university, which office he filled during four years. He then took his degree of doctor, and went to the court of Philip Sigismund, duke of Brunswick Lunenburg, and bishop of Osnaburg, who had appointed him his principal physician. About 1622, Ernest, duke of Holstein and earl of Schawenburg, offered him the same office, with the addition of the chief medical professorship in the university which he had lately founded at Rinteln; but his patron would not permit him. to accept it. This prince-bishop dying in 1623, his nephew, duke Frederic Ulric, gave Freitag the option of being his chief physician, or of resuming his professorship at Helmstadt. He con*­tinued at Osnaburg, where the new bishop retained him as his physician, and also appointed him one of his chamberlains. He also served his successor in the same capacity, but was dismissed in 1631, on account of his refusal to become a catholic. He found protection and patronage, however, under Ernest Cassimir, count of Nassau, and. the counts of Bettheim, who procured for him the vacant professorship in the university of Groningen. He fulfilled this new appointment with great reputation, and continued to distinguish himself by the success of his practice till the decline of his life, which was accelerated by a complication of maladies. Dropsy, gout, gravel, aud fever, terminated his life Feb. 8, 1641.

, an English physician, the son of John French, of Broughton, near Banbury in Oxfordshire, was born there in 1616, and entered New-Inn-hall, Oxford, in 1633, when he took his degrees in arts. He afterwards studied medicine, and acted as physician to the parliamentary army, by the patronage of the Fiennes, men of great influence at that time; he was also one of the two physicians to the whole army under general Fairfax. In 1648, when the earl of Pembroke visited the university of Oxford, he was created M. D. and was about the same time physician to the Savoy, and one of the college. He went abroad afterwards as physician to the English army at Bulloigne, and died there in Oct. or Nov. 1657. Besides translations of some medical works from Paracelsus and Glauber, he published “The An of Distillation,” Lond. 1651, 4to.; and “The Yorkshire Spaw, or a Treatise of Four famous medicinal wells: viz. the spaw, or vitrioline well; the stinking or sulphur well; the dropping or petrifying well; and St. Magnus-well, near Knaresborow in Yorkshire. Together with the causes, vertues, and use thereof,” Lond. 1652 and 1654, 12mo, republished at Halifax, 1760, 12mo.

Besides his periodical publications, Freron left several works, l. “Miscellanies,” in 3 vols. comprising several poems, to which it has only been objected that they are gather over-polished. 2. “Les VraisPlaisirs,” or the loves of Venus and Adonis; elegantly translated from Marino. 3. Part of a translation of Lucretius. He also superintended and retouched Beaumelle’s critical commentary on the Henriade, and assisted in several literary works. His son, Stanislaus Freron, was one of the most active accomplices in the atrocities which disgraced the French revolution, and appears to have had no higher ambition than to rival Marat and Robespierre in cruelty. He died at St. Domingo in 1802.

, commonly called Du Cange, a learned Frenchman, was descended from a good family, and born at Amiens in 1610. After being taught polite literature in the Jesuits college there, he went to study the Jaw at Orleans, and was sworn advocate to the parliament of Paris in 1631. He practised some time at the bar, but without intending to make it the business of his life. He then returned to Amiens, where be devoted himself to study, and ran through all sorts of learning, languages and philosophy, law, physic, divinity, and history. In 1668, he went and settled at Paris; and soon after a proposal was laid before Colbert, to collect all the authors who at different times had written the history of France, and to form a body out of them. This minister liking the proposal, and believing Du Fresne the best qualified for the undertaking, furnished him with memoirs and manuscripts for this purpose. Du Fresne wrought upon these materials, and drew up a large preface, containing the names of the authors, their character and manner, the time in which they lived, and the order in which they ought to be arranged. Being informed from the minister that his plan was not approved, and that he must adopt another, and convinced that if he followed the order prescribed, the whole work would be spoiled, he frankly told his employers that since he had not been happy enough to please those in authority, his advice was, that they should look out some of the best hands in the kingdom; and at the same time he returned them all their memoirs. (See Bouquet). Being thus disengaged from a tedious and laborious undertaking, he finished his Glossary of low Latin, or “Glossarium Mediæ et infimæ Latinitatis,” which was received with general commendation; and though Hadrian Valesius, in his preface to the Valesiana, notes everal mistakes in it, it is nevertheless a very excellent and useful work. It was afterwards enlarged by the addition of more volumes; and the edition of Paris, by Carpentier, in 1733, makes no less than six in folio; to which Carpentier afterwards added four of supplement. Both have been since excellently abridged, consolidated, and improved, in 6 vols. 8vo, published at Halle, 1772 1784. His next performance was a “Greek Glossary of the middle age,” consisting of curious passages and remarks, most of which are drawn from manuscripts very little known. This work is in 2 vols. folio. He was the author and editor also of several other performances. He drew a genealogical map of the kings of France. He wrote the history of Constantinople under the French emperors, which was printed at the Louvre, and dedicated to the king. H published an historical tract concerning John Baptist’s head, some relics of which are supposed to be at Amiens. He published, lastly, editions of Cinnamus, Nicephorus, Anna Commena, Zonaras, and the Alexandrian Chronicon, with learned dissertations and notes.

