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

, 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.

As a dramatic writer, his merit has been thus appreciated by one admirably qualified for the task. Reversing the observation of Dry den on Shakspeare, it may be said of Ford, that “he wrote laboriously, not luckily;” always elegant, often elevated, never sublime, he accomplished by patient and careful industry what Shakspeare and Fletcher produced by the spontaneous exuberance of native genius. He seems to have acquired early in life, and to have retained to the last, a softness of versification peculiar to himself. Without the majestic march of verse which distinguishes the poetry of Massinger, and with none of that playful gaiety which characterizes the dialogue of Fletcher, he is still easy and harmonious. There is, however, a monotony in his poetry, which those who have perused his scenes long together must have inevitably perceived. His dialogue is declamatory and formal, and wants that quick chace of replication and rejoinder so necessary to effect in representation. His genius was mostly inclined to tragedy. In his plots he is far from judicious; they are for the most part too full of the horrible, and he seems to have had recourse to an accumulation of terrific incidents to obtain that effect which he despairs of producing by pathos of language. Another defect in Ford’s poetry, proceeding from the same source, is the alloy of pedantry which pervades his scenes, at one time exhibited in the composition of uncooth phrases, at another in perplexity of language; and he frequently labours with a remote idea, which, rather than throw it away, he obtrudes upon his reader involved in inextricable obscurity. For this opinion of Ford’s merits, as well as for the particulars of his life, we are indebted to an elaborate and comprehensive article in the “Quarterly Review,” occasioned by an edition of “The Dramatic Works of John Ford; with an introduction and explanatory notes, by Henry Weber, esq.” 1811, 2 vols. 8vo. In this article the reader will also find a masterly delineation of the principal plays of Ford.

, a man of learning, and an elegant Latin poet, was the son of Richard Ford, of East Ogwell, a small parish near Newton-Bushell, in that part of Devonshire called the South-Hams, and was born there in 1619. By the Worths, his mother’s family, he was descended from the founder of Wadham college, Oxford. He was some time at the high-school at Exeter, but finished his education at the free-school of Dorchester, in Dorsetshire, under Gabriel Reeve, fellow of New College. He was admitted of Magdalen Hall, Oxford, in 1636, and in the next year was candidate for a scholarship at Wadham college, probably as a founder’s kinsman, but was unsuccessful. In 1641, being then B. A. he retired to London, and during the rebellion joined the disaffected party. At the close of the war he returned to the university, and took his master’s degree in 1648; in which year, by the favour of Dr. Edward Reynolds, dean of Christ Church, one of the visitors of the university appointed by parliament, he became a student of that house, and distinguished himself as a tutor. He was created B. D. Feb. 16, 1649, by dispensation of the delegates, who had before decreed, that, having been “expelled the university with great injury, he should be restored with all academical honour imaginable.” He then became a frequent preacher at the university; but, for preaching at St. Mary’s against the oath of the Independents called the engagement, as he himself informed Anthony Wood, he was expelled from his studentship.

About this time he became lecturer of Newington-green, and in 1651, vicar of St. Lawrence’s, Reading, where he was considered as an eminent preacher. In 1653 he married Mrs. Anne Thackham. In July 1659 he was chosen by the corporation of Northampton, the patrons, vicar of All Saints; and, in 1665, he took the degree of D. D. and was appointed chaplain to his majesty. In 1670 he removed to London, became minister of Bridewell chapel, and rector of St. Mary Aldermanbury but finding his health impaired by the air of London, he accepted, in 1677, the rectory of Old Swinford, near Sturbridge, in Worcestershire, on the presentation of Thomas Foley, of Kidderminster. Here he died April 7, 1699, and was buried in the church near his (we presume second) wife, Martha Stampe, who died in 1684. He was accounted an able scholar, an elegant Latin poet, and a preacher of great eminence.

, was a Scottish historian, whose time and place of birth are uncertain. It is most generally agreed that he was a priest in the church of Fordun in 1377, because he dedicated his history of Scotland to cardinal Wardlaw, who at that time was bishop of Glasgow. The time of his death is equally obscure, but may with probability be conjectured to have been soon after he finished his “Scoti-chronicon.” In this history there are some traditions that seem not sufficiently authenticated, and many legendary tales, too gross for belief, yet some curious and valuable particulars are also contained in it; among which may be reckoned the oration of a highland bard, delivered at the coronation of Alexander III. in 1249, a piece peculiar in its kind. Every convent in Scotland, and some in England, transcribed copies of this history; and two editions of it have been printed; one by Hearne at Oxford, 1722, in 5 vols. 8vo; the other by Mr. Goodall at Edinburgh, in a single volume, folio. ms copies are to be found in great plenty in the Bodleian library, in the British Museum, and at Edinburgh.

, 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.

When Dodsley formed the design of that useful book “The Preceptor, 11 Mr. Fordyce wa one of the ingenious men of whose assistance he availed himself, and who wrote the ninth division of the work, on moral philosophy, which attracted so much attention, that a separate publication was soon called for, and appeared in 1754 under the title of” The Elements of Moral Philosophy, 17 and has gone through various editions. It is undoubtedly one of the best compendiums of ethics that had then appeared, being both elegant and entertaining, as well as instructive. Previously to this, however, Mr. Fordyce had attracted some notice as an author, though without his name, in “Dialogues concerning Education,” the first volume of which was published in 1745, and the second in 1748. It is a work of very considerable merit, but somewhat tinged with the fopperies of the school of Shaftesbury, although entirely free from its more injurious notions. He Was engaged in other literary designs, and afforded the promise of rising to great eminence in the world, when he was cut off by a premature death. In 1750 he made a tour through France, Italy, and other countries, with a particular view to visit Rome, and was returning home in 1751, when he unhappily lost his life, in the forty-first year of his age, by a storm on the coast of Holland.

Early in 1752 was published, from a finished manuscript of our author, “Theodorus: a Dialogue concerning the art of Preaching,” 12mo, which is a work of considerable utility to young divines, and has been repeatedly printed along with his brother Dr. James Fordyce’s sermon on “The Eloquence of the Pulpit.” Mr. David Fordyce’s last production was left by him in an unfinished state, but not so incomplete as to be unworthy of publication. It was entitled “The Temple of Virtue, a Dream,” and was given to the world in 1757, by his brother James, who added to the descriptive part of the temple twelve characters that had a claim to a place in it, in the drawing of which several living characters were intended, particularly the late earl of Chatham. Mr. Fordyce left several other brothers, of whom the youngest, Alexander, attained an unhappy celebrity by his ruinous speculations as a banker, but James and William deserve some notice on a better account.

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.

, a learned Portuguese ecclesiastic, was born at Lisbon in 1523, and entered among the Dominicans in February 1539. Having acquired a critical knowledge of the Latin, Greek, and Hebrew languages, king John III. sent him to study theology in the university of Paris, where he became distinguished for his proficiency. On his return to Lisbon the king appointed him his preacher, and prince Louis at the same time entrusted to him the education of his son. Of all the divines sent by king Sebastian to the council of Trent in 1561, he held the first place in respect of talents. It is said that one day when he was about to ascend the pulpit, he asked the fathers of the council, who were his auditors, in what language they would wish to hear him preach, such facility he had in all the modern languages. In consideration of his uncommon merit these fathers appointed him a member of that celebrated council of Feb. 26, 1562. He was also appointed secretary to the committee for examining and condemning such publications as they thought unfit to be disseminated, and this office was ever after given to a monk of his order. The fathers of the council afterwards sent him on an important mission to pope Pius IV. who discovering his talents, and knowing his integrity, conferred upon him the place of confessor to his nephew, the cardinal St. Charles Borromeo. At Rome he was also employed to reform the Breviary and the Roman Missal, and to compose the Roman catechism. This detained him at Rome for some time; but having at length returned to Portugal, he was chosen prior of the Dominican convent at Lisbon in 1568. His other offices were those of confessor to king John III. and the princess Mary, daughter of king Emanuel, qualificator of the inquisition, and deputy of the tribunal of conscience, and of the military orders. From the profits of these places he built the convent of St. Paul in the village of Almada, opposite Lisbon, and there he died, Feb. 10, 1581. He published an oration at the council of Trent, and the catechism and breviary mentioned above; but his principal work was a commentary of Isaiah, “Isaiae prophetae vetus et nova ex Hebraico versio, cum commentario, &c.” Venice, 163, fol. This is a very rare edition; but the work was afterwards added to the London edition of the “Critici Sacri,”

, a celebrated astrologer, was born at Quidham, near Wilton, in Wiltshire, Dec. 30, 1552, of a good family, being the grandson of sir Thomas Forman, of Leeds, and great grandson of another sir Thomas Forman. As an introduction to his astrological history, we are told that, at six years old and after, he was much troubled “with strong dreams and visions.” His education at Salisbury was of a very humble kind, his master being only able to teach him English, and something of the accidence. From him he was sent to the free school at Salisbury, where he continued two years. His next preceptor was one Minterne, a prebendary of the cathedral, of whom we are only informed that he used to carry his wood from place to place in winter to warm himself, and made Simon do the same, “so gaining heat without fire.” In 1563 Ford’s father died, a very unfortunate event, for his mother not caring for him, made him keep sheep, and plow, and pick up sticks. At the age of fourteen, however, he became apprentice to a dealer in grocery and drugs at Salisbury, and acquired some knowlege of the latter, which he endeavoured to improve by books, but his master would not let him read. Yet such was his avidity to learn, that his master having a young boarder in the house who wept to school at Salisbury, Ford learned of him what he had been taught in school, although that was. but little. ~At length, in consequence of a quarrel with his master’s wife, he obtained leave to quit his service, and went again to school for about eight weeks, applying very diligently to his books until his “illnatured and clownish mother” refused to maintain him. At length, when in his eighteenth year, he became schoolmaster at the priory of St. Giles’s, and by teaching thirty boys for half a year, scraped together forty shillings. With this, accompanied by an old schoolfellow, he travelled on foot to Oxford, and became a poor scholar of Magdalen college, being partly maintained by a bachelor of arts; but this person employed him in so many menial employments during his college frolics, that he left the university after two years’ residence.

, an eminent protestant divine, born 1495, at Augsburg, was among the friends of Reuchelinus, Melanchton, and Luther, and taught Hebrew with reputation at Wittemberg, where he died December 8, 1556, leaving an excellent “Hebrew Dictionary,” Basil, 1564, fol. He must be, however, distinguished from another John Forster, a German divine, who died 1613, author of “De Interpretatione Scripturarum,” Wittemberg, 1608, 4to and “Commentaries on Exodus, Isaiah, and Jeremiah,” 3 vols. 4to and from Valentine Forster, who published a “History of the Law,” in Latin, with the “Lives of the most eminent Lawyers,” to 1580, the time in which he wrote.

, 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.”

, son of the preceding, was born at Dantzic in 1754, and accompanied his father to England when he was about twelve years of age. At Warrington, where he studied for some time, he acquired a perfect use of the English tongue; and possessing a retentive memory and fertile imagination, he distinguished himself by his various literary and scientific attainments. We have already mentioned that he accompanied his father in the circumnavigation of the globe; and on leaving England, after their return, he wished to settle at Paris. After a temporary residence in that city, he removed, in 1779, to Cassel, and undertook the office of professor of natural history in the university of that place. But soon after, the senate of Poland having offered him a chair in the university of Wilna, Forster accepted of the invitation. But, although this office was very lucrative, he accepted of the propositions of Catherine II. empress of Russia, who, jealous of every species of glory, wished to signalize her reign, by procuring to the Russian nation the honour of undertaking, after the example of England and France, a new voyage of discovery round the world. Unfortunately for the progress of knowledge, the war with the Ottoman Porte occasioned the miscarriage of this useful project, but Forster could not long remain in obscurity. The different publications, with which he occasionally enriched natural history and literature, increased his reputation. The elector of Mentz accordingly appointed him president of the university of the same name; and he was discharging the functions of his new office when the French troops took possession of the capital. This philosophical traveller, who had studied society under all the various aspects arising from different degrees of civilization who had viewed man simple and happy at Otaheite an eater of human flesh in New Zealand corrupted by commerce in England; depraved in France by luxury and atheism; in Brabant by superstition, and in Poland by anarchy: beheld with wild enthusiasm the dawnings of the French revolution, and was the first to promulgate republicanism in Germany.

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

She was frank enough, however, says our author, to acknowledge the errors of her imagination; and from this expression, and his calling her Forster’s wife, we are led to suppose that she was actually married to him. But their union, of whatever kind, was of short duration. Though the lady is said to have been passionately attached to celebrated names, the name of George Forster was not sufficient to satisfy her. He soon ceased, we are informed, to please her; she therefore transferred her affections to another; and, as was very natural for a woman who was indignant at the name of duty, she proved false to her husband’s bed. Forster, however, pretended to be such a friend to the modern rights of men and women, that he defended the character of his Theresa against crowds who condemned her conduct. Nay, we are told, that he considered himself and every other husband who ceases to please, as the “adulterer of nature.” He therefore laboured strenuously to obtain a divorce, to enable Theresa Hayne to espouse the man whom she preferred to himself. Strange, however, to tell, the prejudices even 'of this cosmopolite were too strong for his principles. While he was endeavouring to procure the divorce, he made preparations at the same time, by the study of the Oriental languages, to undertake a journey to Thibet and Indostan, in order to remove from that part of the world, in which both his heart and his person had experienced so severe a shock. But the chagrin occasioned by his iniffortunea, joined to a scorbutic affection, to which he had been long subject, and which he had contracted at sea during the voyage of circumnavigation, abridged his life, and prevented him from realizing this double project. He died at Paris, at the age of thirty -nine, on the 15th of February, 1792.

This is a strange tale; but we trust it will not prove useless. The latter part of it, at least, shows, that when men divest themselves of the principles of religion, they soon degenerate from the dignity of philosophers to the level of mere sensualists; and that the woman who can, in defiance of decorum and honour, transfer her affections and her person from man to man, ranks no higher in the scale of being than a female brute of more than common sagacity. It shows, likewise, that the contempt of our modern sages for those partial attachments, which unite individuals in one family, is a mere pretence that the dictates of nature will be heard and the laws of nature’s God obeyed. George Forster, though he was such a zealous advocate for liberty and equality as to vindicate the adultery of his wife, yet felt so sensibly the wound which her infidelity inflicted on his honour, that he could not survive it, but perished, in consequence, in the flower of his age.

His first preferment in the church was the small rectory of Hethe in Oxfordshire, which was given him July 6, 1749, by the lord chancellor Hardwicke, on the recommendation of one of his earliest friends, Dr. Seeker, bishop of Oxford, and afterwards archbishop of Canterbury. By him he was also introduced to the notice of Dr. Butler, then bishop of Bristol, to whom, in 1750, he became domestic chaplain, when that prelate was translated to the see of Durham. In this situation he continued till the death of his new patron, which took place before he had &n opportunity of conferring upon Dr, Forster any mark of Ins affection and esteem. The bishop, however, who died in his arms at Bath, bequeathed him a legacy of 200l. and appointed him executor of his will. He now returned to college, determining to obliterate the remembrance of his disappointments by a renewed application to his studies. But he was very soon called forth again, and appointed, in July 1752, one of the chaplains to Dr. Herring, archbishop of Canterbury. In Feb. 1754 he was promoted by the lord chancellor Hardwicke to the prebendal stall in the church of Bristol; and in the autumn of the same year the archbishop gave him the valuable vicarage of Rochdale, in Lancashire. He was admitted fellow of the royal society in May 1765. In May 1756 he was sworn one of the chaplains to his late majesty, George II. and through the interest of lord Roystou, was appointed by sir Thomas Clarke to succeed Dr. Terrick, in the summer of 1757, as preacher at the Rolls chapel. In August 1757, he married Susan, relict of John Balls, esq. of the city of Norwich, a lady of great merit, and possessed of a considerable fortune. Upon his marriage he hired a house in Craig’s court, Westminster, where, after a short illness, he died on Oct. 20, foJlowing, in the forty-first year of his age, leaving no issue. His widow afterwards married Philip Bedingfield, esq. of Ditchingham, in Norfolk. His body was interred in St. Martin’s church, Westminster, and a monument was erected to his memory by his widow, in the cathedral church of Bristol, with an elegant Latin inscription, written by his friend Dr. Hayter, then bishop of Norwich.

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 Austrian lawyer, was born in 1598. He published a political work at the age of nineteen, entitled “Hypomnemata politica,” and spoke a congratulatory harangue at Padua in the name of the German youth, in the presence of John Cornaro, who was just elected doge of Venice, with which the latter was so much pleased, that he honoured Forstner with the order of St. Mark. Forstner went afterwards into France, and returned to Germany, where, having been some time counsellor to the count de Hohenloe, and his envoy at Vienna, he became vice-chancellor, then chancellor of Montbeliard. He was afterwards employed in the negociations for the peace of Munster, and discovered so much prudence, and such great abilities, that the count de Traumandorf, the emperor’s plenipotentiary, procured him the rank of aulic counsellor. He died October 28, 1667, and left, besides his “Hypomnemata politica,” 1623, 8vo, “De principatu Tiberii, Notæ politicæ ad Taciturn,” a collection of his Letters on the Peace of Munster; “Omissorum Liber;” “Epistola apologetica ad amicum, contra secreti Temeratores, et Epistola de moderno Imperii statu;” and two historical letters, in tom. XIV. of Schelhorn’s Amœnitates Litterariæ.

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.

, a learned Italian prelate and poet, was born in 1674, obtained the highest rank of episcopacy under pope Clement XI, and flattered himself that Clement XII. a friend of poetry and poets, would advance him to the dignity of cardinal. This pope continally giving him reason to hope, as constantly found excuses for disappointing him; at length one instance more of this duplicity, added to so many that had passed, completely extinguished the expectations of Fortiguerra, and this mortification so deeply affected him, that it proved fatal. When he was on his death-bed, Clement sent to him, endeavouring to comfort him once more, and revive his hopes, but the sick man turning himself about, and raising the clothes, only uttered such an explosion, as once surprised and entertained the British house of commons, and said, “that is my answer; a good journey to us both” <c Eccovi la riposta bon viaggio e per lei, e per me.“He died soon after this, which happened in 1735, being then sixty-one. His house was the general resort of wit and literature in Rome, and he wrote his ”Ricciardetto,“a burlesque poem in thirty cantos, in a very short time, to prove to a party of this kind, how easy it is for a man of imagination to write in the style of Ariosto, whom some of them had preferred to Tasso. In this poem he gave abundant liberty to his imagination, and its extravagance would be fatiguing beyond measure, were it not supported by the utmost ease of versification, and perpetual sallies of pleasantry and genius. It has been ably translated into French by a M. du Mourner, chev. of St. Louis, who died in 1768. There is also a translation of” Terence" by Fortiguerra, with the Latin text, printed at Urbino in 1736, and adorned with cuts, a very splendid book.

, a French painter, the pupil of Le Brun, who suffered him to paint for him occasionally in some of his most capital works, was the son of a goldsmith, and born at Paris in 1640. He perfected his talents in Italy, and on his return was employed to paint the dome of the hotel of invalids. Louis XIV. settled upon him a pension of 1000 crowns, and he was received into the academy of painting, where he became rector and professor. His fame extended even to England, whither he was invited by the earl of Montagu, and employed by liini in decorating his magnificent house, now the British Museum, where his paintings at that time attracted universal admiration. William III. on seeing them, offered him a handsome establishment in this country; but, at the same time, the celebrated architect Mansard, wrote to him from France, that he was wanted there to co-operate with him in finishing some public buildings, and he returned to his native country, where he died in 1716. He was reckoned inimitable in his time as a colourist, and excellent both in landscape and historical painting.

, 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.

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.

, an eminent lawyer, was born at Marlborough in Wiltshire, Dec. 16, 1689. His father Michael, and his grandfather John, were attornies in that place. After attending the free-school there, Mr. Foster was matriculated at Oxford May 7, 1705, and studied about two years at Exeter college, but like many eminent men in the profession of the law, left it without taking a degree. On May 23, 1707, he was admitted into the society of the Middle Temple, and in due time was called to the bar, but not having much success as an advocate, he retired into the country, and settled in his native town. Here he contracted an intimacy with Algernon, earl of Hertford, afterwards duke of Somerset, which continued many years, and until the death of the noble duke, who by his will appointed his friend executor in trust with his son-in-law Hugh, earl (afterwards duke) of Northumberland. In 1725 he married Martha, the eldest daughter of James Lyde, esq. of Stantonwick in Somersetshire; and in a few years afterwards he removed to Bristol, where he exercised his profession with great reputation and considerable success; and in August 1735 he was chosen rer corder of the city, which office he retained many years. Soon after accepting this office in Easter term, 1736, he took on him the degree of serjeant at law. In 1720 he had published “A Letter of Advice to protestant Dissenters,” in which he is said to discover the most liberal and enlarged views; and in 1735 he published a pamphlet which engaged the public attention very much, entitled “An Examination of the scheme of Church power laid down in the Codex juris ecclesiastici Anglicani, &c.” In this he controverted the system of church power vested in the clergy, and which forms the ground-work of bishop Gibson’s “Codex.” Several answers, however, were published to Mr. Foster’s pamphlet, the principal one by Dr. Andrews, a civilian. Mr. Foster seems to have promised a continuation, in reply to him and others, but did not pursue the subject. In the postscript, however, to the third edition of his pamphlet, he adverts to “the personal severity,” with which Dr. Andrews had treated him; and adds, “It is not in my nature to make any return of that kind. I forgive him with all my heart. If, upon poor reflection, he can forgive himself, I pity him.”

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.

There have been two other persons of this name, who have published mathematical pieces. The first was William Foster, who was a disciple of Mr. Oughtred, and afterwards a teacher of mathematics in London. He distinguished himself by a book, which he dedicated to sir Kenelm Digby, with this title, “The Circles of Proportion, and the Horizontal Instrument, &c.” 1633, 4to, The other was Mark Foster, who published “A Treatise of Trigonometry,” but lived later in point of time than either of the other two.

, 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.

Marechal Bellisle was a great character, equally formed for war and politics. He joined the politeness of a courtier to the frankness of a soldier, and persuaded without being eloquent, because he always seemed convinced of what he urged. He was haughty with the great, but affable to his inferiors; and protected merit, not through vanity, but real esteem. He had no vice, except too much inclination for women. He was twice married, but had only one son, by his second wife, who fell in battle in 1758.

, a learned Frenchman, and member of the academy of sciences, was born at Paris Oct. 10, 1732. He was the nephew of the celebrated Duhamel, and acquired a similar taste for those studies that end in objects of real utility. He travelled over Anjou and Brittany to investigate the nature of the slate-quarries, and then went to Naples to make observations on the alum mines and other natural productions. On his return he had the misfortune to lose his tutor and uncle Duhamel, to whose estate he succeeded, and on which he carried on very extensive agricultural improvements and experiments, and acquired by his amiable private character the esteem of every one who knew him. He died Dec. 28, 1789, leaving the following valuable publications: 1. “Memoires sur la formation de$ Os,” 1760, 8vo, in which, with some discoveries of his own, he ably defends his uncle’s theory on that part of physiology. 2. “L‘art de l’Ardoisier,” 1762. 2. “L'art de travailler les cuirs dorés.” 4. “L'art de Tonnelier,” 1752. 5. “L'art de Coutelier.” All these form part of the Memoirs of the Academy of Sciences. 6. “Recherches sur les ruines d'Herculaneum, et sur les lumieres qui peuvent en resulter; avec un traite” sur la fabrication des mosaiques,“1769, 8vo. 7.” Observations faites sur les cotes de Normaudie," 1773, 4to. He was the author also of a great number of miscellaneous papers in the Memoirs of the Academy.

, 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.

It is a melancholy reflection that the taste of these worthy men for the fine arts at last brought about their ruin; for having engaged in the establishment of an academy for the instruction of youth in painting and sculpture in Scotland, the enormous expence of sending pupiLs to Italy, to study and copy the ancients, gradually brought on their decline in the printing business; and they found the city of Glasgow no fit soil to transplant the imitative arts into, although the literary genius of Greece and Rome had already produced them ample fortunes. Unsuccessful as they were, however, in this project, it ought not to be forgot that Robert Foulis, with whom it originated, was the first who endeavoured to establish a school of the liberal arts in Great Britain. Andrew Foulis died in 1774 and Robert in 1776 exhibited andsold at Christie’s in. Pall Mall, the remainder of his paintings. The catalogue forms 3 vols.; and the result of the sale was, that after all the concomitant cxpences were defrayed, the balance in his favour amounted only to the sum of fifteen shillings, He died the same year, on his return to Scotland.

, knt. whose ancestors were seated at Narford, in Norfolk, so early as the reign of Henry III. was educated as a commoner of Christchurch, Oxford, under the care of that eminent encourager of literature, Dr. Aldrich. He at the same time studied under Dr. Hickes the Anglo-Saxon language, and its antiquities; of which he published a specimen in Hickes’s “Thesaurus,” under the title of “Numismata Anglo-Saxonica et Anglo-Danica, hreviter illustrataab Andrea Fountaine, eq. aur. & aedis Christi Oxon. alumno. Oxon. 1705,” in which year Mr. Hearne dedicated to him his edition of Justin the historian. He received the honour of knighthood from king William; and travelled over most parts of Europe, where he made a large and valuable collection of pictures, ancient statues, medals, and inscriptions; and, while in Italy, acquired such a knowledge of virtu, that the dealers in antiquities were not able to impose on him. In 1709 his judgment and fancy were exerted in embellishing the “Tale of a Tub” with designs almost equal to the excellent satire they illustrate. At this period he enjoyed the friendship of the most distinguished wits, and of Swift in particular, who repeatedly mentions him in the Journal to Stella in terms of high regard. In December, 1710, when sir Andrew was given, over by his physicians, Swift visited him, foretold his recovery, and rejoiced at it though he humourously says, “I have lost a legacy by his living for he told me he had left me a picture and some books,” &c. Sir Andrew was vice-chamberlain to queen Caroline while princess of Wales, and after she was queen. He was also tutor to prince William, for whom he was installed (as proxy) knight of the Bath, and had on that occasion a patent granted him, dated Jan. 14, 1725, for adding supporters to his arms. Elizabeth his sister, married colone.1 Clent of Knightwick, in Worcestershire. Of his skill and judgment in medals ancient and modern, he made no trifling profit, by furnishing the most considerable cabinets of this kingdom; but if, as Dr. Warton tells us, Annius in the “Dunciad” was meant for him, his traffic was not always of the most honourable kind. In 1727 he was appointed warden of the mint, an office which he held till his death, which happened Sept. 4, 1753. He was buried at Narford, in Norfolk, where he had erected an elegant seat, and formed a fine collection of old china ware, a valuable library, an excellent collection of pictures, coins, and many curious pieces of antiquity. Sir Andrew lost many miniatures by a fire at White’s original chocolate-house, in St. James’s-street, where he had hired two rooms for his collections. A portrait of him, by Mr. Hoare of Bath, is in the collection at Wilton house; and two medals of him are engraved in Snelling’s “English Medals,” 1776. Montfaucon, in the preface to “L'Antiquit6 Explique,” calls sir Andrew Fountaine an able antiquary, and says that, during his stay at Paris, that gentleman furnished him with every piece of antiquity that he had collected, which could be of use to his work; several were accordingly engraved and described, as appears by sir Andrew’s name on the plates.

, a Flemish painter of the 17th century, born at Antwerp in 1580, was one of the most learned and celebrated of landscape painters. Some have placed him so near Titian, as to make the difference of their pictures consist, rather in the countries represented, that) in the goodness of the pieces. The principles they went upon are the same, and their colouring alike good and regular. He painted for Rubens, of whom he learned the essentials of his art The elector palatine employed him at Heidelberg, and from thence he went to Paris, where, though he worked a long time, and was well paid, yet he grew poor for want of conduct, and died 1659, in the house of an ordinary painter called Silvain, who lived in the suburbs of St. Jaques.

, an eminent French chemist, was born at Paris June 15, 1755, where his father was an apothecary, of the same family with the subject of the succeeding article. In his ninth year he was sent to the college of Harcourt, and at fourteen he completed the studies which were at that time thought necessary. Having an early attachment to music and lively poetry, he attempted to write for the theatre, and had no higher ambition than to become a player, but the bad success of one of his friends who had encouraged this taste, cured him of it, and for two years he directed his attention to commerce. At the end of this time an intimate friend of his father persuaded him to study medicine, and accordingly he devoted his talents to anatomy, botany, chemistry, and natural history. About two years after, in. 1776, he published a translation of Ramazzini, “on the diseases of artisans,” which he enriched with notes and illustrations derived from chemical theories which were then quite new. In 1780, he received the degree of M. D. and regent of that faculty, in spite of a very considerable opposition from his brethren, and from this time his chemical opinions and discoveries rendered him universally known and respected. The fertility of his imagination, joined to a style equally easy and elegant, with great precision, attracted the attention of a numerous school. In 1784, on the death of Macquer, he obtained the professorship of chemistry in the Royal Gardens, and the year following he was admitted into the academy of sciences, of the section of anatomy, but was afterwards admitted to that of chemistry, for which he was more eminently qualified. In 1787, he in conjunction with his countrymen De Morveau, Lavoisier, and Berthollet, proposed the new chemical nomenclature, which after some opposition, effected a revolution in chemical studies. (See Lavoisier.) Although constantly occupied in scientific experiments, and in publishing various works on subjects of medicine, chemistry, and natural history, he fell into the popular delusion about the time of the revolution, and in 1792 was appointed elector of the city of Paris, and afterwards provisional deputy to the national convention, which, however, he did not enter until after the death of the king.

In Sept 1793, he obtained the adoption of a project for the regulation of weights and measures, was chosen secretary in October, and in December following president of the Jacobins, who denounced him for his silence in the convention. This he answered by pleading his avocations and chemical labours, by which, he who had been born without any fortune, had been able to maintain his father and sisters. In Sept. 1794, he became a member of the committee of public safety, and was again elected to it in Feb. 1795. Besides proposing some improvements in the equipment of the armies, which were then contending with all the powers of Europe, he was particularly engaged in schools and establishments for education, to which new names, as polytechnic, normal, &c. were given, that they might consign to oblivion as much as possible the ancient instituti&ns of France. The re-election of two thirds of the convention removed him to the council of elders, on$. of the fantastical modes of government established in I?y5, where, in November, he had to refute several charges levelled against him respecting the murder of Lavoisier. He was afterwards nominated professor of chemistry, and a member ofthe institute; and in May 1797, Jeft the council. Dyring the time he could spare from his public employments, he continued to cultivate his more honourable studies, and had attained the highest rank among the men of science whom the revolutionary tribunals had spared, when he died Dec. 16, 1809. At this period he was a counsellor of state for life, a count of the empire, a commander of the legion of honour, directorgeneral of public instruction, a member of the national institute, professor of chemistry in the medical and polytechnic schools, and in the museum of natural history, and a member of most of the learned societies of Europe.

Engaged in every campaign of the war of 1740, he was charged, though young, with some important commissions and his application during the peace procured him employment in the succeeding war. He made three campaigns in Germany, and in 1761 was commander of the engineers on the coast of Brittany, when the English took BelJcisle. In 1762 be made a campaign in Portugal, where he was present at the siege of Almeyda. Every day M. de Fourcroy worked fourteen hours in his closet, when the duties of the service did not compel him to quit it. An irresistible propensity to the study of natural philosophy would have led him far, had he not been incessantly called from it to the duties of his station. From these he sometimes stole time for making observations; hut, guarding against the illusions of self-love, he communicated most of his researches to men of learning, who have inserted them in their works. The microscopical observations in the “Treatise on the Heart,” which does so much honour to Mr. Senac, are almost all by M. de Fourcroy. Many of his remarks and observations make a part of M. Duhamel’s “Treatise on Fishing,” in which we find the first traces of Spallanzani’s experiments on hybridous fish. IM. de Fourcroy had seen these experiments in a fish-pond in Germany, and gave an account of them to Mr. Duhamel. To him M. Duhamel was indebted also for some experiments with which he has enriched his “Treatise on Forests.” M. de la Lande, too, has acknowledged that he owes him many facts and reflections, of which he has availed himself in his work on Tides. Amongst the essays that M. de Fourcroy published separately, is one in which he examines how we may judge of the height to which certain birds of passage raise themselves, by knowing that of the point at which they cease to be visible. He published the “Art of Brick-making,” which forms a part of the collection of the academy, to which he also sent several essays that were approved and inserted in their works. The margin of his Collection of the Academy relative to the Arts he has filled with notes, as it was his practice when he read it to examine the calculations, and correct them if they were not accurate.

M. de Fourcroy was employed successively in various parts of the kingdom; principally, indeed, at Calais, at Rousillon, and in Corsica. Everywhere he served with diligence, and everywhere he acquired esteem and veneration. Of this conduct he received the reward in the most flattering manner. M. de St. Germain being appointed minister at war, wished to avail himself in his office of the abilities of some superior officer in the corps of engineers. On this he consulted the directors of that corps, then assembled at Versailles. All with an unanimous voice pointed out M. de Fourcroy, as the most capable of fulfilling the intentions of the minister. M. de St. Germain, who was scarcely acquainted with M. de Fourcroy, wrote to him to come to Perpignan, where he resided. When the minister told this gentleman that he had sent for him without knowing him, to fill a post near himself, and that he was recommended by the officers of his corps, his astonishment may easily be conceived. Of the opinion given of him he shewed himself worthy; and his conduct both public and private, made him honoured and respected.

, professor of the Arabic and Chinese languages at Paris, was the son of a surgeon, and born at Herbelai, near Paris, in 1683. He learned the elements of Latin from the curate of the place; but losing his father when very young, he came under the care of an uncle, who removed him to his house at Paris, and superintended his studies. He went through the courses of logic, rhetoric, and philosophy, in different colleges; and happening to meet with the abbé Sevin, who loved study as well as himself, they formed a scheme of reading all the Greek and Latin poets together. But as the exercises of the society employed most of their hours by day, they found means to continue this task secretly by night; and this being considered as a breach of discipline, the superior thought tit to exclude them from the community. Fourmont retired to the college of Montaigu, and had the very chambers which formerly belonged to Erasmus; and here the abbé Sevin continued to visit him, when they went on with their work without interruption. Fourmont joined to this pursuit the study of the oriental languages, in which he made a very uncommon progress.

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.

His most considerable works are, 1. “The Roots of the Latin tongue in metre.” 2. “Critical Reflections upon Ancient History, to the time of Cyrus,” 2 vois. 4to. 3. “Meditationes Sinicae,” fol. 4. “A Chinese Grammar, in Latin,” fol. 5. “Several Dissertations, printed in the Memoirs of the Academy of Inscriptions,” &c. He left several works in manuscript. In 1731 he published in 12mo, a catalogue of all his works, printed and manuscript, with notes, some particulars of his life, and some letters pretended to be addressed to him requesting him to publish such a work, and others which were so in reality. Fouriront appears to have been a scholar of vast industry and merit, but perfectly conscious of the rank he held. He had a younger brother, Michael Fourmont, who was an ecclesiastic, a professor of the Syriac tongue in the royal college, and a member also of the academy of inscriptions, who died in 1746.

, 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.

, a learned English prelate, was born in 1632, at Westerleigh, in Gloucestershire; of which place his father was minister, but ejected for noncon formitjr after the restoration. He was sent to the College-school in Gloucester, where he was educated under William Russel, who had married his sister. In the beginning of 1650 he became clerk of Corpus Christi college, Oxford, and being looked upon, says Wood, “as a young man well endowed with the spirit, and gifted with extemporary prayer, he was admitted one of the chaplains thereof in 1653, and the same year took a bachelor of arts degree.” Afterwards removing to Cambridge, he took his master’s degree as a member of Trinity college, and returning to Oxford, was incorporated in the same degree July 5, 1656., About the same time he became chaplain to Arabella, countess dowager of Kent, who presented him to the rectory of Northill, in Bedfordshire. Having been educated a presbyterian, he scrupled about conformity at the restoration, but conformed afterwards, and became a great ornament to the church. His excellent moral writings renderedhim so considerable, that archbishop Sheldon, in order to introduce him into the metropolis, collated him in August 1673, to the rectory of All-hallows, Breadtreet. In February 1675-6, he was made prebendary of Gloucester; and in March IbSl, vicar of St. Giles’s, Cripplegate, on which he resigned the living of Allhallows. The same year, he accumulated the degrees of bachelor and doctor of divinity. During the struggle between protestantism and popery in this kingdom, he appeared to great advantage in defence of the former; but this rendered him obnoxious to the court, and in all probability tvas the secret cause of a prosecution against him, in 1685, by some uf his parishioners, who alledged that he was guilty of Whiggism, that he admitted to the communion excommunicated persons before they were absolved, &c. We are told this matter was carried so far, that, after a trial at Doctors’-couimons, he was suspended, under the pretence of having acted in several respects contrary to the canons of the church. This affront, however, did not intimidate him from doing what he thought his duty; for he was the second, who in 1688, sighed the resolution of the London clergy, not to read king James’s new declaration for liberty of conscience. He was rewarded for this and other services at the revolution; for in 1691, he was preferred to the see of Gloucester, and continued there till his death, which happened at Chelsea, Aug. 26, 1714, in his eighty-second year. His widow survived him some years, dying April 2, 1732. She was his second wife, the widow of the rev. Dr. Ezekiel Burton, and daughter of Ralph Trevor, of London, merchant. His first wife, by whom he had a large family, was daughter of Arthur Barnardiston, one of the masters in chancery. She died Dec. 19, 1696, and was buried, as well as the bishop, in Hendon church-yard, Middlesex, in the chancel of which church is a monument to his memory.

, an eminent statesman, almoner to Henry VIII. and bishop of Hereford, was born at Dursley, in Gloucestershire; but it is not mentioned in what year. After passing through Eton school he was admitted of King’s college in Cambridge, 1512, where he was elected provost in 1528, and continued in that office till his death. Being recommended to cardinal Wolsey as a man of an acute spirit and political turn, he was taken into his service; and, according to Lloyd, was the person who encouraged the cardinal to aspire to the papacy. In 1528 he was sent ambassador to Rome, jointly with Stephen Gardiner, afterwards bishop of Winchester, in order to obtain bulls from Clement VII. for Henry’s divorce from Catherine of Arragon. He was then almoner to the king; and reputed, as Burnet says, one of the best diviues ia England. He was afterwards employed in embassies both in France and Germany; during which, as he was one day discoursing upon terms of peace, he said, “honourable ones last long, but the dishonourable, no longer than till kings have power to break them the surest?way, therefore, to peace, is a constant prepared ness for war.” Two things, he would say, must support a government, “gold and iron: gold, to reward its friends; and iron, to keep under its enemies.” It was to him that Cranmer owed his first introduction to court, with all its important results.

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.

About 1669 he married Margaret, the widow of judge Fell, at whose house he had been entertained in his progress through Lancashire. The ceremony, on this occasion, was according to that simple form which is practised to this day among the people of his persuasion. He only acquainted their common friends of their intention; and having received their approbation, they took each other in marriage, by mutual public declarations to that intent, at a meeting appointed for the purpose at Bristol. After this Mr. Fox sailed for America, where he spent two years in making proselytes, and in confirming the faith and practice of those who had already joined in his cause. Soon after his return to England he was taken into custody, and thrown into Worcester gaol under the charge of having “held a meeting from all parts of the nation, for terrifying the king’s subjects.” After being acquitted, he went to Holland, and on his return a suit was instituted against him for refusing to pay tithes; his opponents were successful, and he was obliged to submit to the consequences. In 1684 Fox again visited the continent, and upon his return he found his health and spirits too much impaired by incessant fatigues, and almost perpetual persecutions, to contend any more with his enemies: he accordingly lived more retired; and in 1690 he died, in the sixty-seventh year of his age; having, however, performed the duties of a preacher till within a few days of his decease. His writings, exclusive of a few separate pieces, which were not printed a second time, were collected in 3 vols. folio; the first contains his “Journal;” the second a collection of his “Epistles;” the third, his “Doctrinal Pieces.” Fox was a man of good natural talents, and thoroughly conversant in the scriptures. The incessant zeal which he exhibited through life, affords abundant evidence of his piety, sincerity, and purity of intention; and his sufferings bear testimony to his fortitude, patience, and resignation to the Divine will. William Penn, speaking of him, says that “he had an extraordinary gift in opening the scriptures, but that, above all, he excelled in prayer. The reverence and solemnityof his address and behaviour, and the ferventness and fullness of his words, often struck strangers with admiration.” He also mentions, in terms of high commendation, his meekness, humility, and moderation; and he adds, that he was civil beyond all forms of breeding; in his behaviour very temperate, eating little, and sleeping less, though a bulky person.

, 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.

In this family he lived, at Ryegate in Surrey, during the latter part of Henry’s reign, the five years reign of Edward, and part of Mary’s; being at this time protected by the duke of Norfolk, and Wood says he was restored to his fellowship of Magdalen college, under Edward VI. Gardiner, bishop of Winchester, was, however, now determined to have him seized, and laid many snares and stratagems for that purpose. The bishop was very intimate with the duke of Norfolk, often visited him, and frequently desired to see this tutor. The duke evaded the request, one while alleging his absence, another that he was indisposed, still pretending reasons to put him off. At length it happened, that Fox, not knowing the bishop to be within the house, entered the room, where the duke and he were in discourse; and seeing the bishop, with a shew of bashfulness, withdrew himself. The bishop asking who he was, the duke answered, his physician, who was somewhat uncourtly, being newly come from the university. “I like his countenance and aspect very well,” replied the bishop, “and upon occasion will make use of himf.” The duke, perceiving from hence that danger was at hand, thought it time for Fox to retire, and accordingly furnished him with the means to go abroad. He found, before he could put to sea, that Gardiner had issued out a warrant for apprehending him, and was causing the most diligent search to be made for him; nevertheless, he at length escaped, with his wife then big with child; got over to Newport Haven, travelled to Antwerp and Francfort, where he was involved in the troubles excited by Dr. Cox and his party; and the first settlers being driven from that place, he removed from thence to Basil, where numbers of English subjects resorted in those times of persecution. In this city he maintained himself and family, by correcting the press for Oporinus, a celebrated printer; and it was here, that he laid the plan of his famous work, “The History of the Acts and Monuments of the Church.” He had published at Strasburgh, in 1554, in 8vo, “Commentarii Rerum in Ecclesia gestarum, maximarumque per totam Europam persecution um a Wiclavi temporibus ad hanc usque aetatem descriptarum,” in one book: to which he added five more books, all printed together at Basil, 1559, in folio.

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.

In 1564 he sent a Latin panegyric to the queen, upon her indulgence to some divines, who had scruples respecting a strict conformity, and yet were suffered to hold dignities in the church. In July 1575 he wrote a Latin letter to the queen, to dissuade her majesty from putting to death two anabaptists, who bad been condemned to be burnt. Fuller, who transcribed this letter from the original, has published it in his “Church History/' and Collier, who has too frequently joined the popish cry against Fox, yet allows that it is written in a very handsome Christian strain. Ib this letter, Fox declares,” that with regard to those fanatical sects, he does not think they ought to be countenanced in a state, but chastised in a proper manner; but that to punish with flames the bodies of those, who err rather from blindness than obstinacy of will, is cruel, and more suitable to the example of the Romish church, than the mildness of the gospel; and in short such a dreadful custom, as could never have been introduced into the meek and gentle church of Christ, except by the popes, and particularly by Innocent III. who first took that method of restraining heresy. He observes that he does not write thus out of an indulgence to error, but, as he is a man, out of regard to the lives of men, that they may have an opportunity of repenting of their errors. He declares a tenderness for the lives, not only of men, but even of brute animals themselves; and affirms, that he could never pass by a slaughter-house, without the strongest sense of pain and regret. He entreats her majesty, therefore, to spare the lives of these wretches,“&c. But Fuller tells us, that though the queen constantly called Mr. Fox” her Father," yet she gave him a flat denial as to the saving of their lives, unless they recanted their errors, which they refused, and were executed.

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-.

This appears to be the last of his public acts. During the reign of Henry VII. he enjoyed the unlimited favour and confidence of his sovereign, and bore a conspicuous share, not only in the political measures, but even in the court amusements and ceremonies of that reign. Henry likewise appointed him one of his executors, and recommended him strongly to his son and successor. But although he‘ retained his seat in the privy-council, and continued to hold the privy-seal, his influence in the new reign’ gradually abated. Howard, earl of Surrey and lord treasurer, had been his rival in Henry the Seventh’s time, and learned now to accommodate himself to the extravagant passions of his new master, with whom he was for a considerable time a confidential favourite; and the celebrated Wolsey, who had been introduced to the king by Fox, in order to counteract the influence of Surrey, soon became more powerful than either. After remaining some time in office, under many mortifications, our prelate, together with archbishop Warham, retired from court in 1515. Such was the political life of bishop Fox, distinguished by high influence and talent, but embittered at length, by the common intrigues and vicissitudes to which statesmen are subject.

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.

But what conferred an almost immediate superiority of reputation on this society, was the appointment of two lectures for Greek and Latin, which obtained the praise and admiration of Erasmus and the other learned men who urere now endeavouring to introduce a knowledge of the classics as an essential branch of academic study. With this enlightened design, the founder invited to his new college Ludovicus Vives, Nicholas Crucher the mathematician, Clement Edwards and Nicholas Utten, profes-f ors of Greek; Thomas Lupset, Richard Pace, and other men of -established reputation. This, Mr. Warton observes, was a new and noble departure from the narrow plan of academical education. The course of the Latin lecturer was not confined to the college, but open to the students of Oxford in general. He was expressly directed to drive barbarism from the new college, barbarieme nostro alveario pro virili si quando pullulet cxtirpet et ejiciat. The Greek lecturer was ordered to explain the best Greek classics, and those which Fox specified on this occasion, are the purest in the opinion of modern times. But such was the temper of the age, that Fox was obliged to introduce his Greek lectureship, by pleading that the sacred canons had commanded, that a knowledge of the Greet tongue should not be wanting in public seminaries of education. By the sacred canons he meant a decree of the council of Vienne, in Dauphiny, promulgcd so early as 1311, which enjoined that professorships of Greek, Hebrew, and Arabic, should be instituted in the universities of Oxford, Paris, Bononia, Salamanca, and the court of Rome. This, however, was not entirely satisfactory. The prejudices against the Greek were still, so inveterate, that the university was for some time seriously disturbed by the advocates of the school-learning. The persuasion and example of Erasmus, who resided about this time in St. Mary’s college, had a considerable effect in restoring peace, and more attention was gradually bestowed on the learned languages, and this study, so curiously introduced under the sanction of pope Clement’s decree of Vienne, proved at no great distance of time, a powerful instrument in effecting the reformation. Those who would deprive Clement of the liberality of his edict, state his chief motive to have been a superstitious regard for the Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, because the superscription on the cross was written in these languages.

, 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.

, one of the most illustrious statesmen of modern times, the second son of the preceding lord Holland, was born Jan. 13, O. S. 1748. We have already noticed that lord Holland was an indulgent father, and it has been said that his partiality to this son was carried to an unwarrantable length. That his father might have been incited by parental affection, a feeling of which few men can judge but for themselves, by the early discovery he made of his son’s talents, to indulge him in the caprices of youth, is not improbable; but that this indulgence was not excessive, may with equal probability be inferred from the future conduct of Mr. Fox, which retained no traces of the “spoiled child,” and none of the haughty insolence of one to whom inferiors and servants have been ordered to pay obsequious obedience. Nor was his education neglected. At Eton, where he had Dr. Barnard for his master, he distinguished himself by some elegant exercises, which are to be found in the *' Musce Etonenses,“and at Hertford college, Oxford, where he studied under the tutorage of Dr. Newcome, afterwards primate of Ireland, his proficiency in classical and polite literature must have been equal to that of any of his contemporaries. The fund indeed of classical learning which he accumulated both at Eton and Oxford was such as to remain inexhausted during the whole of his busy and eventful political career; and while it proved to the last a source of elegant amusement in his leisure hours, it enabled him to rank with some of the most eminent scholars of his time. This we may affirm on the authority of Dr. Warton, with whom he frequently and keenly contested at the literary club, and on that of a recent publication of his letters to Gilbert Wakefield, with whom he corresponded on subjects of classical taste and criticism. From Oxford, where, as was the custom with young men intended for public life, he did not remain long enough to accumulate degrees, he repaired to the continent. In his travels it is said that he acquired more of the polish of foreign intercourse than those who knew him only in his latter days could have believed, and returned a fashionable young man, noted for a foppish gaiety of dress and manner, from which he soon passed into the opposite extreme. As his father intended him to rise in the political world, he procured him a seat for the borough of Midhurst, in 1768, before he had attained the legal age; a circumstance which, if known, appears to have been then overlooked. Two years afterwards, his father’s interest procured him the office of one of the lords commissioners of the admiralty; but in May 1772, he resigned that situation, and in January 1773, was nominated a commissioner of the treasury. At this time it cannot be denied that his political opinions were in unison with those of his father, who was accounted a tory, and were adverse to the turbulent proceedings of the city of London, which at this time was deluded by the specious pretences to patriotism displayed by the celebrated Wilkes. It was in particular Mr. Fox’s opinion, in allusion to the public meetings held by the supporters of” Wilkes and liberty,“that” the voice of the people was only to be heard in the house of commons." That he held, however, some of the opinions by which his future life was guided, appears from his speech in favour of religious liberty, when sir William Meredith introduced a bill to give relief from subscription to the thirty-nine articles; and perhaps other instances may be found in which his natural ingenuousness of mind, and openness of character, burst through the trammels of party; and although it must be allowed that the cause he now supported was not that which he afterwards espoused, it may be doubted whether he was not even at this time, when a mere subaltern in the ministerial ranks, more unresirained in his sentiments than at some memorable periods of his subsequent life.

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.