Though the general merits and abilities of this profound and accurate etymologist have been often recorded, Dr. Burney pays tribute to his memory for the assistance which he has frequently afforded musical historians, when all other resources failed. In the slow progress of the art of music from the time of Guido, whose labours were wholly devoted to the facilitating the study of canto fermo by the monks and choristers; in the glossary " De la Basse Latinitey 6 volumes folio, we find the derivation and early use of musical terms and phrases, particularly in France and neighbouring states; and there is scarcely term connected with the music of the church, of which an early use may not be found, either in this Glossary, or in its continuation by Carpentier, 4 vols. folio.

He was nineteen or twenty years of age when he began to learn to design under Francis Perier, and having spent two years in the school of that painter, and of Simon Vouet, he thought proper to take a journey into Italy, where he arrived at the end of 1633, or the beginning of 1634. As he had di.ring his studies, applied himself very much to that of geometry, he began upon his coming to Rome to paint landscapes, buildings, and ancient ruins. But, for the first two years residence in that city, he had the utmost difficulty to support himself, being abandoned by his parents, who resented his having rejected their advice in the choice of his profession; and the little stock of money which he had provided before he left France, proving scarce sufficient for the expences of his journey to Italy. 3eing destitute therefore of friends and acquaintance at Rome, he was reduced to such distress, that his chief subsistence for the greatest part of that time was bread, and a small quantity of cheese. But he diverted the sense of uneasy circumstances by an intense and indefatigable application to painting, until the arrival of the celebrated Peter Mignard, who had been the companion of his studies under Vouet, set him more at ease. They immediately engaged in the strictest friendship, living together in the same house, and being commonly known at Rome by the name of the Inseparables. They were employed by the cardinal of Lyons in copying all the best pieces in the Farnese palace. But their principal study was the works of Raffaelle and other great masters, and the antiques; and they were constant in their attendance every evening at the academy, in designing after models. Mignard had superior talents in practice; but Du Fresnoy was a great master of the rules, history, and theory of his profession. They communicated to each other their remarks and sentiments; Du Fresnoy furnishing his friend with noble and excellent ideas, and the latter instructing the former to paint with greater expedition and ease.

Poetry shared with painting the time and thoughts of Du Fresnoy, who, as he penetrated into the secrets of the latter art, wrote down his observations; and having at last acquired a full knowledge of the subject, formed a design of writing a poem upon it, which he did not finish till many years afterwards, when he had consulted the best writers, and examined with the utmost care the most admired pictures in Italy. While he resided there he painted several pictures, particularly the “Ruins of the Campo Vaccino,” with the city of Rome in the figure of a woman: a young woman of Athens going to see the monument of Jher lover, &c. One of his best pieces is “Mars finding Lavinia sleeping.” He had a peculiar esteem for the works of Titian, several of which he copied, imitating that xcellent painfer in his colouring, as he did Caracci in his designs. About 1653 he went to Venice, and travelled through Lombardy, after which he returned to France. He had read his poem to the best painters in all places through which he passed, and particularly to Albano and Guercino, then at Bologna, and he consulted several men famous for their skill in polite literature. He arrived at Paris in 1656, where he painted several pictures, and continued to revi&e his poem, on which he bestowed so much attention as frequently to interrupt his professional labours. But, though he was desirous to see his work published, he thought it improper to print the Latin without a French translation, which was at length made by De Piles. Du Fresrioy had just begun a commentary upon it, when he was seized with a palsy; and after languishing four or five months under it, died at the house of one of his brothers, at Villiers-le-bel, four leagues from Paris, in 1665. From the time of Mignard’s return to Paris in 1658, the two friends continued to live together uutil death separated them.

, or probably Frazer, (Amadeus Francis), was born at Chamberri, 1682, descended from a distinguished family of the robe, originally of Scotland. He was intended for the office of magistrate, but his family, in compliance with his inclination, permitted him to go into the military service, from which he entered the corps of engineer! in 1707. He was sent by the court, in 1711, to examine the Spanish colonies at Peru and Chili; and employed his talents for fortifications at St. Malo, at St. Domingo 1719, and at Landau 1728, in which year he also received the cross of St. Louis, and married. Frezier was afterwards employed in Bretany, but rose no higher than the rank of lieutenant-colonel, the various commissions in which he had been engaged having prevented his being present at more than two sieges; and the number of sieges at which the officers of engineers have been present, are the steps by which they rise to superior stations. He died October 16, 1772, leaving two daughters married, and a grandson, his son’s child. This son died before Frezier, on board a king’s ship, in the storm of 1768, which sunk him with all his property. His works are, “Tr. des Feux d‘ Artifice/’ 1747, 8vo.” Voyage de la Mer du Sud,“1716, 4to.” Theorie et Pratique de la Coupe des Pierres et des Bois,“Strasburg, 1769, 3 vols. 4 to; an abridgment of this work, by the title of” Eleinens de Stereotomie," Paris, 1759, 2 vols. 8vo.