At the general election in 1780, Mr. Fox became candidate for the city of Westminster, in which, after a violent contest, he succeeded, though opposed, as we are told, by the formidable interest of the Newcastle family, and by the whole influence of the crown. Being now the representative of a great city, it is added, “he appeared in parliament in a more dignified capacity, and acquired a considerable increase of consequence to his political character. In himself he was still the same: he now necessarily lived and acted in the bosom of his constituents; his easiness of access, his pleasant social spirit, his friendly disposition and conciliating manners, which appeared in, all he said, and the good temper which predominated in all he did, were qualities that rendered him the friend and acquaintance, as well as the representative, of those who sent him into parliament; his superior talents, and their powerful and frequent application to popular purposes, made him best known among political men, and gave him a just claim to the title so long applied to him, of * The man of the people.'” Notwithstanding all this, it might not be difficult to prove that Mr. Fox was upon the whole no great gainer by representing a city in which the arts of popularity, even when most honestly practised, are no security for its continuance; and indeed the time was not far distant when he had to experience the fatal effects of preferring a seat, which the purest virtues only can neither obtain nor preserve, and in contesting which, corruption on one side must be opposed by corruption on the other. The subjects of debate in the new parliament affording the opposition opportunities for the display of their eloquence, they now became formidable by an increase of numbers. Ministers were assailed in the house by arguments which they could neither repel nor contradict, and from without they were overwhelmed by the clamours of that same people to whom the war was at first so acceptable; till at length lord North and his adherents were obliged to resign, and it was thought, as such vengeance had been repeatedly threatened both by Mr. Fox and Mr. Burke, that they would have been made responsible for all the mischiefs and bloodshed that had occurred during their calamitous administration. The Rockingham party, however, who came into power in the spring 1782, and whose resentments the* attainment of that object seems to have sofiened, contented themselves with the defeat of their opponents. Mr. Fox obtained the office of secretary of state for foreign affairs, and the marquis of Rockingham was nominated the first lord of the treasury. Still the expectation of the nation was raised to the highest pitch; with this party, they hoped to see an end to national calamity, and the interests of the country supported and maintained in all quarters of the globe. Much indeed was performed by them considering the shortness of their administration. Though they had succeeded to an empty exchequer, and a general and most calamitous war, yet they resolved to free the people from some of their numerous grievances. Contractors were excluded by act of parliament from the house of commons; custom and excise officers were disqualified from voting at elections; all the proceedings with respect to the Middlesex election were rescinded; while a reform bill abolished a number of useless offices. A more generous policy was adopted in regard to Ireland; a general peace was meditated, and America, which could not be restored, was at least to he conciliated. In the midst of these promising appearances, the marquis of Hockingham, who was the support of the new administration, suddenly died, an event which distracted and divided his party. The council board was instantly torn in pieces by political schisms, originating id a dispute respecting the person who should succeed as 6rsfc lord of the treasury. The candidates were, lord Sbelburne, afterwards marquis of Lansdowne, and the Jgrte duke of Portland; the former, supposed to have the ear of the King, and a majority in the cabinet, was immediately entrusted with the reins of government, and Mr. Fox retired in disgust, declaring that “he had determined never to connive at plans in private, which he could not publicly avow.” What these plans were, we know not, but he now resumed his station in opposition, and joined the very man whose conduct he had for a series of years deprecated as the most destructive to the interests of his coqntry, and most baneful to the happiness of mankind; while his former colleague, the earl of Shelburne, was busied in concluding a peace with France, Spain, Holland, and the United States of America. But as this nobleman, though by no means deficient in political wisdom, had omitted to take those steps which preceding ministers had ever adopted to secure safety, a confederacy was formed against him by the union of the friends of Mr. Fox and lord North, known by the name of “The Coalition,” which proved in the event as impolitic, as it was odious to the great mass of the people. Never indeed in this reign has any measure caused a more general expression of popular disgust; and although it answered the temporary purpose of those who adopted it, by enabling them to supplant their rivals, and to seize upon their places, their success was ephemeral; they had, it is true, a majority in the house of commons, but the people at large were decidedly hostile to an union which appeared to them to be bottomed on ambition only, and destitute of any common public principle. It was asserted, with too much appearance of truth, that they agreed in no one great measure calculated for the benefit of the country, and the nation seemed to unite against them as one man. Their conduct in the cabinet led the sovereign to use a watchful and even jealous eye upon their acts; and the famous India bill proved the rock on /which they finally split, and on account of which they forfeited their place Mr. Fox had now to contend for the government of the empire with William Pitt, a stripling scarcely arrived at the age of manhood, but who nevertheless succeeded to the post of premier, and maintained that situation with a career as brilliant as that of his opponent, for more than twenty years.

The tide of popularity had set in so strongly against Mr. Fox, that at the general election about seventy of his most active friends and partizans lost their seats in the house of commons, and be himself was forced into a long and turbulent contest for the city of Westminster. He had, as we have seen, been originally returned for that place by the voice of the inhabitants, in opposition to the influence of the crown; but his junction with lord North had now lost him the affections of a considerable number of his voters, and although he ultimately succeeded, it was at an expence to his friends which some of them felt for many years afterwards. He lost also, what, we are persuaded, must have affected him more than all, the support of that class without doors of independent men, and able writers on constitutional questions, who had revered him during the American war as the patron of liberty. Still, although in the new parliament which met in 1784, Mr. Pitt had a decided majority, Mr. Fox made his appearance at the head of a very formidable opposition, and questions of general political interest were for some years contested with such a display of brilliant talents, as had never been known in the house of commons.

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.

His astronomical, critical, and philosophical treatises are enlivened with occasional poems. Several of them are composed in the form of conversations: a species of writing sanctioned by some of the finest models of antiquity, and much used in those early periods of the revival of letters. Their titles are borrowed from the names of the speakers, The “De Anima Dialogus” is denominated Fracastorius; the treatise “De Poetica” is entitled Naugerius; and the books “De Intellectione” have the title of Turrius. A young man, in the character of a minstrel, who is supposed to be more especially subject to the authority of Naugerius, sings to his lyre the verses that are occasionally introduced. The pretence is merely relaxation from severer thought; and the poeius are often unconnected with the main subject.

, an eminent political writer, was a native of Rovigno in Italy, and spent several years at Rome, where he was greatly esteemed by Sessa, ambassador of Philip II. king of Spain. He was employed in civil as well as military affairs, and acquitted himself always with great applause; yet he had like to have been ruined, and to have even lost his Hfe, by his enemies. This obliged him to withdraw to Naples; and still having friends to protect his innocence, he proved it at length to the court of Spain, who ordered count de Benevento, viceroy of Naples, to employ him, and Frachetta lived in a very honourable manner at Naples, where a handsome pension was allowed him. He gained great reputation by his political works, the most considerable of which is that entitled “II Seininario de Governi di Stato, et di Guerra.” In this work he has collected, under an hundred and ten chapters, about eight thousand military and state maxims, extracted from the best authors; and has added to each chapter a discourse, which serves as a commentary to it. This work was printed twice, at least, by the author, reprinted at Venice in 1647, and at Genoa in 1648, 4to; and there was added to it, “II Principe,” by the same writer, which was published in 1597. The dedication informs us, that Frachetta was prompted to write this book from a conversation he had with the duke of Sessa; in which the latter observed, among other particulars, that he thought it as important as it was a difficult task, to inform princes truly pf such transactions as happen in their dominions. His other compositions are, “Discorso della Ragione di Stato: Discorso della Ragione di Guerra: Esposizione di tutta l'Opera di Lucrezio.” He died at Naples in the beginning of the seventeenth century, but at what age is unknown.

, 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.

, an historical painter, born at Bologna in 1648, was at first a disciple of G. Battista Galli, and from him entered the school of Carlo Cignani, who soon discovered the talents of his pupil, and not only formed his style, but made him his relation by macrying him to his niece, and he soon became his principal assistant. He was employed in embellishing many churches and convents in his native city, and in other parts of Italy; and particularly at Modena, he painted the grand hall of the duke’s palace so much to the satisfaction of that prince, that he wished to retain him at his court by an offer of a large pension, and such honours as were due to his merit. But Franceschini preferred his freedom and ease to the greatest acquisitions of wealth, and with polite respect refused the offer. At Genoa he painted, in the great council chamber, a design that at once manifested the fertility of his invention, and the grandeur of his ideas; for most of the memorable actions of the republic were there represented with a multitude of figures nobly designed, judiciously grouped and disposed, and correctly drawn. And in the Palazzo Monti at Bologna is a small gallery painted by him, of which the colouring is exceedingly lovely, though the figures appear to want roundness. Franceschini, though of the school of Cignani, is original in the suavity of his colour, and the facility of his execution. He is fresh without being cold, and full without being crowded. As he was a machinist, and in Upper Italy what Cortona was in the Lower, symptoms of the mannerist appear in his works. He had the habit of painting his cartoons in chiaro-scuro, and, by fixing them to the spot where the fresco was to be executed, became a judge of their effect. He preserved the powers 6f his mind and pencil unaltered at a very advanced age; and when he was even seventy-eight years old, he designed and coloured his pictures with all that fire and spirit for which he had been distinguished in his best time. He died in 1729, at the age of eighty-one.

His order soon rose to great splendor, and has done great services to the Roman pontiffs. Some popes, several cardinals, and a great number of prelates, and celebrated authors, have been of it. It is divided into several bodies, some of which are more rigid than others; and all strongly inherit the ancient emulation, which soon broke out between the children of St. Francis and those of St. Dominic. Before the reformation, the Franciscans had in England about eighty convents, besides some nunneries. Those who are desirous to know more of St. Francis and his order, besides our authorities at the bottom of the page, may be referred to his life written by Bonaventure. But perhaps the most ample and circumstantial accounts are given by Luke Wadding, in the first volume of his “Annales Ordinis Minorum,” which contains a complete history of the Franciscan order, confirmed by a great numbep of authentic records. The best edition of this work is that published at Rome in 1731, and following years, in 18 vols. fol. by Joseph Maria Fonseca ab Ebora. It is to the same Wadding that we are indebted fur the “Opuscula S. Francisci,” and the “Bibliotheca ordinis Minorum,” the former of which appeared in 4to, at Antwerp, 1625, and the latter at Rome in 1650. The history of these orders will, it is hoped, be of less consequence hereafter, when a more enlightened state of society has shown their insufficiency in the advancement of real religion, but it can never be uninteresting to know the early rise of those formidable bodies of ecclesiastics which once held the world in awe. The life of St Francis, like that of most of the Romish saints, is rendered incredible and ridiculous by the addition of miracles and prodigies, the fictions of after-times, but could they be separated from what is genuine, he might probably appear an enthusiast, yet sincere in what he believed and practised.

, another Romish saint, who to exceed his predecessor in humility, founded the order of Minims (least), as he had that of Minors (inferiors). He was born in 1416, at Paulo in Calabria. He began his career of mortification by retiring to a cell on a desert part of the coast, where his sanctity soon obtained followers, and they ere long constructed a monastery round his cell. Thus was his order commenced. He formed a rule for it, which was approved by pope Alexander VI. and confirmed by Julius II. His rule was extremely rigorous, enjoining perpetual abstinence from wine, fish, and meat. His disciples were always to go bare-footed, never to sleep upon a bed, and to use many other mortifications. He died in France, to which country be went at the earnest solicitation of Louis XI. who hoped to be cured of a dangerous malady by his presence. This event took place at Plessisdu-Parc, in 1508, when he was at the age of ninety-one. He was canonized in 1519, by Leo X. By the confession of his admirers he was perfectly illiterate.

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.

During the political contests at the beginning of the present reign, he employed his pen in defence of government, and acquired the patronage of lord Holland, who rewarded his services by the rectory of Barrow, in Suffolk, and the chapiujnship of Chelsea hospital. What were his publications on political topics, as they were anonymous, and probably dispersed among the periodical journals, cannot now be ascertained. They drew upon him, however, the wrath of Churchjjl, who in his “Author” has exhibited a portrait of Mr. Francis, probably overcharged by spleen and. envy. Churchill, indeed, was so profuse of his calumny, that he seldom gained credit, and long before he died, his assertions had begun to lose their value. He is said to have intended to write a satirical poem, in which Francis was to make his appearance as the Ordinary of Newgate. The severity of this satire was better under. ­stood at that time, when the ordinaries of Newgate were. held in very little esteem, and some of them were grossly ignorant and dissolute. Mr. Francis died at Bath, March 5, 1773, leaving a son, who in the same year was appointed one of the supreme council of Bengal, and is now sir Philip Francis, K. B.

Of all the classical writers, “Horace” is by general consent allowed to be the most difficult to translate, yet so universal has been the ambition to perform this task, that scarcely an English poet can be named in whose works we do not find some part of Horace. These efforts, however, have not so frequently been directed to give the sense and local meaning of the author, as to transfuse his satire, and adapt it to modern persons and times. But of the few who have exhibited the whole of this interesting poet in an Eirglish dress, Mr. Francis has been supposed to have succeeded best in that which is most difficult, the lyric part, and likewise to have conveyed the spirit and sense of the original in the epistles and satires, with least injury to the genius of the author. In his preface he acknowledges his obligations to Dr. Dunkin, a poet of some celebrity, and an excellent classical scholar.

, a Greek and Latin poet, of much reputation on the continent, was born at Amsterdam, Aug. 19, 1645. He received his early education under Adrian Junius, rector of the school of Amsterdam, who had the happy art of discovering the predominant talents of his scholars, and of directing them to the most adrantageous method of cultivating them. To young Francius he recommended Ovid as a model, and those who have read his works are of opinion that he must have “given his days and nights” to the study of that celebrated poet. From Amsterdam he went to Leyden, where he became a pupil of Gronovius the elder, who soon distinguished him from the rest of his scholars, and treated him as a friend, which mark of esteem was also extended to him by Gronovius the son. After this course of scholastic studies, he set out on his travels, visiting England and France, in which last, at Angers, he took his degree of doctor of civil and canon Jaw. While at Paris he acquired the esteem of many learned men, and when he proceeded afterwards to Italy, improved his acquaintance with the literary men of that country, and wa.s very respectfully received by Cosmo III. grand duke of Tuscany. After his return to Amsterdam, the magistrates, in 1674, elected him professor of rhetoric and history, and in 1686 professor of Greek. In 1692 the directors of the academy of Leyden made him an offer of one of their professorships, but the magistrates of Amsterdam, fearing to lose so great an ornament to their city, increased his salary, that he might be under no temptation on that account to leave them. He accordingly remained here until his death, Aug. 19, 1704, when he was exactly fifty-nine years old. Francius particularly excelled in declamation, in which his first master, Junius, the ablest declaimer of his time, had instructed him, and in which he took some lessons afterwards from a famous tragic actor, Adam Caroli, who, he used to say, was to him what Koscius was to Cicero. His publications consist of, 1. “Poemata,” Amsterdam, 1682, 12mo; ibid. 1697, 8vo. These consist of verses in various measures, which were highly esteemed, although some were of opinion that he succeeded better in the elegies and epigrams, and lighter pieces, than in the heroic attempts. The first of the editions above-mentioned has some translations from the 4< Anthology“omitted in the second, because the author had an intention of giving a complete translation of that celebrated collection, which, however, he never executed. In other respects, the second edition is more ample and correct. 2.” Orationes,“Amst. 1692, 8vo, of which an enlarged edition appeared in 1705, 8vo. His emulation of the style of Cicero is said to be very obvious in these orations. Some of them had been published separately, particularly a piece of humour entitled” Encomium Galli Gallinacei.“3.” Specimen eloquentiac exterioris ad orationem M. T. Ciceronis pro A. Licin. Archia accommoclatnm,“Amst. 1697, 12mo. 4.” Specimen eloquentia exterioris ad orationem Ciceronis pro M. Marcello accommodatum,“ibid. 1699, 12mo. These two last were reprinted in 1700, 8vo, with his” Oratio de ratione declamandi.“5.” Epistola prima ad C. Valerium Accinctum, vero nomine Jacobum Perizonium, professorem Leyden­*em,“&c. Amst. 1696, 4to. This relates to a personal dispute between Francius and Perizonius, of very little consequence to the public, and was answered by Perizonius. 6.” The Homily of S. Gregoire of Nazianzen, on charity to our neighbour,“translated from Greek into German, Axnstt 1700, 8vo. 7.” A discourse on the Jubilee, Jan. 1700,“in German, ibid., 1700, 4to. 8.” Posthums, quibus accedunt illustrium eruditorum ad eutn Epistolse," ibid. 1706, 8vo.

, an eminent German physician, was born at Naumburg, in Upper Saxony, May 3, 1643. His father, although living as a simple peasant, was of a noble family. After going through his school education, George went to Jena at the age of eighteen, and was crowned a poet by count palatine llichter, in consequence of his extraordinary talent for writing verses in the German, Latin, Greek, and Hebrew Jauguages. But he exhibited still greater talents during his course of medical studies, and the canons of Naumburg, who recognized his merits, afforded him liberal means of subsistence while he applied himself to this science. Before he took his doctor’s degree^(in 1666), he was deemed eligible to give lectures in botany, chemistry, and anatomv, and acquired great reputation. In 1672, the elector palatine appointed him to the vacant professorship of medicine at Heidelberg, and a few years afterwards nominated him his own physician. But the troubles occasioned by the war obliged him in 1688, to retire to Francfort on the Main. John George III. elector of Saxony, then received him into his service, and appointed him professor of medicine at Wittemberg; an office which he filled with so much eclat, that the principal professorship, and the title of dean of the faculty at Leipsic, were soon offered to him. This, however, he refused, by the instigation of his friends, who sought to retain him at Wittemberg. The two succeeding electors likewise loaded this physician with so many favours, that it was supposed he could never dream of quitting Heidelberg. Nevertheless, he was induced by the offers of Christian V. king of Denmark, to remove to Copenhagen, where he was received most graciously by the royal family, and was honoured with the title of Aulic counsellor, which was continued to him by Frederick IV. the successor of Christian. Death, however, terminated his brilliant career on the 16th of June, 1704, in the six-" tieth year of his age.

, 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 establishment of this great undertaking fills up many years of professor Francke’s history. The remaining events of his life are but few. He associated with himself John Anastasius Freylinghausen, in his charge as pastor, and had him and other men of character and talents as assistants in his school. The variety of his employments, however, injured his health, although he derived occasional benefit from travelling. One instance of his pious zeal is thus recorded: The duke Maurice, of Saxe-Zeitz, had embraced the Roman catholic religion, and professor Francke, at the request of the duchess, went to his court iti 1718, and in several, conferences so completely satisfied his mind, as to induce him to make a public profession of his return to the Protestant church. Francke’s death was occasioned by profuse sweats, which were checked by degrees, but followed by a retention of urine, and a paralytic attack, which proved fatal June 8, 1727. Amidst much weakness and pain, ie lectured as late as the 15th of May preceding. It would be difficult to name a man more generally regretted. Halle, Elbing, Jena, DeUxPonts, Augsbourgh, Tubingen, even Erfurt, where he was-so shamefully persecuted, Leipsio, Dresden, Wittemberg, &c. all united in expressing their sense of his worth, by culogiums written by the most eminent professors of these schools. By his wife, Anne Magdalene, the daughter of Otho Henry de Worm, a person of distinction, he left Gotthelf Augustus Francke, professor of divinity and pastor of the church of Notre- Dame, and a daughter who was married to M. Freylinghausen. In his learning, talents, eloquence, and piety, all his contemporaries seem agreed. As a public benefactor he has had few equals.

, D. D. chaplain in ordinary to his majesty, born 1721, was the son of Richard Francklin, well known as the printer of an anti-ministerial paper caUed “The Craftsman,” in the conduct of which he received great assistance from lord Bolingbroke, Mr. Pulteney, and other excellent writers, who then opposed sir Robert Waipole’s measures. By the advice of the second of these gentlemen, young Francklin was devoted to the church, with a promise of being provided for by Mr. Pulteney, who afterwards forgot his undertaking. Yet his father had a claim, from his sufferings at least, to all that these patriots could do for him. While engaged in their service, he was prosecuted by the crown several times, and had been confined several years in the King’s-bench prison for a letter written from the Hague, and printed by him at their desire. It is true, indeed, that several noblemen; and gentlemen subscribed a sum of 50l. each to Francklin, as a compensation for his losses, but it is as true that no more than three of them paid their money, of whom Mr. Pulteney was one.

Young Francklin, however, was educated at Westminster school, where he was admitted a scholar in 1735, and whence in 1739 he was elected to Trinity-college, Cambridge, of which he became a fellow. He was afterwards for some time an usher at Westminster-school, and first appeared as an author, in a translation of “Phalaris’s Epistles,” 1749, 8vo, and of “Cicero on the Nature of the Gods.” About the same time he is said to have published “An Inquiry into the. Astronomy and Anatomy of the Ancients,” which was reprinted in 1775, 8vo. In June 1750, he was chosen Greek professor of Cambridge, in opposition of Mr. Barford, of King’s-college, and in the same year became involved in a dispute with the university on the following occasion. On the 17th of November, he with a number of gentlemen educated at Westminster school, having met at a tavern, according to custom, to celebrate queen Elizabeth’s anniversary, they were interrupted by the senior proctor, who came into the company after 11 o'clock at night, and ordered them to depart, it being an irregular hour. For disobeying this order, some of them were reprimanded by the vice-chancellor, and others fined. Francklin, who was one of the party, had his share in the business, and is supposed to have written a pamphlet entitled “An Authentic Narrative of the late extraordinary proceedings at Cambridge, against the Westminster Club,” Loud. 1751, 8vo, denying the charge of irregularity, and laying the blame on the proctor. This dispute engaged the attention of the university for some time, as those who plead for the relaxation of discipline will never be without abettors.

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.

, the celebrated American philosopher, was sprung, as he himself informs us, from a family settled for a long course of years in the village of Ecton, in Northamptonshire, where they had augmented their income, arising from a small patrimony of thirty acres, by adding to it the profits of a blacksmith’s business. His father, Josias, having been converted by some nonconformist ministers, left England for America, in 1682, and settled at Boston, as a soap-boiler and tallow-chandler. At this place, in 1706, Benjamin, the youngest of his sons, was born. It appeared at first to be his destiny to become a tallow-chandler, like his father; but, as he manifested a particular dislike to that occupation, different plans were thought of, which ended in his becoming a printer, in 1718, under one of his brothers, who was settled at Boston, and in 1721 began to print a newspaper. This was a business much more to his taste, and he soon shewed a talent for reading, and occasionally wrote verses which were printed in his brother’s newspaper, although unknown to the latter. He wrote also in the same some prose essays, and had the sagacity to cultivate his style after the model of the Spectator. With his brother he continued as an apprentice, until their frequent disagreements, and the harsh treatment he experienced, induced him to leave Boston privately, and take a conveyance by sea to New York. This happened in 1723. From New York he immediately proceeded, in quet of employment, to Philadelphia, not without some distressing adventures. His own description of his first entrance into that city, where he was afterwards in so high a situation, is too curious, to be omitted.

Notwithstanding this unpromising commencement, Franklin soon met with employment in his business, working under one Keimer, a very indifferent printer, though at that time almost the only one in Philadelphia. In 1724, encouraged by the specious promises of sir William Keith, governor of the province, Franklin sailed for England, with a view of purchasing materials for setting up a press; though his father, to whom he had applied, prudently declined encouraging the plan, on account of his extreme youth, as he was then only eighteen. On his arrival in England, he had the mortification to find that the governor, who had pretended to give him letters of recommendation, and of credit for the sum required for his purchases, had only deceived him; and he was obliged to work at his trade in London for a maintenance. The most exemplary industry, frugality, and temperance, with great quicknets and skill in his business, both as a pressman and as a compositor, made this rather a lucrative situation. He reformed the workmen in the houses where he was employed, which were, first Mr. Palmer’s, and afterward* Mr. Watty’s, in Wild-street, Lincoln’s-inn-fields, by whom he was treated with a kindness which he always remembered. l)rirmis, however, of returning to Philadelphia, he engaged himself as book-keeper to a merchant, at fifty pounds a year; “which,” says he, “was less than I earned as a compositor.” He left England July 23, 1726, and reached Philadelphia early in October. In 1727, Mr. Deuharn the merchant died, and Franklin returned to his occupation as a printer, under Keimer, his first master, with a handsome salary. But it was not long before he set up for himself in the same business, in concert with one Meredith, a young man whose father was opulent, and supplied the money required.

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.

In 1749 he proposed a plan of an academy to be erected in the city of Philadelphia, as a foundation for posterity to erect a seminary of learning, more extensive and suitable to future circumstances; and in the beginning of 1750, three of the schools were opened, namely, the Latin and Greek school, the mathematical, and the Eng. lish schools. This foundation soon after gave rise to another more extensive college, incorporated by charter May 27, 1755, which still subsists, and in a very flourishing condition. In 1752 he was instrumental in the establishment of the Pennsylvania hospital, for the cure and relief of indigent invalids, which has proved of the greatest use to that class of persons. Having conducted himself so well as post-master of Philadelphia, he was in 1753 appointed deputy post-master general for the whole British colonies. The colonies being much exposed to depredations in their frontier by the Indians and the French; at a meeting of commissioners from several of the provinces, Mr. Franklin proposed a plan for the general defence, to establish in the colonies a general government, to be administered by a president-general, appointed by the crown, and by a grand council, consisting of members chosen by the representatives of the different colonies; a plan which was unanimously agreed to by the commissioners present. The plan, however, had a singular fate: it was disapproved of by the ministry of Great Britain, because it gave too much power to the representatives of the people; and it was rejected by every assembly, as giving to the president general, who was to be the representative of the crown, an influence greater than appeared to them proper, in a plan of government intended for freemen. Perhaps this rejection on both sides is the strongest proof that could be adduced of the excellence of it, as suited to the situation of Great Britain and America at that time. It appears to have steered exactly in the middle, between the opposite interests of both. Whether the adoption of this plan would have prevented the separation of America from Great Britain, is a question which might afford much room for speculation.

In 1757 he was sent to England, with a petition to the king and council, against the proprietaries, who refused to bear any share in the public expences and assessments; which he got settled to the satisfaction of the state. After the completion of this business, Franklin remained at the court of Great Britain for some time, as agent for the pn>­vince of Pennsylvania; and also for those of Massachusetts, Maryland, and Georgia. Soon after this, he published his Canada pamphlet, in which he pointed out, in a very forcible manner, the advantages that would result from the conquest of this province from the French. An expedition was accordingly planned, and the command given to general Wolfe; the success of which is well known. He now divided his time indeed between philosophy and politics, rendering many services to both. Whilst here, he invented the elegant musical instrument called the Armonica, formed of glasses played on by the fingers. In the summer of 1762 he returned to America; on the passage to which he observed the singular effect produced by the agitation of a vessel containing oil, floating on water; the upper surface of the oil remained smooth and undisturbed, whilst the water was agitated with the utmost commotion. On his return he received the thanks of the assembly of Pennsylvania; which having annually elected him a member in his absence, he again took his seat in this body, and continued a steady defender of the liberties of the people.

In 1764, by the intrigues of the proprietaries, Franklin lost his seat in the assembly, which he had possessed for fourteen years; but was immediately appointed provincial agent to England, for which country he presently set out. In 1766 he was examined before the parliament, relative to the stamp-act; which was soon after repealed. The same year he made a journey into Holland and Germany; and another into France; being everywhere received with the greatest respect by the literati of all nations. In 1773 he attracted the public attention by a letter on the duel between Mr. Whateley and Mr. Temple, concerning the publication of governor Hutchinson’s letters, declaring that he was the person who had discovered those letters. On the 29th of January next year, he was examined before the privy-council, on a petition he had presented long before as agent for Massachusetts Bay against Mr. Hutchinson: but this petition being disagreeable to ministry, it was precipitately rejected, and Dr. Franklin was soon after removed from his office of postmaster-general for America. Finding now all efforts to restore harmony between Great Britain and her Colonies useless, he returned to America in 1775, just after the commencement of hostilities. Being named orie of the delegates to the Continental congress, he had a principal share in bringing about the revolution and declaration of independency on the part of the Colonies. In 1776 he was deputed by congress to Canada, to negociate with the people of that country, and to persuade them to throw off the British yoke; but the Canadians had been so much disgusted with the hot-headed zeal of the New Englanders, who had burnt some of their chapels, that they refused to listen to the proposals, though enforced by all the arguments Dr. Franklin could make use of. On the arrival of lord Howe in America, in 1776, he entered upon a correspondence with him on the subject of reconciliation. He was afterwards appointed, with two others, to wait upon the English commissioners, and learn the extent of their powers; but as these only went to the granting pardon upon submission, he joined his colleagues in considering them as insufficient. Dr. Franklin was decidedly in favour of a declaration of independence, and was appointed president of the convention assembled for the purpose of establishing a new government for the state of Pennsylvania. When it was determined by congress to open a public negociation with Francej Dr. Franklin was fixed upon to go to that country; and he brought about the treaty of alliance offensive and defensive, which produced an immediate war between England and France. Dr. Franklin was one of the commissioners, who, on ths part of the United States, signed the provisional articles of peace in 1782, and the definitive treaty in the following year. Before he left Europe, he, concluded a treaty with Sweden and Prussia. Having seen the accomplishment of his wishes in the independence of his country, he requested to be recalled, and after repeated solicitations Mr. Jefferson was appointed in his stead. On the arrival of his successor, he repaired to Havre de Grace, and crossing the English channel, landed at Newport, in the Isle of Wight, from whence, after a favourable passage, he arrived safe at Philadelphia in Sept. 1785. Here he was received amidst the acclamations of a vast and almost innumerable multitude, who had flocked from all parts to see him, and who conducted him in triumph to his own house, where in a few days he was visited by the members of congress, and the principal inhabitants of Philadelphia. He was afterwards twice chosen president of the assembly of Philadelphia; but in 1788 the increasing infirmities of his age obliged him to ask and obtain permission to retire and spend the remainder of his lite in tranquillity; and on the37th of April, 1790, he died at the great age of eightyfour years and three months. He left behind him one son, a zealous loyalist, and a daughter married to a merchant in Philadelphia. Dr. Franklin was author of many tracts on electricity, and other branches of natural philosophy, as well as on political and miscellaneous subjects. Many of his papers are inserted in the Philosophical Transactions of London: and his essays have been frequently reprinted in this country as well as in America, and have, in common with his other works, been translated into several modern languages. A complete edition of all these was printed in London in 18Q3, in 3 vols. 8vo, with “Memoirs of his early life, written by himself,” to which the preceding article is in a considerable degree indebted. Some of his political writings are said to be still withheld on political grounds, but it is difficult to suppose that they can now be of much importance,;.s they relate to a contest which no longer agitates the minds of the public.

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.

His “Memoirs of the House of Brandenburg” are distinguished by his correctness in facts, the liveliness of his portraits, the justness of his reflections, and the vigour of his style. The “Frederician Code” displays him in the light of an able legislator, copying the Roman law, but adapting it with skill to the nature and circumstances of his own dominions. In his lighter productions he was an imitator of Voltaire,* whose friendship he long cultivated, and whose irreligious opinions unhappily he too completely imbibed. The activity of his mind was easily discerned in the vivacity of his eyes and countenance: and he was one of those extraordinary men who by an adroit and regular partition of their time, accompanied with strong spirits and perseverance, can pursue a variety of occupations which common mortals must contemplate with astonishment. Had he not been a king, he would in any situation have been a very distinguished man: being a king, he displayed those talents which usually require the retirement of private life for their cultivation, in a degree of excellence which his situation and mode of life rendered not less extraordinary than those qualities which he possessed in the highest perfection.

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.”

, of the ancient family of Fregoso, was the son of Peter Fregoso, who was elected doge of Genoa in 1450, and arrived himself at that honour in Nov. 1473. His arbitrary conduct, however, assisted the ambitious designs of his uncle Paul, archbishop of Genoa, who procured him to be deposed in 1483, and himself to be elected in his stead. Baptist was then banished to Tregui. When he died is not known. He amused himself in his exile by writing various works, among which was a collection of “Memorable Actions and Sayings,” addressed to his son Peter, and containing some particulars of his own life. Vossius has improperly classed him among Latin historians, on account of this work, which was written in Italian, but he had probably seen only Ghilini’s translation, published under the title “Batistte Fulgosi de dictis factisque memorabilibus collectanea a Camillo Ghilino Latina facta, libri novem,” Milan, 1508, fol. and often reprinted at Paris, Basil, Antwerp, &c. in 8vo. The best editions are those of Paris, 1578, and 1585, 8vo, which have additions by Gaillard. Fregoso also wrote “La vita di Martino V.” pope, bnt it tioes not appear whether it was published; and *' De Foeminis quae doctrina excelluerunt,“which appears to have been taken from his” Dicta,“and inserted in a collection respecting learned ladies by Ravisius Textor, Paris, 1521, fol. The only remaining publication of his was a treatise against love, entitled” Anteros." This is one of the earliest printed books, bearing date Milan, 1496, according to Clement, but Niceron says 1469.

, a German, was descended from a learned family, and born at Augsburg, July 26, 1565. He went into France very young, to study the civil law under Cujacius; yet paid so much attention to history and criticism, that he became eminent in both. When he was scarcely three and twenty, he was chosen among the counsellors of Casimir, prince of Palatine, and the year after made professor of law at Heidelberg, where he lived in friendship with Leunclavius, Sylburgius, Opsoprcus, the younger Douza, and other learned men of his time. Some little time after, he resigned his professor’s chair, and was taken into the most important employments by the elector Frederic IV. This prince made him vice-president of his court, and sent him in quality of ambassador to several places. In the midst of these occupations he never intermitted his usual method of studying; and wrote a great many works upon criticism, law, and history, the history of his own country in particular. When we view the catalogue of them given by Melchior Adam, we are ready to imagine that he must have lived a very long life, and hardly have done any thing but write books; yet he died in his forty-ninth year, May 13, 1614. Oouza says that he seems to have been born for the advancement of polite literature: and Thuanus acknowledges that it would be difficult to find his equal in all Germany. Casaubon calls him a man of profound and universal knowledge; and Scioppius says that he joined great acuteness to an incredible depth of learning. Add to this, that he was perfectly skilled in coins, medals, statues, antiques of all sorts, and could paint very well. His moral qualities are described as not inferior to his intellectual; so that Melchior Adam seems justly to have lamented, that a man who deserved so much to be immortal, should have died so soon. His principal works are, 1. “Origines Palatinae,” fol. 2. “De Inquisitionis processu,” 1679, 4to. 3. “De re monetaria veterum Romanorum, &c.” Leyden, 1605, 4to, inserted by Graevius in vol. II. of his Roman Antiquities. 4. “Rerum Bohemicarum scriptores,” Hanau, 1602, fol. 5. “Rerum Germanic-arum scriptores,” fol. S vols. 1600 1611, reprinted in 1717. 6. “Corpus historia Francia,” fol. &c.

, 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.

Being nw well known and distinguished, Freind began to meditate larger works. He observed that Sanctorius, Borelli, and Baglivi, in Italy, and Pitcairne and Keil here at home, had introduced a new and more certain method of investigating medical truths than had been formerly known; and he resolved to apply this way of reasoning, in order to set a certain subject of great importance, of daily use, and general concern, about which the learned have always been divided, in such a light as might put an end to disputes. This he did by publishing, in 1703, “Emmenologia in qua fluxus muliebris menstrui phaenomena, periodi, vitia, cum medendi methodo, ad rationed mechanicas exiguntur,” 8vp. This work, which is founded on the principles of the mechanic sect of physicians, who then flourished under the auspices of Baglivi and others, though at first it met some opposition, and was then and afterwards animadverted upon by several writers, has always been reckoned an excellent performance; and is, as all our author’s writings are, admirable for the beauty of its style, the elegant disposition of its parts, its wonderful succinctness, and at the same time perspicuity, and for the happy concurrence of learning and penetration visibie through the whole.

In 1707 he was created doctor of physic by diploma. Jn 1709 he published his “Praelectiones Chymicae: in quibus omnes fere operationes chymicas ad vera principia et ipsius naturae leges rediguntur; anno 1704, Oxonii, in Musceo Ashmoleano habitce.” These lectures are dedicated to sir Isaac Newton, and are nine in number, besides three tables. They were attacked by the German philosophers, who w^re greatly alarmed at the new principles; and therefore the authors of “Acta Eruditorum,” in 171O, prefixed to their account of them a censure, in which they treated the principles of the Newtonian philosophy as figments, and the method of arguing made use of in thes& lectures as absurd; because, in their opinion, it tended to recall occult qualities in philosophy. To this groundless charge an answer was given by Freind, which was published in Latin, in the “Philosophical Transactions,” and added, by way of appendix, to the second edition of the “Prælectiones Chymicse.” Both the answer and the book have been translated, and printed together in English.

Soon after he obtained his liberty he was made physician to the prince of Wales; and, on that prince’s accession to the throne as George II. became physician to the queen, who honoured him with a share of her confidence and esteem. Very early in 1727-8, bishop Atterbury addressed to Dr. Freind his celebrated “Letter on the Character of Japis,” of whom he justly considered this learned physician to be the modern prototype. But whatever opinion he entertained of his professional abilities, it appears from “Atterbury’s Correspondence” that he had some reason to regret, if not resent, Dr. Freind’s becoming a favourite at court, and as Mr. Morice informs us, “an absolute courtier.” Dr. Freind did not, however, long enjoy this favour, but died of a fever, July 26, 1728, in his fifty-second year. Their majesties expressed the utmost concern at his death, and settled a pension upon his widow, Anne, eldest daughter of Thooias Morice, esq. paymaster of the forces in Portugal. Dr. Freind married this lady in 1709, and by her had an only son, John, who was educated at Westminster school, and became afterwards a student at Christ Church in Oxford. He died in 1752, unmarried. Dr. Freind was buried at Hitcham in Buckinghamshire, near which he had a seat; but there is a monument erected to him in Westminster-abbey, with a suitable inscription. He had himself rendered the like kind office to more than one of his friends, being peculiarly happy in this sort of composition; for the inscription on the monument of Sprat, bishop of Rochester, was from his pen; but that on Philips, which had been ascribed to him, is since ascertained to be by Atterbury. Dr. Wigan published his Latin works together at London, in 1733, in folio, adding to them a translation of his “History of Physic” into the same language, with an excellent historical preface; and to the whole is prefixed an elegant dedication to his royal patroness the late queen, by his brother Dr. Robert Freind. His works were reprinted at Paris in 1735, 4to.

Dr. Freind, in his last will, dated March 12, 1727, directs all his pictures to be sold (except those of his wife, his son, the bishop of Rochester and his son, and his own brother). He gives 100l. a year to his brother William, and lOOOl. to Christ Church, Oxford, to found an anatomical lecture. The greater part of his fortune he bequeathed to his nephew William, son to his brother Robert. His widow died in Sept, 1737. The manor of Hitcham was purchased by the Freinds in 1700, and continued in that family until the death of Robert Freind, e*q. Jan. 26, 1780, soon after which it was purchased by the present lord Grenville, who has a house in that neighbourhood.

, 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.

, a learned classical editor, was born in 1608, in the city of Dim in Swabia, and after studying law in the universities of Marpurg and Giessen, came to Strasburgh, where some poetical attempts in the German language recommended him to Matthias Bernegger, who made him his librarian. With this advantage, he applied to those classical pursuits on which his fame rests. He came afterwards to France, where he was admitted among the king’s interpreters, but did not remain here above three years, returning in 1637 to Strasburgh, where he married the daughter of his patron Bernegger. The university of Upsal making him very liberal offers, he accepted the professorship of eloquence, and filled that office for five years. Queen Christina then invited him to her court, appointed him her librarian and historiographer, with 2000 crowns salary, and a table; but the air of the country not agreeing with him, he was obliged to quit this profitable situation in 1655, and return home. Freinshewas a man of extensive learning; for, besides Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, he was familiar with almost all the living languages of Europe, and his fame induced the elector Palatine, when he projected the restoration of the university of Heidelberg, to appoint him honorary professor, and electoral counsellor. He accordingly removed with his family to Heidelberg in 1656, and died there in 1660.

, an elegant Portuguese writer in prose and verse, was born in 1597, at Beja in Portugal, and became abbé of St. Mary de Chans. He appeared at first with some distinction at the court of Spain, but his attachment to the house of Braganza impeded his advancement. In 1640, when John IV. was proclaimed king of Portugal, he went to his court, and was well received. Yet it was found difficult to advance him, for he was of too light and careless a character to be employed in diplomatic business; and though the king would have gone so far as to make him bishop of Visieu, this dignity he had the wisdom to refuse, well-knowing that the pope who did not acknowledge his master as king, would never confirm his appointment as bishop. He did not choose, he said, merely to personate a bishop, like an actor on a stage. He died at Lisbon in 1657. Notwithstanding the levity of his character, he had a generous heart, and was a firm and active friend. He wrote with much success; his “Life of Don Juan de Castro,” is esteemed one of the best written books in the Portuguese language. It was published in folio, and was translated into Latin by Rotto, an Italian Jesuit. He wrote also a small number of poems in the same language, which have considerable elegance, and are to be found in a collection published at Lisbon in 1718, under the title of “Fenix Renacida.”

, 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.

, a French journalist, generally known for having been the constant object of the satire of Voltaire, was born at Quimper, in 1719. His talents were considerable, and he cultivated them in the society of the Jesuits, under fathers Brumoy and Bougeant. In 1739, on some disgust, he quitted the Jesuits, and for a time assisted the abbé des Fontaines in his periodical publications. He then published several critical works on his own account, which were generally admired, but sometimes suppressed by authority. His “Letters on certain writings of the time” began to be published in 1749, and were extended, with some interruptions, to 13 volumes. In 1754 he began his “Anne Litie>aire,” and published in that year 7 volumes of it; and afterwards 8 volumes every year as long as he lived, which was till 1776. In this work, FreVon, who was a zealous enemy of the modern philosophy, attacked Voltaire with spirit. He represented him as a skilful plagiary; as a poet, brilliant indeed, but inferior to Corneille, Racine, and Boileau; as an elegant, but inaccurate historian; and rather the tyrant than the king of literature. A great part of this Voltaire could bear with fortitude; but a very skilful and victorious attack upon a bad comedy, “La Femme qui a raison,” drove him beyond all bounds of patience; and henceforward his pen was constantly in motion against Fre>on, whose very name at any time would put him in a rage, nor was Freron more a favourite with the encyclopedists, whose principles he exposed.

, an early poet of France, father of the celebrated Iveteaux, and the first who wrote satires in French, and an Art of Poetry, was born of a noble family at Fresnaye, near Falaise, iiv 1534-. He was bred a lawyer, and became the king’s advocate for the bailliage of Caen, and afterwards lieutenantgeneral and president of that city, where he died at the age of seventy-two, in 1606. He wrote, 1. “Satires,” which though esteemed less strong than those of Regnier, and less witty than those of Boileau, have truth and nature, and contain simple narratives, the style of which has, something pleasing. 2. “The Art of Poetry.” Copious specimens of this performance may be seen in the notes of St. Marc, on Boileau’s Art of Poetry. It has considerable merit, but a merit which haa been superseded by later efforts. 3. Two books of Idyllia, and three of epigrams, epitaphs, and sonnets. 4. A poem on the monarchy. All these were collected by himself in an edition of poems, published at Caen in 1605.

, 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.

, a celebrated French poet and painter, was born at Paris in 1611. His father, who was an eminent apothecary in that city, intended him for the medical profession, and during the first year which he spent at college, he made very considerable progress in his studies; but as soon as he was raised to the highest classes, and began to contract a taste for poetry, his genius for it appeared, and he carried all the prizes of it, which were proposed to excite the emulation of his fellow-students. His inclination for poetry was heightened by exercise; and his earliest performances shewed that he was capable of attaining very considerable fame in this pursuit, if his love of painting, which equally possessed him, had not divided his time and application. At last he laid aside all thoughts of the study of physic, and declared absolutely for that of painting, notwithstanding the opposition of his parents, who by all kinds of severity endeavoured to divert him from pursuing that art, the profession of which they unjustly considered in a very contemptible light. But the strength of his inclination defeating all the measures taken to suppress it, he took the first opportunity of cultivating his favourite study.

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.

His poem was not published till three years after his death, at Paris, 12mo, with the French version, and remarks of Mons. Du Piles, and it has been justly admired for its elegance, perspicuity, and the utility of the instruction it contains. In 1694, Dryden made a prose translation of it into English, which he accompanied with his ingenious parallel between poetry and painting. It was again translated into English by Mr. Wills, a painter, who gave it in metre without rhyme. He attempted to produce the sense of his author in an equal number of lines, and thus cramped his own skill; and produced a work unequal in itself, in which, however well he appears to hare understood the original text, he fails to impress it on his reader. It is now almost totally forgotten. More ample justice has been done in our language to the talents of Du Fresnoy, by our late skilful poet, William Mason, M. A.; by whom, in 1782, he was first clothed in an English dress suited to his elevated pretensions. And still greater honour was done to him by the hand of that extraordinary genius of our isle in the art of painting, sir Joshua Reynolds, for whose more valuable remarks upon the most important points in the poem, Mr. Mason was induced to discard those of Mons. Du Piles. By the union of the talents of two men so renowned in the arts of poetry and painting, Du Fresnoy is rendered for ever dear to the English reader; and the thorough knowledge he has exhibited of the best principles of the art of painting, is become more agreeably and more extensively diffused.

, a French poet, chiefly celebrated for his dramatic writings, was born at Paris in 1648. He had a good natural taste for music, painting, sculpture, architecture, and all the fine arts. He had also a taste for laying-out gardens, and this procured him the place of overseer of gardens to the king, which he sold for a moderate sum, as a supply to his extravagance, which was unbounded. He was valet-de-chambre to Louis XIV. and highly in favour with him; but his love of expence outwent even the bounty of his master. “There are two men,” said Louis, “whom I shall never enrich, Fresny and Bontems.” These were his two valets-dechambre, who were well matched in extravagance. At length, Fresny sold all his appointments at court, and flew from the constraint of Versailles to the liberty of Paris, where he became a writer for the stage. He is the person who is humourously represented by Le Sage in his “Diable Boiteux,” as marrying his laundress by way of paying her bill. He was twice married, and both times, it is said, in a similar way. He wrote many dramatic pieces, some of which were long established on the stage. These were, “La Reconciliation Normande, Le Double Voyage, La Coquette de Village, Le Marriage rompu, L'Esprit de Contradiction, Le Dedit.” He was also the author of cantatas, which he set to music himself; several songs, some of which were famous; a little work often reprinted, called “Les Amusements serieux et comiques,” and “Nouvelles Historiques” all enlivened by a singular and gay fancy. He died, aged seventy-six, in 1724. D'Alembert has drawn a parallel between Destouches and him as comic writers. His works were collected in 6 volumes, duodecimo.

, an eminent literary historian, was the son of a learned schoolmaster, who is very highly celebrated by Ernesti, and was born at Schulpforten, in 1723. All we know of his personal history is, that he studied law, and became a burgomaster of Nuremberg, where he died in 1776. His principal writings are, 1. “Rhinoceros veterum scriptorum monumentis descriptus,” Leipsic, 1747, 8vo. 2. “Analecta literaria de Libris rarioribus,” ibid. 1750, 8vo. 3. “Oratorum ac Rhetorum Graecorum, quibus statuse honoris causa positse fuerunt, decas,” ibid. 1752. 4. “Adparatus litterarius, ubi libri partim antiqui partim rari recensentur,” ibid. 1752 1755, 8 vols. 8vo. This is a continuation of the “Analecta literaria,” and both are of the highest value to bibliographers. They afford a striking proof of assiduity, close application, and a discriminating judgment in appreciating the value of what are termed rare and curious books. 5. “Specimen historic literatae, quo virorum, feminarumque /ttrflpc3i3a*tov memoria recolitur,” ibid. 1765, 8vo.

Hitherto Frischlin had been prosperous; but now an affair happened which laid the foundation of troubles that did not end but with his life. In 1580 he published an oration in praise of a country life, with a paraphrase upon Virgil’s Eclogues and Georgics. Here he compared the lives of modern courtiers with those of ancient husbandmen; and noticing some with great severity, who had degenerated from the virtue and simplicity of their ancestors, made himself so obnoxious, that even his life was in danger. He made many public apologies for himself; his prince even interceded for him, but he could not continue safe any longer at home. With his prince’s leave, therefore, he went to Laubach, a town of Carniola, in the remote part of Germany, and kept a school there; but the air not agreeing with his wife and children, he returned in about two years, to his own country. He met with a very ungracious reception; and therefore, after staying a little while, he went to Francfort, from Francfort into Saxony, and from thence to Brunswick, where he became a schoolmaster again. There he did not continue long, but passed from place to place, till at length, being reduced to necessity, he applied to the prince of Wirtemberg for relief. His application was disregarded, which he supposing to proceed from the malice of his enemies, wrote severely against them. He was imprisoned at last in Wirtemberg castle; whence attempting to escape by ropes not strong enough to support him, he fell down a prodigious precipice, and was dashed to pieces among the rocks. His death happened in 1590, and was universally and justly lamented; for he was certainly ingenious and learned in a great degree. He left a great many works of various kinds, as tragedies, comedies, elegies, translations of Latin and Greek authors, with notes upon them, orations, &c. These were published 1598 1607, in 4 vols. 8vo. He had also written a translation of Oppian, but this was never published. His scholia and version of “Callimachus,” with his Greek life of that poet, are in Stephens’ s edition of 1577, 4to. While he was master of the school at Labacum, or Laubach, he composed a new grammar; for there was no grammar extant that pleased him. This was more methodical, and shorter than any of them; and, indeed, was generally approved; but, not content with giving a grammar of his own, he drew up another piece, called “Strigil Grammatica,” in which he disputes with some little acrimony against all other grammarians; and this, as was natural, increased the number of his enemies. With all his parts and learning, he seems not a little to have wanted prudence.

The Milanese government, duly sensible of the superior merit of Mr. Frisi, and most likely jealous of so many honours received by him in Tuscany, induced him to return to his native place, by tendering him the chair of mathematics in the Palatine schools of that metropolis. This offer was made in 1764, and was soon accepted by Mr. Frisi, who flattered himself that he should there be of greater assistance to his family than he had been in a foreign place; it was here he wrote his two capital works, “De gravitate universali,” in three books, and the “Cosmographia Physica et Mathematica,” in 2 vols. both of which were afterwards published at Milan, in 1768 and 1774. Many years had now elapsed without his being involved in any of those quarrels which were the result of his temper; but as he was threatened with an event of this kind soon after his return to Milan, he was advised by his friends to escape the storm by a temporary peregrination. He consequently made the tour of several European countries; and it was during this excursion, that he attained the friendship of some of the greatest characters in those times, especially in England and France, and acquired many literary honours; but the danger of incurring new evils was inherent to his nature. The famous periodical work entitled “The Coffee-house,” was at that time publishing by some of the most eminent Milanese literati, among whom was Mr. Frisi himself, who had already been appointed royal censor of new literary publications. In this capacity he did not scruple to give his approbation to a pernicious work which was supposed to have issued from the above-mentioned society, and when the book was afterwards suppressed by ecclesiastical and civil authority, he had the imprudence, or rather the effrontery, to become its apologist. Sensible, perhaps at last, of the dangers to which he had exposed himself, he resolved to spend some years in retirement. A new field of exertions, however, was opened to him in his retreat, which proved more beneficial to society, and more honourable to himself, than any he had before cultivated. His uncommon talents in hydrpnymics were already celebrated in Italy, and as many hydrostatical operations had been projected at the time by the several Italian governments, he became the chief director, and almost the oracle of such undertakings. The Venetian senate, and the late Pius VI. also, wished in latter times to have his opinion on the projects which they had respectively adopted for the course of the river Brenta, and for the draining of the Pontine marshes. But even in these honourable commissions, he disgusted every person in power with whom he had to deal, and the necessity of applying to a man of his temper was frequently the subject of regret. In 1777, the Milanese government recalled him from obscurity, and appointed him director of the newly-founded school of architecture; and from this period he became as active in the republic of letters as ever. He published in the same year, 1777, his “Course of Mechanics,” for the use of the royal school; in 1781 his “Philosophical Tracts,” and from 1782 to 1784, his “Opera Varia,” 3 vols. 4to and in the interval from 1778 to 1783, he wrote the eulogies of Galileo, Cavalieri, Newton, the empress Maria Theresa, and of count Firmian. His eulogies on Galileo and Cavalieri have been pronounced by Montuclas “two finished specimens of scientific biography.” Frisi died Nov. 22, 1784, a man of unquestionable learning, but, unhappily for himself, of an impetuous and turbulent disposition.

, a learned preacher and martyr, was the son of an inn-keeper at Sevenoaks, in Kent, wher he was born (or as Fuller says, at Westerham, in the same county). He was educated at King’scollege, Cambridge, where he proceeded B. A. but afterwards went to Oxford, was admitted ad eundem, and upon account of his extraordinary learning, was chosen one of the junior canons of cardinal Wolsey’s new college, now Christ church. About 1525 he was instructed in the principles of the reformation, according to the Lutheran system, by the celebrated Tyndale. These he openly professed, and with some other young men of the same persuasion and boldness, was imprisoned by the commissary of the university. The hardships of this imprisonment proved fatal to some of his companions, but he obtained his release, and about 1528 went abroad, where he remained about two years, and became more seriously coufirmed in his new opinions. On his return, he was narrowly watched by the lord chancellor, sir Thomas More, whose resentment was said to have been occasioned by a treatise which Fryth wrote against him. Simon Fish, of Gray’s-inn, had written his “Supplication of the Beggars,” against the begging friars, and against indulgences, &c. (See art. Fish ) This work was highly acceptable to Henry VIII. as favouring his quarrel with the pope. The lord chancellor, however, who was a more consistent catholic than his majesty, answered it, and Fryth answered More, denying the doctrine of purgatory. His opinions on the sacrament were also highly obnoxious, and after a strict search, he was betrayed into the hands of the civil power by a treacherous friend, and sent prisoner to the Tower. He was several times examined by the lord chancellor, who uniformly treated him with contempt and cruelty, but refusing to recant, he was ordered to be burnt, which sentence was executed in Smithfield, July 4, 1533, in the prime of his life. He had a very remarkable opportunity, some time before, of making his escape, the servants who were to convey him to the archbishop’s palace at Croydon, offering to let him go. But this he refused, with more zeal than prudence. He was, according to all accounts, a scholar of great eminence, and well acquainted with the learned languages.

, an eminent and learned German printer, was a native of Hammelburg, in Franconia, where he was from his childhood trained to literature. Afterwards he went to the university of Basil, where he acquired the reputation of being uncommonly learned. With a view of promoting useful learning, for which he was very zealous, he applied himself to the art of printing; and, becoming a master of it, opened a shop at Basil. He was the first of the German printers who brought the art to any perfection; and, being a man of great probity and piety, as well as skill, he was,' what very few have been, particularly choice in the authors he printed. He would never suffer libels, or any thing that might hurt the reputation of another, to go through his press for the sake of profit; but very justly thought all such practices disgraceful to his art, disgraceful to letters, and infinitely pernicious to religion and society. The great reputation and character of this printer was the principal motive which led Erasmus to fix his residence at Basil, in order to have his own works printed by him. The connection between Erasmus and Frobenius grew very close and intimate; and was a connection of friendship and the sincerest cordiality. Erasmus loved the good qualities of Frobenius, as much as Frobenius could admire the great ones of Erasmus.; There is an epistle of Erasmus extant, which contains so full an account of this printer, that it forms a very curious memorial for his life. It was written in 1527, on the occasion of Frobenius’s death, which happened that year; and which, Erasmus tells us, he bore so extremely ill, that he really began to be ashamed of his grief, since what he felt upon the death of his own brother was not to be compared to it. He says, that he lamented the loss of Froben, not so much because he had a strong affection for him, but because he seemed raised up by Providence for the promoting of liberal studies. Then he proceeds to describe his good qualities, which were indeed very great and numerous; and concludes with a particular account of his death, which was somewhat remarkable. He relates, that about five years before, Frobenius had the misfortune to fall from the top of a pair of stairs, on a brick pavement; which fall, though he then imagined himself not much hurt by it, is thought to have laid the foundation of his subsequent malady. The year before he died, he was seized with most exquisite pains in his right ancle; but was in time so relieved from these, that he was able to go to Francfort on horseback. The malady, however, whatever it was, was not gone, but had settled in the toes of his right foot, of which he had no use. Next, a numbness seized the fingers of his right hand; and then a dead palsy, which taking him when he was reaching something from a high place, he fell with his head upon the ground, and discovered few signs of life afterwards. He died at Basil, in 1527, lamented by all, but by none more than Erasmus, who wrote his epitaph in Greek and Latin. Both these epitaphs are at the end of his epistle.

A great number of valuable authors were printed by Frobenius with great care and accuracy, among which were the works of Jerome, Augustin, and Erasmus. He had formed a design to print the Greek fathers, which had not yet been done; but death prevented him. That work, however, was carried on by his son Jerome Frobenius and his son-in-law Nicolas Episcopius, who, joining in partnership, carried on the business with the same reputation, and gave very correct editions of those fathers.

It does not appear how captain Frobisher employed himself from this time to 1585, when he commanded the Aid, in sir Francis Drake’s expedition to the West Indies. In 1588, he bravely exerted himself against the Spanish Armada, commanding the Triumph, one of the three largest ships in that service, and which had on board the greatest number pf men of any in the whole English fleet. July 26th, he received the honour of knighthood, from the hand of the lord high admiral, at sea, on board his own ship and when afterwards the queen thought it necessary to keep a fleet on the- Spanish coast, he was employed in that service, particularly in 1590, when he commanded one squadron, as sir John Hawkins did another. In 1594, he was sent with four men of war, to assist Henry the Fourth of France, against a body of leaguers and Spaniards then in possession of part of Bretagne, who had fortified themselves very strongly at Croyzon near Brest. But in an assault upon that fort, Nov. 7, he was wounded with a ball in the hip, of which he died Soob after he had brought the fleet safely back to Plymouth; and was buried in that town. Stow tells us, the wound was not mortal in itself, but became so through the negligence of his surgeon, who only extracted the bullet, without duly searching the wound and taking out the wadding, which caused it to fester.

Of all the particulars of Froissart’s life during his residence in England, we only know that he was present at the separation of the king and queen in 1361, with their son the prince of Wales and the princess his lady, who were going to take possession of the government of Acquitaine; and that he was between Eltham and Westminster in 1363, when king John passed on his return to England. There is in his poems a pastoral which seems to allude only to that event. With regard to his travels during the time he was attached to the service of the queen, he' employed six months in Scotland, and penetrated as far as the Highlands. He travelled on horseback with his portmanteau behind him, and followed by a greyhound. The king of Scotland, and many lords whose names he has preserved to us, treated him so handsomely, that he could have wished tq have returned thither. William earl of Douglas lodged him during fifteen days in his castle of Dalkeith, near Edinburgh; but we are ignorant of the date of this journey, and of another which he made into North Wales. It may be inferred, however, that he was at this time no ordinary character, and that he must have possessed talents and accomplishments to entitle him, to so much respect.

He was in France, at Melun sur Seine, about April 20, 1366; perhaps private reasons might have induced him to take that road to Bourdeaux, where he was on All Saints’ day of that year, when the princess of Wales was brought to bed of a son, who was afterwards Richard II. The prince of Wales setting out a few days afterwards for the war in Spain, Froissart accompanied him to Dax, where the prince resided some time. He had expected to have attended him during the continuance of this grand expedition; but the prince would not permit him to go farther; and shortly after his arrival, sent him back to the queen his mother. Froissart could not have made any long stay in England, since in the following year, 1368," he was at different Italian courts. It was this same year, that Lionel duke of Clarence, son of the king of England, espoused Joland, daughter of Galeas II. duke of Milan. Froissart, who probably was in his suite, was present at the magnificent reeeption which Amadeus count of Savoy, surnamed the count Verd, gave him on his return: he describes the feasts on this occasion, which lasted three days; and does not forget to tell us that they danced a virelay of his composition. From the court of Savoy he returned to Milan, where the same count Amadeus gave him a good cotardie, a sort of coat, with twenty florins of gold; and from thence to Bologna and Ferrara, where he Feceived f forty ducats from the king of Cyprus, and then to Rome. Instead of the modest equipage he travelled with into Scotland, he was now like a man of importance, travelling on a handsome horse attended by a hackney.

Almost immediately after this event Froissart found another patron in Guy count de 3lojis, who made him clerk oJ' his chapel; and he testified his gratitude by a pastoral, and epithalamium on a marriage in the family. He passed the years 1385, 1386, and 1387, sometimes in the Blaisois, sometimes in Touraine; but the count de Blois having engaged him to continue his history, which he left unfinished, he determined in 1388 to take advantage of the peace which was just concluded, to visit the court of Gaston Phoebus count de Foix, in order to gain full information in whatever related to foreign countries, and the more distant provinces of the kingdom-. His health and age still allowed him to bear great fatigue; his memory was suifrciently strong to retain whatever he should hear; and his judgment clear enough, to point out to him the use he should make of it. In his journey to the count de Foix, he met on the road with sir Espaing du Lyon, a gallant knight who had served in the wars, and was able to give him much information. At length they arrived at Ortez in Beam, the ordinary residence of the count de Foix, where Froissart met with a society suited to. his views, composed of brave captains who had distinguished themselves in combats or tournaments. Here Froissart used to entertain Gaston, after supper, by reading to him the romance of “Meliador,” which he had brought with him. After a considerable residence at this court, he left it in the suite of the young duchess of Berry, whom he accorupanied to Avignon. His stay here, however, was unfortunate, as he was robbed; which incident he made the subject of a long poem, representing his loss, and his expensive turn. Among other things he says that the composition of his works had cost him 700 francs, but he regretted, not this expence, for he adds, “I have composed many a history which will be spoken of by posterity.”

After a series of travels into different countries, for the sake of obtaining information, we find him in 1390 in his own country, solely occupied in the completion of his history, at least until 1392, when he was again at Paris. From the year 1378 he had obtained from pope Clement VII. the reversion of a canonry at Lille, and in the collection of his poetry, which was completed in 1393, and elsewhere, he calls himself canon of Lille; but pope Clement dying in 1394, he gave up his expectations of the. reversion, and began to qualify himself as canon and treasurer of the collegiate church of Chirnay, which he probably owedi to the friendship of the count de Blois. In 1395, after an absence of twenty-seven years, he returned to England, where he was received with marks of high favour and affection by Richard II. and the royal family; and here he went on collecting information for his history, and had the honour to present his “Meliador” to the king, who was much delighted with it. After a residence of three mouths, he was dismissed with marks of princely favour, which he endeavoured to return by his affectionate and grateful' lamentation on the death of his royal patron, at the end of the fourth volume of his history.

, canon regular of the congregation of St. Genevieve, and chancellor of the university of Paris, was born at Angers in 1614. His father was a notstry of that place. He was first educated under a private ecclesiastic in the neighbourhood of Angers, and is said to have made such rapid progress in these his early studies, that in less than five years he could readily translate into Latin and Greek. On his return to Angers he studied three years in the college of the oratory there, and was afterwards sent to that of La Fleche, where he completed his classical course. In 1630 he took the habit of a canon regular of the abbey of Toussaint, at Augers, and made profession the year following. Having dedicated his philosophical thesis to father Favre, this led to an acquaintance with the latter, by whose orders he came to Paris in 1636, and in 1637 was chosen professor of philosophy in the abbey of iSt. Genevieve. His first course of philosophical lectures being finished in 1639, he was employed to lecture on divinity, which he did with equal reputation, following the principles of St. Thomas, to which he was much attached; but his lectures were not dry and scholastic, but enlivened by references to the fathers, and to ecclesiastical history, a knowledge of which he thought would render them more useful to young students: and besides his regular lectures on theology, he held every week a conference on some subject of morals, or some part of the scriptures. Jansenius having published his “Augustinus,” he read it with attention, and thought he discovered in it the true sentiments of St. Augustine. Some time after, the Jesuits having invited him to be present at the theological theses of the college of Clermont, and having requested him to open the ceremony, he delivered a very learned and eloquent discourse, which was at first well received, but having attacked a proposition concerning predestination, he was suspected of inclining towards innovation. In a conference, however, with two fathers of the congregation, he explained his sentiments in such a manner as to satisfy them. In 1648 he was made chancellor of the university of Paris, although with some opposition from the members of the university, not upon his own account, but that of the fathers of the congregation in general, who had rendered themselves obnoxious to the university by the erection of a number of independent seminaries.

After passing some years in the quiet prosecution of his studies, he encountered some opposition in consequence of the five propositions condemned by the popes Innocent X. and Alexander VII. He was now suspected of favouring the Jansenists, and of asserting that no one could sign the formulary without distinguishing the fact from the right. This induced him to quit his office of regent in 1654, and accept of the conventual priory of Betiay, in the diocese of Angers. Here, however, he did not constantly reside, but preached frequently in some cathedrals, and performed the duties of his office as chancellor of the university, until 1661, when happening to be at Benay, he received an order from the court to remain there until farther orders. This was occasioned by the approbation he had given to a French translation of the Missal of M. Voisin, which at first he did not choose to revoke. It does not appear, however, that while he ventured to express liberal notions, he had the courage to maintain them against the authority of his superiors, for he soon conceded every point, and offered to sign the formulary abovementioned, which he had hitherto refused, and accordingly was permitted to return to Paris in 1662, where the archbishop of Sens bestowed on him the office of priorcur6 of St. Mary Magdalen of Montargis; but this he enjoyed but a very few days, being seized with a disorder which carried him off, April 17, 1662, when only fortyeight years of age. He was a man of extensive reading in ecclesiastical and profane history; and as a preacher was lively and eloquent. He obtained much reputation for his discourses when bestowing the degree of master of arts, which was his province for fifteen years. He was an able linguist, not only in the modern, but ancient, and particularly the Eastern languages. Dupin, who gives him in other respects a very high character, observes, that he never attached himself so closely to any subject as to handle it thoroughly, but was always making discoveries, starting conjectures, and forming new ideas, and giving his subject a turn altogether uncommon.

, a Roman writer, who flourished in the first century, and was in high repute under Vespasian, Titus, Domitian, Nerva, and Trajan, was a man of consular dignity, a great officer who commanded the Roman armies in England, and elsewhere, with success; and he is mentioned in high terms of panegyric by all the writers of his time. He was city-prgetor when Vespasian and Titus were consuls. Nerva made him crfrtitor of the aquasducts, which occasioned him to write his treatise, “De Aquaeductibus Urbis Romse.” He wrote also “Tres libros’ Stratagematum,” or, concerning the stratagems used in war by the most eminent Greek and Roman commanders; and afterwards added a fourth, coritaining examples of those arts and maxims, discoursed of in the former. These two works are still extant, together with a piece “De Re Agraria;” and another, “De Limitibus.” They have been often printed separately, but were all published together in a neat edition at Amsterdam in 1661, with notes by Robertus Keuchenius, who has placed at the end the fragments of several works of Frontinus that are lost. This eminent man died in the year 106, under Trajan, and was succeeded as augur by the younger Pliny, who mentions him with honour. He forbade any monument to be erected to him after his death, declaring, that every man was sure to be remembered without any such testimonial, if he had lived so as to deserve it. His words, as Pliny has preserved them, were these: “Impensa monument! supervacua est memoria nostri durabit, si vita meruimus.”

, an English poet, was the son of a gentleman, who had been post-master in the reign of queen Anne, and the grandson of sir Philip Frowde,a loyal officer in king Charles I.'s army. He was sent to the university of Oxford, where he had the honour of being distinguished by Addison, who took him under his protection. While be remained there be became the author of several pieces of poetry, some of which, in Latin, were pure and elegant enough to entitle them to a place in the “Muse Anglicanae.” He wrote likewise two tragedies: “The Fall of Saguntum,” dedicated to sir Robert Walpole; and “Philotas,” addressed to the earl of Chesterfield. Neither of these were very successful on the stage, to which they were thought less adapted than to the closet. He died at his lodgings in Cecil-street in the Strand, Dec. 19, 1738; and in the London Daily-Post had the following character given him': “Though the elegance of Mr. Frowde’s writings has recommended him to the general public esteem, the politeness of his genius is the least amiable part of his character; for he esteemed the talents of wit and learning, only as they were conducive to the excitement and practice of honour and humanity. Therefore, with a soul chearful, benevolent, and virtuous, he was in conversation genteelly delightful, in friendship punctually sincere, in death Chnstianly resigned. No man could live more beloved; no private man could die more lamented.”

, a Romish saint, is usually called the Apostle of Ethiopia, on account of his having first propagated Christianity in that country, in the fourth century. He was the nephew of one Meropius, a philosopher of Tyre, who being induced to travel to Ethiopia, carried with him his two nephews, Frumentius and Edesius, with whose education he had been entrusted. In the course of their voyage homewards, the vessel touched at a certain port to take in provisions and fresh water, and the whole of the passengers were murdered by the barbarians of the country, except the two children, whom they presented to the king, who resided at Axuma, formerly one of the greatest cities of the East. The king, being charmed with the wit and sprightliness of the two boys, had them carefully educated, and when grown up, made Edesius his cup-bearer, and Frumentius, who was the elder, his treasurer and secretary of state, entrusting him with all the public writings and accounts. Nor were they less highly honoured after the king’s death by the queen, who was regent during her son’s minority. Frumentius had the principal management of affairs, and soon turned his attention to higher objects than the politics of the country. He met with some Roman merchants who traded there, and having by their means discovered some Christians who were in the kingdom, he encouraged them to associate for the purposes of religious worship; and at length erected a church for their use; and certain natives, instructed in the gospel, were converted. On the young king’s accession to the government, Frumentius, though with much reluctance on the part of the king and his mother, obtained leave to return to his own country. Edesius accordingly returned to Tyre; but Frumentius, on his arrival at Alexandria, communicated his adventures to Athanasius the bishop, and informed him of the probability of converting the country to Christianity, if missionaries were sent thither. On mature consideration, Athanasius told him, that none was so fit for the office as himself. He consecrated him therefore first bishop of the Indians, and Frumentius returning to a people who had been acquainted with his integrity and capacity, preached the gospel with much success, and erected many churches, although the emperor Constantius endeavoured to introduce Arianism, and actually ordered that Frumentius should be deposed, and an Arian bishop appointed; but the country was happily out of his reach. Frumentius is supposed to have died about the year 360. The Abyssinians honour him as the apostle of the country of the Axumites, which is the most considerable part of their empire.

, an eminent German physician and botanist, was born at Wembding, in Bavaria, in 1501. After a classical education at Hailbrun and Erfurt, he went in his nineteenth year to Ingoldstadt, where he pursued the study of the learned languages under Capnius and Ceporinus, two eminent professors, who had embraced the doctrines of the reformation, which they imparted to their pupil. He received the degree of master of arts in 1521, and having also studied medicine, was admitted to his doctor’s degree in 1524. He first practised at Munich, where he married, and had a large family, and in 1526 he removed to Ingoldstadt, and was made professor of medicine; but his religion occasioning some trouble, he settled at Onoltzbach about two years afterwards, under the patronage and protection of George, margrave of Bayreuth. Here he was very successful as a practitioner, and published some treatises on the healing art. In 1533, the management of the university of Ingoldstadt being committed, by William duke of Bavaria, to Leonard Eccius, a celebrated lawyer, acquainted with the merit of Fuchs, he procured his return to his former professorship; but his zeal for the reformed religion was still too prominent not to give offence, especially, we should suppose, to John Eccius (see Eccius), then a professor there, and he returned to Onoltzbach. Two years after, however, he found an honourable asylum in the university of Tubingen, which Ulric, duke of Wirtemberg, had determined to supply with protestant professors, and where he provided Fuchs with an ample salary, and every encouragement. In this place he remained until his death, May 10, 1566. He died in the arms of his wife and children, full of faith and fortitude, having in the course of his illness been observed to experience no relief from his sufferings, but while conversing with his friends on the subjects of religion and a future state, which made him forget every thing else, and he expressed himself with all his usual energy and perspicuity. He was interred, the day after his death, in a burying-ground adjoining to the town, where his first wife had been deposited but little more than three years before.

Some botanical remarks of Fuchs, relating principally to the Arabian writers, are found in the 2d volume of the “Herbarium” of Brunfelsius. But the work on which his reputation in this study chit-fly rests, is his “Historia Plantarum,” published at Basil in 1542, fol. with numerous wooden cuts. A German edition appeared the following year. In this work he chiefly copies Dioscorides, adding a few remarks of his own, and falling, as Haller observes, into the common error of the writers of his* time, who expected to find in their own cold countries the plants of those more genial climates where the ancients studied botany and medicine. The publication of Fuchs, though nearly on a par with those of other learned men of his time, would probably have been long since forgotten, were it not for the transcendant merit of its wooden cuts, inferior to those of Brunfelsius alone in execution, and far exceeding them in number. They chiefly indeed consist of pharmaceutical plants, which though mere outlines, are justly celebrated for their fidejity and elegance. These original editions are become very rare; but copies and translations of them, various in merit, are common throughout Europe. Amongst the poorest of these is a French duodecimo* printed at Lyons, under the title of Le Benefice Commun, in 1355, for which our author is certainly not responsible, and it is ralher hard in Linnæus to class him, on account of some such spurious editions, under the heads of monstrosi aud rudes in his “Bibliotheca Botanica,” though indeed he there properly stands amongst the usitatissimi with respect to h>s original edition. By some of his writings, especially his “Cornarus furens,” published in 1545, against Cornarus, who had attacked his “Historia Plantarum” in a work entitled “Vulpecula excoriata,” he appears to have been vehement in controversy, but in his general character and deportment he is said to have been dignified and amiable, with a fine manly person, and a clear sonorous voice. His piety y temperance, and indefatigable desire to be useful, were alike exemplary. As a lecturer he was peculiarly admired and followed, especially in his anatomical courses. The famous Vesalius was present at one of his lectures, in which he found himself criticized. He afterwards familiarly addressed the professor, saying, “why do you attack me who never injured you?” “Are you Vesalius” exclaimed Fuchs. “You see him before you,” replied the former. On which great mutual congratulations ensued, and a strict friendship wag formed between these learned men. Fuchs was so famous throughout Europe, that the great Cosmo duke of Tuscany invited him, with the offer of a salary of 600 crowns, to become professor of medicine at Pisa, which he declined. The emperor Charles V. also bore testimony to his merit, by sending him letters with the insignia of nobility, which honour also Fuchs for some time declined. He was indifferent to money, as well as to all other than literary fame. His great ambition was, whenever he undertook in his turn the rectorship of the university, to promote good order, industry, and improvement among the students, whom he governed with paternal assiduity and affection. Two colleges were always under his immediate care, one of them founded by duke Ulrie for students of divinity alone, and more amply endowed by his son and successor.

, a Swiss artist, and a man of considerable learning, was born at Zurich in 1706. After acquiring the elements of painting from a very indifferent artist, he left his country in the eighteenth year of his age, and going to Vienna, associated himself with Sedelmeier. Gran and Meitens were his principal guides, if he could be said to have any other guide than his own genius. He became well known at court, but his love of independence induced him to refuse very advantageous offers. He would not, however, have probably ever left Vienna, had not the prince of Schwarzeuburg persuaded him to go to Kadstadt, where he became the favourite of the court. Among others whose portraits he painted was the margrave of Dourlach, who had a great affection for him, and advised him to go to Ludwigsbourg, which he did with letters of recommendation to the duke of Wirtemberg, who immediately took him into his service. Here he passed his time very agreeably, making occasional excursions to paint the portraits of persons of distinction, until the war of Poland, when the entrance of the French into Germany threw every thing into confusion. The duke his patron at the same time fell sick, and was removed to Stutgard, but on Fuessli’s leaving him to go to Nuremberg, his highness presented him with a gold watch, and requested him to return when the state of public affairs was changed. At Nuremberg he had a strong desire to see the celebrated artist Kupezki, of whose manners he had imbibed an unfavourable impression, but he was agreeably disappointed, and they became friends from their first interview. After remaining six months at Nuremberg, the duke of Wirtemberg died, and there being no immediate prospect of peace, Fuessli returned to his own country, and in 1740 married. Although his wife was a very amiable woman, he used to say that marriage was incompatible with the cultivation of the fine arts: if, however, he felt himself occasionally disturbed by domestic cares, he had the happiness to communicate his art to his three sons, Rodolph, who settled at Vienna; Henry, at present so well known in England; and Caspar, who died in the vigour of life, an entomologist of fidelity, discrimination, and taste.

, an eminent benefactor to literature, was born at Augsburg in 1526, and deserves a place in this work for his affection to learning and learned men. His family was considerable for its antiquity and opulence; and Thuanus informs us, that when Charles V. changed the government of Augsburg, in 1548, he nominated the family of the Fuggers among those who thenceforward were to be raised to the dignity of senators. Yet this illustrious family, as all the genealogical writers of Germany, notice, sprung from a weaver, who, in 1370, was made free of the city of Augsburg. Huldric had been chamberlain to pope Paul III. and afterwards turned protestant. He laid out great sums in purchasing good manuscripts of ancient authors, and getting them printed; and for this purpose he for some time allowed a salary to the famous Henry Stephens. His relations were so incensed at him for the money he expended in this way, that they brought an action against him, in consequence of which he was declared incapable of managing his affairs. Thuanus, and some other writers observe, that this sentence pronounced against Fugger plunged him into a deep melancholy, which accompanied him almost to his grave; but it is asserted in his epitaph, that he was unmoved at the shock, and that he was soon after restored to his estate. He had retired to Heidelberg, where he died in 1584; having bequeathed his library, which was very considerable, to the elector Palatine, with a fund for the maintenance of six scholars.

, an English law-writer, was the son of Thomas Fulbeck, who was mayor of Lincoln at the time of his death in J 566. He was born in the parish of St. Benedict in that city in 1560, entered as a commoner of St. Alban hall, Oxford, in 1577, and was admitted scholar of Corpus Christi college about two years after. In 1581 he took his bachelor’s degree, and the next year became probationer fellow. He then removed to Gloucester-hall (now Worcester college) where he completed the degree of M. A. in 1584. From Oxford he went to Gray’s Inn, London, where he applied with great assiduity to the study of the municipal law. Wood says, he had afterwards the degree of civil law conferred on him, but where he had not been able to discover, nor is the place or time of his death known. From an extract from, bishop Kennet, in the new edition of Wood, it seems not improbable that he took orders. His works are, 1. “Christian Ethics,” Lond. 1587, 8vo. 2. “An historical collection of the continual factions, tumults, and massacres -of the Romans before the peaceable empire of Augustus Caesar,” ibid. 1600, 8vo, 1601, 4to. 3. “A direction or preparative to the study of the Law,” ibid. 1600, 8vo, afterwards published, with a new title-page, as “A parallel or conference of the civil, the canon, and the common law,” ibid. 1618. 4. “The Pandects of the Laws of Nations; or the discourses of the matters in law, wherein the nations of the world do agree,” ibid. 1602, 4to.

, bishop of Chartres, who flourished towards the end of the tenth t and beginning of the eleventh century, is celebrated, in the Tlomish church history, for his learning and piety. Some authors rank him among the chancellors of France, under the reign or‘ king Robert, but he was only chancellor of the church of Chartres, at the same time that he was rector of the school. He had been himself a disciple of the learned Gerbert, who was afterwards pope Sylvester II. in the year 999. Fulbert came from Rome to France, and taught in the schools belonging to the church of Chartres, which were then not only attended by a great concourse of scholars, but by his means contributed greatly to the revival of learning and religioii in France and Germany; and most of the eminent men of his time thought it an honour to be able to say that they had been his scholars. In 1007 he succeeded to the bishopric of Chartres, and the duke William gave him the office of treasurer of St. Hilary of Poitiers, the profits of which Fulbert employed in rebuilding his cathedral church. He was distinguished in his time for attachment to ecclesiasrtical discipline, and apostolic courage; and such was his character and fame, that he was highly esteemed by the princes and sovereigns of his age, by Robert, king of France, Canute, king of England; Richard II. duke of Normandy; William, duke of Aquitaine; and the greater part of the contemporary noblemen and prelates. He continued bishop of Chartres for twenty-one years and six months, and died, according to the abbé Fleuri, in 1029; but others, with more probability, fix that event on April 10, 1028. His works, which were printed, not very correctly, by Charles de Villiers in 1608, consist of letters, sermons, and some lesser pieces in prose and verse. His sermons, Dupin thinks, contain little worthy of notice; but his letters, which amount to 134-, have ever been considered as curious memorials of the history and sentiments of the times. They prove, however, that although Fulbert might contribute much to the propagation of learning, he had not advanced in liberality of sentiment before his contemporaries. There are also two other letters of our prelate in existence, the one in D’Acheri’s “Spicilegium,” and the other in Martenne’s “Thesaurus Anecdotorum,” both illustrative of his sentiments, and the sentiments of his age.

, an ecclesiastical writer, was borti at Telepta, or Tellepte, about the year 468. He was of an illustrious family, the son of Claudius, and grandson of Gordianus, a senator of Carthage. Claudius dying early, left his son, then very young, to the care of his widow Mariana. He was properly educated in the knowledge of the Latin and Greek languages, and made such progress in his studies, that while yet a boy he could repeat all Homer, and spoke Greek with fluency and purity. As soon as he was capable of an employment he was made procurator or receiver of the revenues of his province. But this situation displeased him, because of the rigour he was forced to use in levying taxes; and therefore, notwithstanding the tears and dissuasions of his mother, he left the world, and took the monastic vows under Faustus, a bishop persecuted by the Arian faction, who had founded a monastery in that neighbourhood. The continued persecutions of the Arians soon separated him and Faustus; and not long after, the incursions of the Moors obliged him to retire into the country of Sicca, where he was whipped and imprisoned. Afterwards he resolved to go into Egypt; but in his voyage was dissuaded by Eulalius bishop of Syracuse, because the monks of the East had separated from the catholic church. He consulted also a bishop of Africa, who had retired into Sicily; and this bishop advised him to return to his own country, after he had made a journey to Rome. King Theodoric was in that city when he arrived there, which was in the year 500. After he had visited the sepulchres of the apostles he returned to his own country, where he built a monastery.

Africa was then under the dominion of Thrasitnond king of the Vandals, an Arian, and a cruel enemy to the catholics. He had forbidden to ordain catholic bishops in. the room of those who died: but the bishops of Africa were determined not to obey an order which threatened the extinction of orthodoxy. Fulgentius, under these circumstances, wished to avoid being a bishop; and when elected for the see of Vinta in the year 507, fled and concealed himself, but being soon discovered, was appointed bishop of Ruspae much against his will. On this elevation he did not change either his habit or manner of living, but uspd. the same austerities and abstinence as before. He still loved the monks, and delighted to retire into a monastery as often as the business of his episcopal function allowed him time. Afterwards he had the same fate with about two hundred and twenty catholic bishops of Africa, whom. Thrasimond banished into the island of Sardinia; and though he was not the oldest among them, yet they paid such respect to his learning, as to employ his pen in all the writings produced in the name of their body. So great was his reputation, that Thrasimond had a curiosity to see and hear him; and having sent for him to Carthage, he proposed to him many difficulties, which Fulgentius solved to his satisfaction: but because he confirmed the catholics, and converted many Arians, their bishop at Carthage prayed the king to send, him back to Sardinia. Thrasimond dying about the year 523, his son Hilderic recalled the catholic bishops, of whom Fulgentius was one. He returned, to the great joy of those who were concerned with him, led a most exemplary life, governed his clergy well, and performed all the offices of a good bishop. He died in the year 533, on the first day of the year, being then sixty- five.

, who is sometimes confounded with the preceding St. Fulgentius, is supposed to have been bishop of Carthage in the sixth century, but some think not before the eighth or ninth. He is the author of three books of mythology, addressed to one Catus, a priest. They were first published in 1498, at Bftilan, in folio, by Jo. Bapt. Pius, who added a commentary.Jerome Commolin reprinted them in 1599, with the works of other mythologists. There is likewise a treatise by him “De Prisco Sermone, ad Chalcidium,” published Hy Hadrian Junius, at Antwerp, 1565, along with Nonius Marcel I us, and afterwards reprinted with the “Auctones Linguae Latinaj,” Paris, 1586, and elsewhere. His works are now rather curious than valuable, as they bear the impress of the dark age in which be lived.

, a celebrated English divine, and master of Pembroke-hal in Cambridge, wns born in London, and educated in St. John’s college, Cambridge, of which he was chosen fellow in 1564. He was a youth of great parts, and of a very high spirit. When a boy at school, he is said to have betrayed great anger and mortification on losing a literary contest for a silver pen, with the celebrated Edmund Campian, and as the latter was educated at Christ’s hospital, this incident seems to prove that t'ulke was of the same school. Before he became fellow of his college, he complied with the wishes of his father, by studying law at Clirtbrd’s-inn, but on his return to the university, his inclinations became averse to that pursuit, and he was unable to conquer them, although his father refused to support him any longer. Young Fulke, however, trusted to his industry and endowments, and soon became a distinguished scholar in mathematics, languages, and divinity. Having taken orders, his early intimacy with some of the puritan divines induced him t< preach in favour of some of their sentiments respecting the ecclesiastical habits and ceremonies. This occurred about 1565, and brought upon him the censure of the chancellor of the university, which, it is said, proceeded to expulsion. On this he took lodgings in the town of Cambridge, and subsisted for some time by reading lectures. His expulsion, however, if it really took place, which seems doubtful, did not lessen his general reputation, as in 1561) there was an intention to choose him master of St. John’s college, had not archbishop Parker interfered but about the same time he found a patron in the earl of Leicester, who was more indulgent to the puritans, and who received Mr. luilke into his house, as his chaplain. It was now also that he fell under the charge of being concerned in some unlawful marriages, and in such circumstances thought it his duty to resign his fellowship, but being honourably acquitted in an examination before the bishop of Ely, he was immediately re-elected by the college.

In 1571 the earl of Essex presented him to the rectory of Warley, in Essex, and soon after to the rectory of Kedington, in, Suffolk, and about this time he took his doctor’s degree at Cambridge, and was incorporated in the same at Oxford. His degree at Cambridge was in consequence of a mandamus from the earl of Essex, that he might be qualified to accompany the earl of Lincoln, who was then going as ambassador to the court of France. Upon his return he was chosen master of Pembroke hall, and as Wood says in his Fasti, Margaret professor of divinity, but Baker, in a ms note on Wood, says he never held the latter office.

His works, chiefly controversial, are, I. “Anti-prognosticon contra predictiones Nostradami,” &c. 1560. 2. “Sermon at Hampton -court,” 1571. 3. “Confutation df a libelle in forme of an apology made by Frocknam,” 1571. 4. “A goodly gallery, or treatise on meteors,” 1571. 5. “Astrologus ludus,” 1571. 6. “Metpomaxia, sive Ludus geometricus,” 1578. 7. “Responsio ad Tho. Stapletoni cavillationes,” 1579. 8. “A retentive against the motives of Richard Bristow; also a discovery of the dangerous rock of the popish church,” 1580. 9. “A defence of the translation of the Holy Scriptures in English,” 1583. 10. “Confutation of Will. Allen’s treatise in defence of the usurped power of the popish priesthood.” feut the work by which he is best known, and is still remembered with high esteem, is his Comment upon the Rheims Testament, printed in 1580, and reprinted in 1601 with this title: “The Text of the New Testament of Jesus Christ, translated out of the vulgar Latin by the Papists of the traiterous Seminarie at Rhemes. With arguments of books, chapters, and annotations, pretending to discover the corruptions of divers translations, and to clear the controversies of these days. Whereunto is added the translation out of the original Greek, commonly used in the Church of England; with a confutation of all such arguments, glosses, and annotations, as containe manifest impietie of Heresie, Treason, and Slander against the Catholike Church of God, and the true teachers thereof, or the translations used in the church of England. The whole worke, perused and enlarged in divers places by the author’s owne hand before his death, with sundry quotations and authorities out of Holy Scriptures, Counsels, Fathers, and History. More amply than in the former Edition.” This work was published again, 1617 and 1633, in folio, as it was before, and proves that in power of argument and criticism, he was one of the ablest divines of his time, and one of the principal opponents of the popish party. One other work has been attributed to him, we know not on what authority, which was published under the name of Mr. Dudley Fenner; entitled “A. brief and plain declaration, containing the desires of all those faithful ministers who seek discipline and reformation of the church of England, which may serve as a just apology against the false accusations and slanders of their adversaries,” 1584. Having never been molested on account of his opinions, unless when at college, there seems no reason why he should now publish them under another name.

, was an English painter of some note in the reign of Charles II. but of his family or masters we have no account, except that he studied many years in France under Perrier, who engraved the antique statues. In his historical compositions he has left little to admire, his colouring being raw and unnatural, and not compensated by disposition or invention, but in portraits his pencil was bold, strong, and masterly. In the latter he was much employed, particularly at Oxford. His own portrait in the gallery there is touched with great force and character. The altar-piece of Magdalen was also by him, but has not been much approved. As an imitation of Michel Angelo, it falls far short of the sublime, although sometimes wild imagination of that great artist; nor is the colouring harmonious. Some of the figures, however, are correctly drawn; and he has at least imitated the temper of Michel Angelo with success, in introducing among the damned, the portrait of an hostler at the Greyhound-inn, near the college, who had offended him. The picture, it is well known, was honoured by Addison in an elegant Latin poem. At Wadham college is an altar-cloth by Fuller in a singular manner, and of merit; which is just brushed over for the lights and shades, and the colours melted in with a hot iron. Soon after the restoration, he was engaged in painting the circumstances of king Charles II.'s escape, which he executed in five large pictures. These were presented to the parliament of Ireland, where they remained for many years in one of the rooms of the parliament house in Dublin. But some time in the last century the house undergoing a thorough repair, these pictures were not replaced, but lay neglected, until they were rescued by the late earl of Clanbrassil, who obtained possession of them, and had them cleaned and removed to his seat at Tullymore park, co. Down, where they were a few years ago. Lord Orford speaks slightingly of these, which he had never seen, and probably with as much justice as of Fuller’s altar-piece at All-souls college, which he never could have seen, for Fuller had no picture there. Fuller died in Bloomsbury-square July 17, 1672, and left a gon, an ingenious but idle man, chiefly employed ia coach -painting, who died young.

, an English historian and divine, was the son of the rev. Thomas Fuller, minister of St. Peter’s, in Aldwincle, in Northamptonshire, and born there in 1608. The chief assistance he had in the rudiments of learning was from his father, under whom he made so extraordinary a progress, that he was sent at twelve years of age to Queen’s-college, in Cambridge; Dr. Davenant, who was his mother’s brother, being then master of it, and soon after bishop of Salisbury. He took his degrees in arts, that of A. B. in 1624-5, and that of A. M. in 1628, and would have been fellow of the college; but there being already a Northamptonshire man a fellow, he was prohibited by the statutes from being chosen, and although he might have obtained a dispensation, he preferred removing to Sidney-college, in the same university. He had not been long there, before he was chosen minister of St. Bennet’s, in the town of Cambridge, and soon became a very popular preacher. In 1631, he obtained a fellowship in Sidney-college, and at the same time a prebend in the church of Salisbury. This year also he issued his first publication, a work of the poetical kind, now but little known, entitled “David’s Hainous Sin, Heartie Repentances, and Heavie Punishment,” in a thin 8vx>.

He was soon after ordained priest, and presented to the rectory of Broad Windsor, in Dorsetshire; in 1635 he came again to Cambridge, and took his degree of B. D. after which, returning to Broad Windsor, he married about 1638, and had one son, but lost his wife about 1641. During his retirement at this rectory, he began to complete several works he had planned at Cambridge; but growing weary of a country parish, and uneasy at the unsettled state of public affairs, he removed to London; and distinguished himself so much in the pulpits there, that he was invited by the master and brotherhood of the Savoy to be their lecturer. In 1640, he published his “History f the Holy War;” it was printed at Cambridge, in folio, and was so favourably received, that a third edition appeared in 1647. On April 13, 1640, a parliament was called, and then also a convocation began at Westminster, in Henry VII.'s chapel, having licence granted to make new canons for the better government of the church; of this convocation he was a member, and has amply detailed its proceedings in his “Church History,” During the commencement of the rebellion, and when the king left London in 1641, to raise an army, Mr. Fuller continued at the Savoy, to the great satisfaction of his people, and the neighbouring nobility and gentry, labouring all the while in private and in public to serve the king. To this end, on. the anniversary of his inauguration, March 27, 1642, he preached at Westminster-abbey, on this text, 2 Sam. xix. 30: “Yea, let him take all, so that my lord the king return in peace;” which being printed, gave great offence to those who were engaged in the opposition, and brought the preacher into no small danger. He soon found that he must expect to be silenced and ejected, as others had been; yet desisted not, till he either was, or thought himself unsettled. This appears from what he says in the preface to his “Holy State,” which was printed in folio that same year at Cambridge. This is a collection of characters, moral essays and lives, ancient, foreign, and domestic. The second edition of 1648, contains “Andronicus, or the unfortunate politician,” originally printed by itself in 1646, 12mo.

In 1643, refusing to take an oath to the parliament, unless with such reserves as they would not admit, he was obliged in April of that year to convey himself to the king at Oxford, who received him gladly. As his majesty had heard of his extraordinary abilities in the pulpit, he was now desirous of knowing them personally; and accordingly Fuller preached before him at St. Mary’s church. His fortune upon this occasion was very singular. He had before preached and published a sermon in London, upon “the new-moulding church-reformation,” which caused him to be censured as too hot a royalist and now, from his sermon at Oxford, he was thought to be too lukewarm which can only be ascribed to his moderation, which he would sincerely have inculcated in each party, as the only means of reconciling both. During his stay here, he resided in Lincoln college, but was not long after sequestered, and lost all his books and manuscripts. This loss, the heaviest he could sustain, was made up to him partly by Henry lord Beauchamp, and partly by Lionel Cranfield, earl of Middlesex, wiio gave him the remains of his father’s library. That, however, he might not lie under the suspicion of want of zeal or courage in the royal cause, be determined to join the army; and therefore, being well recommended to sir Ralph Hopton, in 1643, he was admitted by him in quality of chaplain. For this employ-, ment he was quite at liberty, being deprived of all other preferment. And now, attending the army from place to place, he constantly exercised his duty as chaplain; yet found proper intervals for his beloved studies, which he employed chiefly in making historical collections, and especially in gathering materials for his “Worthies of England,” which he did, not only by an extensive correspondence, but by personal inquiries in every place which the army had occasion to pass through.

After the battle at Cheriton-Down, March 29, 1644, lord Hopton drew on his army to Basing-house, and Fuller, being left there by him, animated the garrison to so vigorous a defence of that place, that sir William Waller was obliged to raise the siege with considerable loss. But the, war hastening to an end, and part of the king’s army being driven into Cornwall, under lord Hopton, Fuller, with the leave of that nobleman, took refuge at Exeter, where he resumed his studies, and preached constantly to the citizens. During his residence here he was appointed chaplain to the infant princess Henrietta Maria, who was born at Exeter in June 1643; and the king soon after gave him a patent for his presentation to the living of Dorchester in Dorsetshire. He continued his attendance on the princess till the surrender of Exeter to the parliament, in April 1646; but did not accept the living, because he determined to remove to London at the expiration of the war. He relates, in his * Worthies,“an extraordinary circumstance which happened during the siege of Exeter” When the city of Exeter, he says, was besieged by the parliament forces, so that only the south side thereof towards the sea was open to it, incredible numbers of larks were found in that open quarter, for multitude like quailg in the wilderness; though, blessed be God, unlike them in the cause and effect; as not desired with man’s destruction, nor sent with God’s anger, as appeared by their safe digestion into wholesome nourishment. Hereof I was an, eye and mouth-witness. I will save my credit in not conjecturing any number; knowing that herein, though I should stoop beneath the truth, I should mount above belief. They were as fat as plentiful; so that being sold for two-pence a dozen and under, the poor who could have no cheaper, and the rich no better meat, used to make pottage of them, boiling them down therein. Several causes were assigned hereof, &c. but the cause of causes was the Divine Providence; thereby providing a feast for many poor people, who otherwise had been pinched for provision.“While here, as every where else, he was much courted on account of his instructive and pleasant conversation, by persons of high rank, some of whom made him very liberal offers; but whether from a love of study, or a spirit of independence, he was always reluctant in accepting any otters that might seem to confine him to any one family, or patron. It was at Exeter, where he is said to have written his” Good Thoughts in Bad Times,“and where the book was published in 1645, as what he calls” the first fruits of Exeter press.“At length the garrison being forced to surrender, he came to London, and met but a coid reception among his former parishioners, and found his lecturer’s place filled by another. However, it was not Ions: before he was chosen lecturer at St. Clement’s near Lombard-street and shortly after removed to St. Bride’s, in Fleet-street. In 1647 he published, in 4to,” A Sermon of Assurance, fourteen years agoe preached at Cambridge, since in other places now, by the importunity of his friends, exposed to public view.“He dedicated it to sir John Danvers, who had been a royalist, was then an Oliverian, and next year one of the king’s judges; and in the dedication he says, that” it had been the pleasure of the present authority to make him mute; forbidding him till further order the exercise of his public preaching.“Notwithstanding his being thus silenced, he was, about 1648, presented to the rectory of Waltham, in Essex, by the earl of Carlisle, whose chaplain he was just before made. He spent that and the following year betwixt London and Waltham, employing some engravers to adorn his copious prospect or view of the Holy Land, as from mount Pisgah; therefore called his” Pi*gah-sijht of Palestine and the confines thereof, with the history of the Old and New Testament acted thereon,“which he published in 1650. It is an handsome folio, embellished with a frontispiece and many other copper- plates, and divided into five books. As for his” Worthies of England,“on which he had been labouring so long, the death of the king for a time disheartened him from the continuance of that work:” For what shall I write,“says he,” of the Worthies of England, when this horrid act will bring such an infamy upon the whole nation as will ever cloud an4 darken all its former, and suppress its future rising glories?“He was, therefore, busy till the year last mentioned, in preparing that book and others; and the next year he rather employed himself in publishing some particular lives of religious reformers, martyrs, confessors, bishops, doctors, and other learned divines, foreign and domestic, than in augmenting his said book of” English Worthies“in general. To this collection, which was executed by several hands, as he tells us in the preface, he gave the title of” Abel Redivivus,“and published it in 4to, 1651. In the two or three following years he printed several sermons and tracts upon religious subjects. About 1654 he married a sister of the viscount Baltinglasse; and the next year she brought him a son, who, as well as the other before-mentioned, survived his father. In 1655, notwithstanding Cromwell’s prohibition of all persons from, preaching, or teaching school, who had been adherents to the late king, he continued preaching, and exerting his charitable disposition towards those ministers who were ejected by the usurping powers, and not only relieved such from what he could spare out of his own slender estate, but procured many contributions for them from his auditories. Nor was his charity confined to the clergy; and among the laity whom he befriended, there is an instance upon record of a captain of the army who was quite destitute, and whom he entirely maintained until he died. In 1656 he published in folio,” The Church History of Britain, from the birth of Jesus Christ to the year 1648;“to which are subjoined,” The History of the University of Cambridge since the conquest,“and” The History of Waltham Abbey in Essex, founded by king Harold.“His Church History was animadverted upon by Dr. Hey 1 in in his” Examen Historicum;" and this drew from our author a reply: after which they had no further controversy, but were very well reconciled *. About this time he was invited, accord ing to his biographer, to another living in Essex, in which he continued his ministerial labours until his settlement at London. George, lord Berkeley, one of his noble patrons, having in 1658 made him his chaplain, he took leave of Essex, and was presented by his lordship to the rectory of Cranford in Middlesex. It is said also that lord Berkeley took him over to the Hague, and introduced him to Charles if. It is certain, however, that a short time hefore the restoration, Fuller was re-admitted to his lecture in the Savoy, and on that event restored to his prebend of Salisbury. He was chosen chaplain extraordinary to the king; created doctor of divinity at Cambridge by a mandamus, dated August 2, 1660; and, had he lived a twelvemonth longer, would probably have been raised to a bishopric. But upon his return from Salisbury in August 1661 he was attacked by a fever, of which he died the 15th of that month. His funeral was attended by at least two hundred of his brethren; and a sermon was preached by Dr. Hardy, dean of Rochester, in which a great and noble character was given of him. H was buried in his church at Cranford, on the north wall of the chancel of which is his monument, with the following inscription:

It was sufficiently known how steady he was in the interests of the church of England, against the innovations of the presbyterians and independents; but his zeal against these was mixed with greater compassion than it was towards the papists: and this raised him up many adversaries, who charged him with puritanism. He used to call the controversies concerning episcopacy, and the newfangled arguments against the church of England, “insects of a day;” and carefully avoided polemical disputes, being altogether of sir Henry Wotton’s opinion, “disputandi pruritus, ecclesise scabies.” The fact was, that he loved pious and good men of all denominations, and it is this candour which has given a value to his works superior to those of his opponents. For the many errors which occur in his histories, it is surely easy to find an apology in this single circumstance, that the whole of them were compiled and published within about twenty years, during which he was obliged to remove from place to place in quest of literary leisure, and freedom from the cruel severities of the times. His “Church History* 1 is the most incorrect of all his works, and Strype has pointed out a great many errors in the transcription of historical documents, to which perhaps Fuller had not the easiest access. His” Worthies" was a posthumous publication, by his Son, and although less perfect than he could have made it, had his life been spared a few years longer, with the opportunities which the return of peace might have afforded, yet it contains many interesting memorials; and he was the second (see Samuel Clarke) who published what may be called English biography. This work has for many years been rising in price and- estimation, and the public has lately been gratified by a new edition, in 2 vols. 4to, edited by Mr. Nichols, with many improvements and additions, from the communications of his literary friends.

, so called from the trade of a fuller, which he exercised in his monastic state, intruded himself into the see of Antioch, in the fifth century, and after having been several times deposed and condemned on account of the bitterness of his opposition to the council of Chalcedon, was at last fixed in it, in the year 482, by the authority of the emperor Zeno, and the favour of Acacius, bishop of Constantinople, Among the innovations which he introduced to excite discord in the church, was an alteration in the famous hymn which the Greeks called Tris-agion. After the words “O God most holy, &c.” he ordered the following phrase to be added in the eastern churches, “who has suffered for us upon the cross.” His design in this was to raise a new sect, and also to fix more deeply in the minds of the people, the doctrine of one nature in Christ, to which he was zealously attached. His adversaries, and especially Fcelix, the Roman pontiff, interpreted this addition in a quite different manner, and charged him with maintaining, that all the three persons of the Godhead were crucified and hence his followers were called Theopaschites. To put an end to the controversy, the emperor Zeno published in the year 482 the “Henoticon,” or decree of onion, which was designed to reconcile the parties, and Fullo signed it; but the effects of the contest disturbed the church for a long time after his death, which happened in the year 486.

, an English antiquary, was the son of a tradesman at Penshurst, in Kent, where he was born in Nov. 1632, and his early capacity being known to the celebrated Dr. Hammond, who was minister of that place, he took him with him to Oxford during the usurpation. There he procured him the place of chorister in Magdalen college, and at the same time had him educated at the school belonging to that college. In 1647 he became a candidate for a scholarship in Corpus Christi college, and succeeded by his skill in classical learning. The next year he was ejected by the parliamentary visitors, along with his early patron, Dr. Hammond, to whom, however, he faithfully adhered, and was serviceable to him as an amanuensis. Dr. Hammond afterwards procured him a tutor’s place in a family, where he remained until the restoration, and then resuming his scholarship at college, was created M. A. and obtained a fellowship. He was, several years after, presented by his college to the rectory of Meysey Hampton, near Fairford, in Gloucestershire, on which he resided during his life, employing his time that was not occupied in professional duties, in the study pf history and antiquities, particularly what regarded his own country. He died June 28, 1688, according to Wood, but Atkins mentions his successor, Dr. Beale, with (he date 1697. Wood informs us that Mr. Fulmau made large collections of history, but published little. We have, however, of his, 1. “Academiae Oxoniensis Notitia,” Oxford, 1665, 4to, reprinted at London in 1675, with additions and corrections from Wood’s Latin history, the sheets of which he communicated to Mr. Fulman as they came from the press. 2. “Appendix to the Life of Edmund Stunton, D. D. wherein some passages are further cleared, which were not fully held forth by the former authors,” Lond. 1673. This is a censure of some particulars in Mayow’s Life of Dr. Stanton. 3. “Corrections and Observations on the first part of Burnet’s History of the Reformation,” not a distinct publication, but communicated by the author to Burnet, who published them at the end of his second volume, and, according to Wood, not completely. Fulman also collected what are called the “Works of Charles I.” but happening to be taken ill about the intended time of publication (1662), the bookseller employed Dr. Periuchief as editor. It contains, however, Fulman’s notes. Many of his ms collections are in the library of Corpus Christi college. He will occur to be noticed hereafter as editor of Dr. Hammond’s works.

, an ingenious and learned lawyer, was born at Paris in 1620; and, after a liberal education, became eminent in the civil and canon law. He was first an advocate in the parliament; and afterwards, taking orders, was presented to the abbey of Chalivoy, and the priory of Chuines. Many works of literature recommended him to the public; but he is chiefly known and valued for his “Universal Dictionary of the French Tongue,” in which he explains the terms of art in all sciences. He died in 1688. He was of the French academy, but, though a very useful member, was excluded in 1685, on the accusation of having composed his dictionary, by taking advantage of that of the academy, which was then going on. He justified himself by statements, in which he was very severe against the academy; but wished, a little before his death, to be re-admitted; and he offered to give any satisfaction, which could reasonably be expected from a man, who owned he had been carried too far by the heat of disputation. His dictionary was not printed till after his death, in 2 vols. fol. Basnage de Beauval published an edition at Amsterdam, 1725, 4 vols., fol. This dictionary was the foundation of that known by the name of Trevoux, the last edition of which is, Paris, 1771, 8 vols. fol. His other works are: “Facta,” and. other pieces, against his brother academicians. “Relation des Troubles arrives au Ro‘iaume d’Eloquence;” a tolerably good critical allegory. “Le Roman Bourgeois,” 12mo or 8vo; a book esteemed in its time. Five “Satires” in verse, 12mo, which are not valued. “Paraboles Evangeliques,” inverse, 1672, 12mo. There is also a “Furetieriana,” in which there are some amusing anecdotes.

, an Italian cardinal and antiquary, the descendant of a noble family of Bergamo, was born there in 1685, He studied at Milan and Pavja, and made considerable progress in the knowledge of the civil and canon law. He went afterwards to Rome, where he held several ecclesiastical preferments, and in each was admired as much for his integrity as knowledge. Benedict XIV. who well knew his merit, was yet averse to raising him to the purple, on account of some disputes between them which took place in 1750. Yet it is said that Furietti might have received this high honour at that time, if he would have parted with his two superb centaurs, of Egyptian marble, which he found in 1736 among the ruins of the ancient town of Adrian in Tivoli, and which the pope very much wanted to place in the museum Capitolinum. Furietti, however, did not ehuse to give them up, and assigned as a reason: “I can, if I please, be honoured with the purple, but I know the court of Rome, and I do not wish to be called cardinal Centaur /” In 1759, however, Clement XIII. a year after his accession to the papal dignity, sent the cardinal’s hat to him, which he did not long enjoy, dying in 1764.

, surnamed Cceriolanus, was a native of Valentia in Spain, and flourished in the sixteenth century. He studied at Paris under Talaeus, Tiirnebus, and Ramus, and afterwards came to lx>uvain, where he published a treatise “On Rhetoric,” and another in which he asserted that the scriptures ought to be translated into the vulgar tongue. It was entitled “Bononia,” sive de libris sacris in vernaculam linguam convertendis, &c.“Basil, 1556, 8vo. It was written, however, upon too liberal principles for the council of Trent, and was accordingly inserted in their” Index Expurgatorius.“It otherwise would have brought him into trouble if he had not found a protector in the emperor Charles V. who was informed of his learning, piety, and candour. This monarch sent him. into the Netherlands, and placed him with his son Philip, who made him his historian. Furius remained with this prince during his life, and having accompanied him to the states of Arragon, died at Valladolid in 1592. He appears to have employed his utmost endeavours in order to pacify the troubles in the Netherlands. He wrote another work” Del Conseio y Gonseiero," which was much esteemed, and twice translated into Latin, 1618 and 1663, 8vo.

, a learned dissenting clergyman, was born at Totness in Devonshire in Dec. 1726, and was educated in the free-school of that town at the same time with Dr. Kennicott, who was a few years his senior, and between them a friendship commenced which continued through life. From Totness Dr. Furneaux came to London for academical studies among the dissenters, which he completed in 1749. He was soon after ordained, and chosen assistant to the rev. Henry Read, at the meetinghouse in St. Thomas’s, Southwark, and joint Sunday evening lecturer at Salters’-hall meeting. In 1753 he succeeded the rev, Moses Lowman, as pastor of the congregation at Clapham, which he raised to one of the most opulent and considerable among the protestant dissenters. He remained their favourite preacher, and highly esteemed by all classes, for upwards of twenty-three years, bat was deprived of his usefulness in 1777, by the loss of his mental powers, under which deplorable malady (which was hereditary) he continued to the day of his death, Nov. 23, 1783. His flock and friends raised a liberal subscription to support him during his illness, to which, from sentiments of personal respect, as well as from the principle of benevolence, the late lord Mansfield, chief justice of the king’s bench, generously contributed. Dr. Furneaux (which title he had received from some northern university) united to strong judgment a very tenacious iriemory; of which he gave a remarkable proof, when the cause of the dissenters against the corporation of London, on the exemption they claimed from serving the office of sheriff, was heard in the' house of lords. He was then present, and carried away, and committed to paper, by the strength of his memory, without notes, the very able speech of lord Mansfield, with so much accuracy, that his lordship, when the copy was submitted to his examination, could discover but two or three trivial errors in it. This circumstance introduced him to the acquaintance of that great man, who conceived a high regard for him. Dr. Furneaux published but little, except a few- occasional sermons the most considerable of his works was that entitled “Letters to the hon. Mr. Justice Blackstone, concerning his exposition of the act of toleration, and some positions relative to religious liberty, in his Commentaries on the Laws of England,” 1770, 8vo. This is said to have induced the learned commentator to alter some positions in the subsequent edition of his valu^­able work. To the second edition of Dr. Furneaux’s “Letters” was added the before-mentioned speech of lord Mansfield. In 1773 he published also “An Essay on Toleration,” with a view to an application made by dissenting ministers to parliament for relief in the matter of subscription, which, although unsuccessful then, was afterwards granted.

, an eminent prelate, the descendant of a noble family in Westphalia, was born at Bilstein in 1626. He studied at Cologne, where he contracted an intimate friendship with Chigi, who was then nuncio, and afterwards pope. During the cardinalate of Chigi, he invited f urstemberg to reside with him, whom he raised to the bishopric of Paderborn in 1661, when he himself was seated in the papal chair, under the title of Alexander VII. The high reputation of the bishop attracted the notice of Vat) Galer:, who appointed him his, coadjutor, and whom he succeeded in 1678, when he. was declared by the pope apostolical vicar of all the north of Kurope. He was. a zealous catholic, and anxious for the conversion of those who were not already within the pale of the church; but at the same time he did not neglect the cultivation of the belles lettres, eitper by his own efforts or those of many learned men whom he patronized. He died in 1683, As an author he collected a number of Mss. and monuments of antiquity, and gave to the world valuable work relative to those subjects, entitled “Momimenta Paderbornensia.” He al*o printed at Rome a. collection of Latin poems, entitled “Septem Virorutn. illusirium Poemata.” In this work there were many poems of his own, written witU much purity. A magnificent edition of these poems was published in the same year in which he died, at the Louvre, at the expence of the king of France.

, an eminent physician, was born at Herforden, in Westphalia, in the month of May, 1688. He began the study of medicine at the age of eighteen, and attended with diligence the schools of Wittemberg, Jena, and Halle, and became a licentiate in medicine in the last-mentioned university. About 1709 he returned to Herforden, and immediately obtained a considerable share of practice; but having conceived the design of visiting the Low Countries, he commenced his journey in 1711, in order to hear those great masters of his art, who at that time flourished so numerously in the cities of Amsterdam, Leyden, Utrecht, the Hague, Delft, and Doit. Having profited much by their instructions, whether in the chair, in hospitals, or in private communication, he returned to his native place at the end of a year, and recommenced the practice of his profession with the same ardour as when he quitted Halle, but with more knowledge and greater resources. Nevertheless he again interrupted his practice by another journey in 1716. He tnarried in 1717, with the intention of settling at Herforden; but became a professor in 1720, at Rintlen, where he died April 7, 1756. He left several works: the first of these was frequently re-printed, and bears the title of “Desiderata Medica.” It includes also “Desiderata Anatomico-Physiologica Desiderata circa morbos et eorum sig na Quae desiderantur in Praxi Medica Desiderata Chirurgica.” 2. “De Fatis Medicorum, Oratio Inauguralis,” 1720. 3. “De morbis Jurisconsultorum Epistola,” 1721. 4. “De Dysenteria alba in puerpera Dissertatio,” 1723. 5. “Programmata nonnulla, tempore Magistrates Academici impressa,” 1724 and 1725.

, a goldsmith of Mentz, was one of the three artists considered as the inventors of printing, the two others being Guttemberg and Scheeffer. It is not, however, certain, that he did more than supply money to Guttemberg, who had made attempts with moveable metal types at Strasburg, before he removed to Mentz, in 1444. But it has been strongly argued, that Laurence Koster, at Harlaem, had first conceived the art of cutting wooden blocks for this purpose in 1430, which he immediately improved, by substituting separate wooden types. Schaetfer undoubtedly invented the method of casting the metal types, in 1452. The first printed book with a date, is said to have been a Psalter, published at Mentz in 1457; the next, perhaps, is “Durandi Rationale divinorum Officiorum,” by Fust and Schaeffer in 1459. The “Catholicon” followed in 1460. There are, however, some books without dates, which are supposed to be still older. Fust was at Paris in 1466, and it is imagined that he died there of the plague, which then raged in that capital.

, a native of Paris, where he was. born in 1672, devoted himself early to poetry, and wrote for the French and Italian theatres, the royal musical academy, and the comic opera. He obtained the privilege of conducting the “Mercury,” jointly with M. de Bruere, ul 174-4, and died at Paris, September 19, 1752, leaving a considerable number of theatrical pieces, which have not been collected. His comedy of one act, entitled “Mom us Fabuliste,” and his operas of “Les Ages,” “Les Amours dcs Dieux,” << J^es Indes Galantes,“and” Le Carnavai du Parnasse," are particularly admired. He wrote much' for the Italian theatre and comic opera; but La Harpe, who has lately dictated in French criticism, speaks with, great contempt of his talents.

, one of those scholars who promoted the revival of literature, was a native of Verona, and a professor of Greek at Rome in the sixteenth century, but we have no dated particulars of his life. It is said he was eminent for his knowledge of the learned languages, and of philosophy and mathematics, and had even studied theology. He translated from Greek into Latin, the Commentaries of Theodoret bishop of Cyarus, on Daniel and Ezekiel, which translation was printed at Rome, 1563, fol. and was afterwards adopted by father Sirmond in his edition of Theodoret. He translated also the history of Scylitzes Curopalates, printed in 1570, along with the original, which is thought to be more complete than the Paris edition of 1648. About 1543 he published the first Latin translation of Sophocles, with scholia. Maflfei says that he also translated Zozimus, and the Hebrew Psalms, and translated into Greek the Gregorian Kalendar, with Santi’s tables, and an introductory epistle in Greek by himself. This was published at Home in 1583.

, an eminent royal architect of France, built the palace at Choisy, and undertook the royal bridge at Paris, but died in 1686, before he had completed this work, which was finished by his son James and Frere Romain. James was born at Paris 1667, became a pupil of the celebrated Mansart, and acquired so great a reputation as to be appointed overseer- general of buildings, gardens, arts and manufactures first architect and engineer of bridges and banks through the kingdom, and knight of St. Michael. He planned the common sewer, and many public buildings, among which are the hotel de Ville, and the presidial court of Paris, &c. He died in that city 1742, leaving a son, first architect to the king, who long supported the reputation of his ancestors, and died in 1782.

, a learned Maronite, who died in 1648, was professor of oriental languages at Rome, from whence he was invited to Paris, to assist in M. le Jay’s Polyglott, and carried with him some Syriac and Arabic bibles, which he had transcribed with his own hand from ms copies at Rome; these bibles were first printed in Jay’s Polyglott, with vowel points, and a Latin version and afterwards in the English Polyglott. Gabriel Sionita translated also the Arabian Geography, entitled “Geographia Nubiensis,” 1619, 4to, and some other works. He had some disagreement with M. le Jay, who sent to Rome for Abraham Ecchellensis to supply his place.

, of the order of the clerks minor, was born at Rome in 1726, and boasted of being the descendant of Nicolas Gabrini, better known by the name Rienzi. Having been appointed Greek professor at Pesaro, he acquired great reputation for his critical knowledge of that language. He afterwards was invited to be philosophy professor at Rome, and had a cure of souls which he held for twenty-seven years, with the character of an excellent pastor. After other preferments in the ecclesiastical order to which he belonged, he was at last made general, and while in this station was frequently consulted by congregations, bishops, and popes, who had a very high esteem for his judgment. He died very advanced, on Nov. 16, 1807. Besides some tracts published in. defence of his ancestor Rienzi, he published “A Dissertation on the 20th proposition of the first book of Euclid,” Pesaro, 1752, 8vo, which went through several editions, and many dissertations, memoirs, and letters in the literary journals, on the origin of mountains, petrifactions, and other objects of natural history; medals, obelisks, inscriptions, and classical and ecclesiastical antiquities. He left also some valuable manuscripts on similar subjects.

, one of the astrological impostors of the seventeenth century, was born at Wheatly near Oxford, Dec. 31, 1627. His father, William, was a farmer of that place, and his mother was a daughter of sir John Curzon of Waterperry, knt. Our conjuror was first put apprentice to Thomas Nicols, a taylor, in Oxford, but leaving his master in 1644, he went up to London, and became a pupil of the noted William Lilly, under whom be profited so far as to be soon enabled “to set up the trade of almanack-making and fortune-telling for himself.” His pen was employed for many years on nativities, almanacks, and prodigies. There is, we believe, a complete collection of his printed works in the new catalogue of the British Museum, and vre hope we shall be excused for not transcribing the list. Dodd, who has given an account of him, as a Roman catholic, says that some of his almanacks, reflecting upon the management of state affairs during the time of Oates’s plot, brought him into trouble. While other astrologers were content to exercise their art for the benefit of their own country only, Gadbury extended his to a remote part of the globe, as, in 1674, he published his “West India, or Jamaica Almanack” for that year. He collected and published the works of his friend sir George Wharton in 1683, 8vo. His -old master Lilly, who quarrelled with him, and against whom he wrote a book called “Anti-Merlinus Anglicus,” says he was a “monster of ingratitude,” and “a graceless fellow;” which is true, if, according to his account, he had two wives living at one time, and one of them two husbands. Lilly adds, that be went to sea with intention for Barbadoes, but died by the way in his voyage. When this happened we are not told. Lilly died in 16S1, and according to Wood, Gadbury was living in 1690. “The Black Life of John Gadbury” was written and published by Partridge in 1693, which might be about the time of his death, but his name, as was usual, appeared long after this in an almanack, similar to that published in his life-time. There was another astrologer, a Job Gadbury, who was taught his art by John, and probably succeeded him in the almanack, and who died in 1715.

, an English physician, who lived in the early part of the fourteenth century, of very extensive and lucrative practice, was the first Englishman who was employed as a physician at court, being appointed to that office by Edward II.: before his time the king’s physicians had been exclusively foreigners. The ignorance, superstition, and low quackery, which appear throughout his practice; are painted with much life and humour by Dr. Freind. He came forward as an universal genius, was a philosopher, philologist, and poet, and undertook every thing that lay within the circle of physic and surgery, was skilled in manual operations, very expert in bone-setting, and a great oculist. He also acquaints us with his great skill in physiognomy; and designed to write a treatise of chiromancy. He was a great dealer in secrets, and some he had which were the most secret of secrets, and did miracles. But his chief strength lay in receipts, and without giving himself much trouble in forming a judgment respecting the nature of the case, he seemed to think that, if he could muster up a good number of these, he should be able to encounter any distemper. He seems to have neglected no stratagems, by which he might surprise and impose on the credulity of mankind, and to have been very artful in laying baits for the delicate, the ladies, and the rich. When he was employed in attending the king’s son, in the small-pox, in order to shew his skill in inflammatory distempers, he, with a proper formality, and a countenance of much importance, ordered the patient to be wrapped up in scarlet, and every thing about the bed to be of the same colour. This, he says, made him re-, cover without so much as leaving one mark in his face; and he commends it for an excellent mode of curing. Nevertheless this man was praised by Leland, Ovaringius, and others, as a profound philosopher, a skilful physician, and the brightest man of his age.

His only work, which he produced while resident at Merton college, Oxford, is the famous “Rosa Anglica,” which comprises the whole practice of physic; collected indeed chiefly from the Arabians, and the moderns who had written in Latin just before him, but enlarged and interspersed with additions from his own experience. Its title is “Rosa Anglica quatuor Libris distincta, de morbis particularibus: de Febribus, de Chirurgia, de Pharmacopeia.”. Dr. Freind observes, that John seems to have made a collection of all the receipts he had ever met with or heard of and that this book affords us a complete history of what medicines were in use, not only among the physicians of that time, hut among the common people in all parts of England, both in the empirical and superstitious way. Dr. Aikin remarks that the method of producing fresh from salt water by simple distillation (“in an alembic with a gentle heat”) is familiarly mentioned by this author, even at so remote a period.

, an eminent botanist, was born at Calw, in the duchy of Wirtemberg, March 12, 1732. His father, physician to the duke of Wirtemberg, and his mother, both died in his early youth. He was at first destined by his surviving relations for the church, and when he disliked that, the law. was recommended; but at length, from an early bias towards the study of natural history, he resorted to physic, as most congenial to his disposition, and removed to the university of Gottingen, in the 19th year of his age. Here the lectures of Halier and others instructed him in anatomy, physiology, and botany, but he studied these rather for his own information and amusement, than as a means of advancement in the practice of physic. After this he undertook a tour through Italy, France, and England, in the pursuit of knowledge in botany. On his return he took the degree of M. D. and published an inaugural dissertation on the urinary secretion, after which he devoted two years to the study of mathematics, optics, and mechanics, constructing with his own hands a telescope, as well as a common and solar microscope. In the summer of 1759 he attended a course of botanical lectures at Leyden, under the celebrated Adrian Van Royen. He had for some time acquired the use of the pencil, in which he eminently excelled, and which subsequently proved of the greatest use to him in enabling him to draw the beautiful and accurate figures of the books he published. Having bestowed great attention upon the obscurer tribes of marine animals and plants, particularly with a view to the mode of propagation of the latter, as well as of, other cryptogamic vegetables, he revisited England, and spent some time here, as well in scrutinizing the productions of our extensive and varied coasts, as in conversing with those able naturalists Ellis, Collinson, Baker, and others, who were assiduously engaged in similar pursuits. He communicated a paper to the royal society on the polype called Urtica marina, and the Actinia of Linnseus, comprehending descriptions and figures of several species, which is printed in the 52d volume of the Philosophical Transactions; and he prepared several essays on the anatomy of fishes, and other obscure matters of animal and vegetable physiology, part of which only has hitherto been made public. Soon afterwards Dr. Gsertner became a member of the royal society of London, and of the imperial academy of sciences at Petersburg. In 1768, he was instituted professor of botany and natural history at Petersburg, and about a year afterwards he began to plan and prepare materials for the great work on which his eminent reputation rests, the object of which was the illustration of fruits and seeds for the purposes above-mentioned. His situation at Petersburg, however, seems not to have suited either his health or disposition. After having performed a journey into the Ukraine, in which he collected many new or obscure plants, he resigned his professorship at the end of two years, steadily refusing the pension ordinarily attached to it, and retired in the autumn of 17 70 -to his native town, where he married. At the end of eight years he found it necessary, for the perfection of his intended work, to re-visit some of the seats of science in which he had formerly studied, in order to re-examine several botanical collections, and to converse again with persons devoted to similar inquiries with his own. Above all, he was anxious to profit by the discoveries of the distinguished voyagers Banks and Solander, who received him with open arms on his arrival at London, in 1778, and, with the liberality which ever distinguished their characters, freely laid before him all their acquisitions, and assisted him with their own observations and discoveries. A new genus was dedicated to Gaertner by his illustrious friends in their manuscripts; but this being his own sphenoclea, has been superseded by another and a finer plant. He visited Thunberg in his return through Amsterdam, that distinguished botanist and traveller being then lately arrived from Japan; nor were the acquisitions of Gartner less considerable from this quarter. He further enriched himself from the treasures at Leyden, laid open to him by his old friend Van lloyen; and arrived at home laden with spoils destined to enrich his intended publication. Here, however, his labours and his darling pursuits were interrupted by a severe disorder in his eyes, which for many months threatened total blindness; nor was it till after an intermission of four or five years that he was able to resume his studies.

In the definition and anatomical elucidation of the parts of the seed, Gaertner is truly excellent; and, notwithstanding some slight defects, his work marks an sera in botanical science, not only directing, but even forcing the attention of botanists to parts which the Lin niean school had too much neglected, but which cnn never in future be overlooked. The second volume of this immortal work Appeared in- 1791, illustrating 500 more genera, on the same plan with the former, in 101 plates, in which the compound flowers are treated with peculiar care and success. The preface of this volume is dated April 6, 1791, but little more than three months before the death of the author, which happened on the 14th of July, 1791, in the sixtieth year of his age. He is said, though struggling for some time preceding with debility and disease, to have finished a description and drawing of the Halleria lucida but the evening before his departure. He left one son, to whom he gave an excellent education, and who has proved worthy of his distinguished father, in publishing his inedited works, and continuing with success the same inquiries.

This disposition, added to his uncommon talents, did not escape the notice of cardinal Richelieu, who appointed him his library-keeper, and sent him into Italy to collect the best books printed or ms. that could be found. This employment extremely well suited Gaffarell’s taste, both as it gave him an opportunity of furnishing his own library with some curious pieces in oriental and other languages, and of making inquiries into that branch of literature which was his chief delight. With this view, while he was at Home, he went with some others to visit Campanella, the famous pretender to magic; his design in this visit was to procure satisfaction about a passage in that author’s took, “De sensu rerum et magiu.” Campanella was then in the inquisition, where he had been cruelly used, in order to force him to confess the crimes laid to his charge. At their entrance into his chamber he begged they would have a little patience, till he had finished a small note which he was writing to cardinal Magaloti. As soon as they were seated, they observed him to make certain wry faces, which being supposed to proceed from pain, he was asked if he felt no pain; to which, smiling, he answered, No! and guessing the cause of the question, he said he was fancying himself to be cardinal Magaloti, as he had heard him described. This was the very thing Gaffarell wanted; and convinced him, that in order to discover another person’s thoughts, it was not sufficient, as he had before understood Campanella, barely to fancy yourself to be like the person, but you must actually assume his very physiognomy. This anecdote will afford the reader a sufficient idea of the value of the discoveries of Campanella and GafTarell.

In 1629, he published “Rabbi Flea, de fine mundi, Latine versus, cum notis,” Paris, 8vo, i. e. “A Latin version of Rabbi Elea’s treatise concerning the end of the world, with notes;” and the same year came out his “Curiositez Inouez, c. Unheard-of Cariosities concerning the talismanic sculpture of the Persians -, the horoscope of the Patriarchs, and the reading of the stars.” This curious piece went through three editions in the space of six months. In it the author undertakes to shew that talismans, or constellated figures, had the virtue to make a man rich and fortunate, to free a house and even a whole country from certain insects and venomous creatures; and from all the injuries of the air. He started many other bold assertions concerning the force of magic; and having also made some reflections upon his own country, and mentioned the decalogue according to the order of the Old Testament, and the protestant doctrine, he was censured by the Sorbonne, and therefore retracted these and Some other things advanced as errors submitting his faith; in all points to the doctrine of the catholic and apostolic church. In 1633 he was at Venice, where, among other things, he took an exact measure of the vessels brought from Cyprus and Constantinople, that were deposited in the treasury of St. Mark, at the request of the learned Peiresc, with whom he had been long acquainted, and who had a great esteem for him. During his abode in this city, he was invited to live with M. de la Thuillerie, the French ambassador, as a companion. He accepted the invitation, but was not content with the fruitless office of merely diverting the ambassador’s leisure hours by his learned conrersation. He aimed to make himself of more importance, and to do this friend some real service. He resolved therefore to acquaint himself with politics, and in that view wrote to his friend Gabriel Naude“, to send him a list of the authors upon political subjects; and this request it was, that gave birth to Naude’s t( Bibliographia Politica.” Gaffarell at this time was doctor of divinity and canon law, prothonotary of the apostolic see, and commendatory prior of St. Giles’s. After his return home, he was employed by his patron cardinal Richelieu, in his project for bringing back all the protestants to the Roman church, which he calls are-union of religions; and to that end was authorized to preach in Dauphin6 against the doctrine of purgatory. To the same purpose he also published a piece upon the pacification of Christians.

, an English clergyman and traveller, was descended from Robert Gage of Haling, in Surrey, third son of sir John Gage, of Firle, in Sussex, who died in 1557. He was the son of John Gage, of Haling, and his brother was sir Henry Gage, governor of Oxford, who was killed in battle at Culham-bridge,' Jan. 11, 1644. Of his early history we are only told that he studied in Spain, and became a Dominican monk. From thence he departed with a design to go to the Philippine islands, as a missionary, in 1625; but on his arrival at Mexico, he heard so bad an account of those islands, and became so delighted with New Spain, that he abandoned his original design, and contented him with a less dangerous mission. At length, being tired of this mode of life, and his request to return to England and preach the gospel among his countrymen being refused, he effected his escape, and arrived in London in 1637, after an absence of twentyfour years, in which he had quite lost the use of his native language. On examining into his domestic affairs, he found himself unnoticed in his father’s will, forgotten by some of his relations, and with difficulty acknowledged by others. After a little time, not being satisfied with respect to some religious doubts which had entered his mind while abroad, and disgusted with the great power of the papists, he resolved to take another journey to Italy, to “try what better satisfaction he could find for his conscience at Rome in that religion.” At Loretto his conversion from popery was fixed by proving the fallacy of the miracles attributed to the picture of our Lady there; on which he immediately returned home once more, and preached his recantation sermon at St. Paul’s, by order of the bishop of London. He continued above a year in. London, and when he saw that papists were entertained at Oxford and other parts of the kingdom attached to the royal cause, he adopted that of the parliament, and received a living from them, probably that of Deal, in Kent, in the register of which church is an entry of the burials of Mary daughter, and Mary the wife of “Thomas Gage, parson of Deale, March 21, 1652;” and in the title of his work he is styled “Preacher of the word of God at Deal.” We have not been able to discover when he died. His work is entitled “A new Survey of the West-Indies; or the English American his Travail by sea and land, containing a journal of 3300 miles within the main land of America. Wherein is set forth his voyage from Spain to St. John de Ulhua; and from thence to Xalappa, to Flaxcalla, the city of Angels, and forward to Mexico, &c. &c. &c.” The second edition, Lond. 1655, thin folio, with maps. The first edition, which we have not seen, bears date 1648. Mr. Southey, who has quoted much from this work in the notes on his poem of “Madoc,” says that Gage’s account of Mexico is copied verbatim from Nicholas’s “Conqueast of West-India,” which itself is a translation from Gomara. There is an Amsterdam edition of Gage, 1695, 2 vols. 12mo, in French, made by command of the French minister Colbert, by mons. de Beaulieu Hues O'Neil, which, however, was first published in 1676, at Paris. There are some retrenchments in this edition. Gage appears to be a faithful and accurate relator, but often credulous and superstitious. His recantation sermon was published at London, 1642, 4to; and in 165L he published “A duel between a Jesuite and a Dominican, begun at Paris, fought at Madrid, and ended at London,” 4to.

Wood says, “he was an excellent poet, especially in the Latin tongue, and reputed the best comedian (i.e. dramatic writer) of his time.” He had a controversy with Dr. John Rainolds, on the lawfulness of stage-plays, which appears to have been carried on in manuscript letters, until Raiuolds published his “Overthrow of Stage-plays,” containing his answer to Gager and a rejoinder. He had a more singular controversy with Mr. Heale, of Exeter-college, in consequence of his (Gager’s) asserting at the Oxford Act in 1608, “That it was lawful for husbands to beat their wives.” This Mr. Heale answered in “An Apology for Women,*' &c. Oxon. 1609, 4to. In the” Exequiae D. Philippi Sidnxi,“Gager has a copy of verses in honour of that celebrated character, who, when living, had a great respect for his learning and virtues. His Latin plays are, 1.” Meleager,“a tragedy. 2.” Rivales,“a comedy; and 3.” Ulysses redux," a tragedy. These were all acted, and we are told, with great applause, in Christ church hall. The first only was printed in 1592, 4to, and occasioned the controversy between the author and Dr. Rainolds. Gager’s letter in defence of this and his other plays, is in the library of University-college.

, an eminent orientalist, was a native of Paris, where he was educated; and, applying himself to study the eastern languages, became a great master in the Hebrew and Arabic. He was trained up in the Roman Catholic religion, and taking orders, was made a canon regular of the abbey of St. Genevieve, but becoming dissatisfied with his religion, and marrying after he had left his convent, he was upon that account obliged to quit his native country, came to England, and embraced the faith and doctrine of that church in the beginning of the eighteenth century. He was well received here, and met with many friends, who gave him handsome encouragement, particularly archbishop Sharp, and the lord chancellor' Macclesfield, to which last he dedicated his edition of Abulfeda. He had a master of arts degree conferred upon him at Cambridge; and going thence to Oxford, for the sake of prosecuting his studies in the Bodleian library, he was admitted to the same degree in that university, where he supported himself by teaching Hebrew. He had previously been made chaplain to Dr. William Lloyd, bishop of Worcester, whom he accompanied to Oxford.

In 1717 he was appointed to read the Arabic lecture at' Oxford, in the absence of the professor Wallis. In 1718 appeared his “Vindiciae Kircherianae, seu defensio concordantiarum Graecarum Conradi Kircheri, adversus Abr. Trommii animadversiones;” and in 1723, he published Abulfeda’s “Life of Mohammed,” in Arabic, with a Latin translation and notes, at Oxford, in folio. He also prepared for the press the same Arabic author’s Geography, and printed proposals for a subscription, but the attempt proved abortive, for want of encouragement. Eighteen sheets were printed, and the remainder, which was imperfect, was purchased of his widow by Dr. Hunt. It is said that he wrote a life of Mahommed, in French, published at Amsterdam, in 1730, in vols. 12mo. But this wa.s probably a translation of the former life, Gagnier had before this inserted Graves’s Latin translation of AbulfedaY description of Arabia, together with the original, in the third volume of Hudson’s “Geographiae veteris scriptores Grseci minores,” in 1712, 8vo, and had translated from the Arabic, Rhases on the Small-pox, at the request of Dr. Mead. He died March 2, 1740. By his wife he left a son, Thomas, or as in the Oxford graduates, John Gagnier, who was educated at Wadham-college, Oxford, and commenced M. A. July 2, 1743. Entering into holy orders, he was preferred by bishop Clavering to the rectory of Marsh-Gibbon, in Buckinghamshire, and afterwards obtained that of Stranton, near Hartlepool, in the. bishopric of Durham, where he was living in 1766, but the historian of Durham having concluded his list of vicars with Mr. Gagnier at the year of his induction, in 1745, we are not able to ascertain the time of his death. Preceding accounts of his father mention his being chosen Arabic professor in room of Dr. Wallis, which never was the case. Dr. Hunt was successor to Wallis.

, a very extraordinary character, of great talents, and great vices, was a Roman catholic, of a good Family in Ireland. He was a very considerable Latin scholar, and editor of Brindley’s beautiful edition of the Classics. He translated Pope’s “Essay on Criticism” into Latin verse, and after his confinement in Newgate, to which he was sent for filing gold, he translated into the same language the “Temple. of Fame,” and the “Messiah,” which he dedicated to the duke of Newcastle, in hopes of a pardon; he also wrote verses in English on prince George (our present sovereign), and on Mr. Adams, the recorder, which were published in the ordinary’s account; with a poetical address to the duchess of Queensbury, by one Conner, who was then in prison for the same Crime. Gahagan was executed at Tyburn, Feb. 1749.

, a French divine of the sixteenth century, was educated at Paris, where in 1526 he had taken the degree of bachelor, and held the appointment of attorney for the French nation in the university. He was afterwards lecturer in theology at the college of Navarre, and rector of the university. In 1531 he took his degree of D. D. and was chancellor of the university from 1546 till his death, in 1549. Gaigny was deeply read in the ancient languages, and highly esteemed as a Latin poet, and his sovereign Francis I. frequently consulted him on subjects of literature, and made him his first almoner. He was author of many works on subjects of theology, the most important of which are “Commentaries” upon the different books of the New Testament, hi which he explains the literal sense by a kind of paraphrase. Dupin says, “his notes will be found of admirable use to those who desire to read the text of the New Testament, and to comprehend the sense of it without stopping at any difficult places, and without having recourse to larger commentaries. His Scholia on the four evangelists, and on the Acts of the Apostles, are inserted in the” Biblia Magrra" of father John de la Haye.

, bishop of Apt from 1673 to 1695, in which year he died, is chiefly memorable for having first projected a great and universal “Historical Dictionary,” in the execution of which work he employed and patronized Moreri, who was his almoner. Towards the perfecting of this undertaking, he had researches made in all the principal libraries of Europe, but particularly in the Vatican. Moreri, in dedicating his firsi edition to his patron, pays him the highest encomiums, which he is said to have -very thoroughly deserved, by his love for the arts, and still more by his virtues.

, an elegant French historian, member of the old French academy, of that of inscriptions and belles-lettres, and of the third class of the institute, was born at Ostel, near Soissons, March 20, 1728. On his education or early pursuits, the only work in which we find any notice of him is totally silent, and we are obliged for the present to content ourselves with a list of his works, all of which, however, have been eminently successful in France, and procured to the author an extensive reputation and many literary honours, he wrote, 1. “Rhetorique Franchise, a l'usage des jeunes demoiselles,” Paris, 1746, 12mo, which has gone through six editions. 2. “Poetique Françoise,” ibid. 1749, 2 vols. 3. “Parallele des quatre Electre, de Sophocle, d'Euripide, de Crebillon, et de Voltaire,” ibid. 1750, vo. 4. * Melanges litteraires en prose et en vers,“ibid. 1757, 12mo. 5.” Histoire de Marie de Bourgogne,“ibid. 1757, 12mo. 6.” Histoire de Francois I.“1769, 7 vols. 12mo; of this there have been several editions, and it is not without reason thought to be Gaillard’s principal work; but Voltaire is of opinion that he softens certain obnoxious parts of Francis’s conduct rather too much, but in general his sentiments are highly liberal, and more free from the prejudices of his country and his religion than could have been expected. Indeed, it may be questioned whether he was much attached to the latter. 7.” Histoire des rivalités de la France et de l'Angleterre,“1771—1802, 11 vols. 12mo, a work in which the author, not altogether unsuccessfully, struggles to be impartial. 8.” Histoire de Charlemagne,“4 vols. 12mo. Gibbon, our historian, who availed himself much of this history, says that” it is laboured with industry and elegance.“9.” Observations sur l'Histoire de France de Messieurs Velly, Villaret, et Gamier,“1807, 4 vols. 12mo, a posthumous work. Besides these he was the author of various eloges, discourses, poems, odes, epistles, &c. which were honoured with academical prizes; and several learned papers in the memoirs of the academy of inscriptions. He wrote also in the” Journal des Savans“from 1752 to 1792, and in the” Mercure“from 1780 to 1789, and in the new Encyclopedic he wrote three fourths of the historical articles. His last performance, which bore no mark of age, or decay of faculties, was an” Eloge historique" on M. de Malesherbes, with whom he had been so long intimate, that perhaps no man. was more fit to appreciate his character. This writer, the last of the old school of French literati, died at St. Firmin, near Chantilly, in 1806.

, an admirable English artist, was born in 1727, at Sudbury, in Suffolk, where his father was a clothier. He very early discovered a propensity to painting. Nature was his teacher, and the woods of Suffolk his academy, where he would pass in solitude his mornings, in making a sketch of an antiquated tree, a marshy brook, a few cattle, a shepherd and his flock, or any other accidental objects that were presented. From delineation he got to colouring; and after painting several landscapes from the age of ten to twelve, he quitted Sudbury, and came to London. Here he received his first instructions from Gravelot, and was then placed under the tuition of Mr. Hayman, with whom he staid but a short time. After quitting this master, he for a short time resided in Hatton-garden, and practised painting of portraits of a small size, and also pursued his favourite subject, landscape. During this residence in London, he married a young lady, who possessed an annuity of 200l.; and then retired to Ipswich, and from thence to Bath, where he settled about 1758. He now began painting portraits at the low price of five guineas, for a threequarter canvas, and was soon so successful as to be encouraged to raise his price to eight guineas. In 1761, for the first time, he sent some of his works to the exhibition in London. In 1774, he quitted Bath, and settled in London in a part of the duke of Schomberg’s house in Pail-Mall. In this situation, possessed of ample fame, and in the acquisition of a plentiful fortune, he was disturbed by a complaint in his neck, which was not much noticed upon the first attack, nor was it apprehended to be more than a swelling in the glands of the throat, which it was expected would subside in a short time, but it was soon discovered to be a cancer, which baffled the skill of the first medical professors. Finding the danger of his situation, he settled his affairs, and composed himself to meet the fatal moment, and expired Aug. 2, 1788. He was buried, according to his own request, in Kew Churchyard.

Nothing could have enabled Gainsborough to reach so elevated a point in the art of painting without the most ardent love for it. Indeed his whole mind appears to have been devoted to it, even to his dying day; and then his principal regret seemed to be, that he was leaving his art, when, as he said, “he saw his deficiencies, and had endeavoured to remedy them in his last works.” Various circumstances in his life exhibited him as referring every thing to it. “He was continually remarking to those who happened to be about him, whatever peculiarity of countenance, whatever accidental combination of figures, or happy effects of light and shadow occurred in prospects, in the sky, in walking the streets, or in company. If in his walks he found a character that he liked, and whose attendance was to be obtained,- he ordered him to his blouse and from the fields he brought into his paintingroom stumps of trees, weeds, and animals of various kinds; and designed them not from memory, but immediately from the objects. He even framed a kind of model of landscapes on his table composed of broken stones, dried herbs, and pieces of looking-glass; which he magnified, and improved into rocks, trees, and water: all which exhibit the solicitude and extreme activity that he had about every thing relative to his art; that he wished to have his objects embodied as it were, and distinctly before him, neglecting nothing that contributed to keep his faculties alive; and deriving hints from every sort of combination.” He was also in the constant habit of painting by night, a practicevery advantageous and improving to an artist, for, by this means he may acquire a new and a higher perception of what is great and beautiful in nature. His practice in the progress of his pictures was to paint on the whole together; wherein he differed from some, who finish each part separately, and by that means are frequently liable to produce inharmonious combinations of forms and features.

Gainsborough was one of the few artists of eminence this country has produced who never was indebted to foreign travel for his improvement and advancement in painting. Some use, indeed, he appears to have made of foreign productions; and he did not neglect to improve himself in the language of the art, the art of imitation, but aided his progress by closely observing and imitating some of the masters of the Flemish school; who are undoubtedly the greatest in that particular and necessary branch of it. He frequently made copies of Hubens, Teniers, and Vandyke, which it would be no disgrace to the most accurate connoisseurs to mistake for original pictures at first sight. What he thus learned, he did not, however, servilely use, but applied it to imitate nature in a manner entirely his own.

The subjects he chose for representation were generally rery simple, to which his own excellent taste knew how to give expression and value. In his landscapes a rising mound and a few figures seated upon, or near it; with a cow or some sheep grazing, and a slight marking of disstance, sufficed for the objects; their charm was the purity of tone in the colour; the freedom and clearness of thfc touch; together with an agreeable combination of the forms; and with these simple materials, which appear so easy as to be within every one’s grasp, but which constantly elude the designer who is not gifted with his feeling and taste, does he always produce a pleasing picture. In his fancy pictures the same taste prevailed. A collage girl; a shepherd’s boy; a woodman; with very slight materials in the back-ground, were treated by him with so much character, yet so much elegance, that they never fail to delight.

This eminent artist had a nephew, Gainsborough Du­Pont, a modest and ingenious man, who painted portraits with considerable success, but died at the early age of thirty, in January 1797. His principal work is a large picture (for which he received 500l.) of all the Trinity masters, which is in the court- room of the Trinity-house upon Tower-hill.

, or Galateus Liciensis, an eminent Italian writer, whose proper name was Ferrari, isgenerally known by that of Galateo, from his native place, Galatina, in Otranto, where he was born in 1444. His father dying in his infancy, he was taken in to the protection of his grandfather, who had him educuted at Nardo. He afterwards studied medicine, which, after taking his degrees at Ferrara, he practised at Naples with great reputation, and was appointed physician to the king, in consequence of the recommendation of Sannazarius and Pontanus. The air of Naples, however, not agreeing with him, he removed to Gailipoli, near Galatina, where he resumed his practice. He died Nov. 12, 1517. He was not only eminent as a physician, but his natural and moral philosophy is said to have risen beyond the level of the age in which he lived. He is also said to have indicated the possibility of the navigation to the East by the Cape of Good Hope, in his treatise “De situ Elementorum,” published in 1501, but written some years prior to that period. He also illustrated the topography of his native country with accurate maps and descriptions; and was reputed a poet of considerable merit. His works are, besides what we have mentioned, 1. “De situ lapygiae,” Basil, 1558, but the best edition is that of 1727, with the notes of Tasneri, and some lesser pieces by Galateo. 2. “A Description of Gailipoli.” 3. “Successi dell‘ armata Turchescanella citta d’Otranto dell' anno 1480,” 4to, 1480. He had accompanied the son of the king of Naples on this expedition. He published also some poems in Latin and Italian.

, a learned divine among the nonconformists, was born in 1628, at King’s-Teignton in Devonshire, where his father, Dr. Theophilus Gale, was then vicar, with which he likewise held a prebend in the church of Exeter. Being descended of a very good family in the West of England, his education was begun under a private preceptor, in his father’s house, and he was then sent to a school in the neighbourhood, where he made a great proficiency in classical learning, and was removed to Oxford in 1647. He was entered a commoner in Magdalen college, a little after that city, with the university, had been surrendered to the parliament; and their visitors in the general reformation (as they called it) of the university, had put Dr. Wilkinson into the presidentship of Magdalen college, who took particular notice of young Gale, and procured him to be appointed a demy of his college in 1648. But the current of kindness to him was far from stopping here; he was recommended to the degree of bachelor of arts Dec. 1649, by the commissioners, long before the time appointed for taking that degree by the statutes of the university, viz. four years after admission. Of this departure from the usual term of granting a degree they were so sensible, that care was taken by them to have a particular reason set forth, for conferring it so early upon him; expressing, that he was fully ripe for that honour, both in respect of his age. and the excellence of his abilities. It was probably owing to the countenance of the same patrons that he was chosen fellow of his college in 1650, in preference to many of his seniors, who were set aside to make room for him. It is acknowledged, however, that he deserved those distinctions. He took the degree of M. A. June 18, 1652, and being encouraged to take pupils, soon became an eminent tutor, and had, among other pupils, Ezekiel Hopkins, afterwards bishop of Raphoe, in Ireland.

In 1665 he returned to England with his pupils, and attending them home to their father’s seat at Quainton, in 7>uckinghamshire, continued in the family till 1666 when, bring released from this employ, he set out thence for London, and was struck on the road with the dreadful sight of the city in flames. The first shock being over, he recollected his own papers, his greatest treasure, which, when he left England, he had committed to the care of a particular friend in London. He soon learnt that the house of this friend was burnt, and gave up his papers as lost, and with them all hopes of completing his great work. They had, however, by a fortunate accident, been preserved, and the “Court of the Gentiles” was destined to receive its completion. At this period he became assistant to Mr. John Rowe, his countryman, who had then a private congregation in Holborn; and continued in that station till the death of his principal, Oct. 12, 1677, when. Mr. Gale was chosen to succeed him, together with Mr. Samuel Lee, his assistant.

In the mean time the publication of his “Court of the Gentiles” had- proceeded gradually, in consequence of the great care he took to complete and digest his collections, and to make the work in all respects a masterly production. The first part was published at Oxford in 1669, and, being received with great applause, was followed by the other three, the last of which came out in 1677, the year when he succeeded Mr. Rowe. But this work, large 'and laborious as it was, did not prove sufficient to employ his spare hours: he wrote also, within the same period, several other works; namely, 2. “The true Idea of Jansenism,” 1669, 4to; with a large preface by Dr. John Owen. 3. “Theophilus, or a Discourse of the Saints’ amity with God in Christ,” 1671, 8vo. 4. “The Anatomy of Infidelity, &c.”' 1672, 8vo. 5. “A Discourse of Christ’s coming, &c.” 1673, 8vo. 6. “Idea Theologiae tarn contemplative quam activoe, ad formam S. S. delineata,” 1673, 12mo. 7. “A Sermon, entitled, Wherein the Love of the World is inconsistent with the Love of God,” 1674; printed also in the supplement to the morning exercise at Cripplegate. 8. “Philosophia generalis in duas partes disterminata, &c.” 1676, 8vo. 9., “A Summary of the two Covenants,” prefixed to a piece published by him, entitled “A Discourse of the two Covenants,” written by William Strong, sometime preacher at the Abbey church at Westminster. “The Life and death of Thomas Tregosse, minister of the gospel at Milar and Mabe in Cbrnwal, with his Character,” was also written by him, and published in 1671, though he seems to have concealed the circumstance as much as possible. Such were the fruits of our author’s studies; for the sake of prosecuting which, with the privacy requisite, he chose Newington for his retreat; where he instructed a few young persons under his own roof. But he was frequently visited hy persons of distinction, and some of a different opinion from him in religious matters, out of a desire to testify their esteem for unaffected piety and extensive learning. In 1678 he published proposals for printing by subscription, “Lexicon Grreci Testamenti Etymologicon, Synonymum, sive Glossarium Homonymum.” This, as the title imports, was intended by him for a lexicon and concordance together: he finished it as far as the letter Iota, and the most considerable words were also placed under other letters. But he was prevented from carrying it further by his death; which happened in March that year, when he was not quite fifty. As to his character, besides what has been already mentioned, he was a most zealous non-conformist, stedfast in those opinions, and warm in the defence of them. His zeal this way extended itself beyond the grave; he wished, he resolved, to perpetuate them as far as he was able. In that spirit he bequeathed all his estate to young students of his own principles, and appointed trustees to manage it for their support. He bequeathed also his well-chosen library toward promoting useful learning in New England, where those principles universally prevailed. But, notwithstanding this warm concern for supporting and propagating his own communion, he was not without charity for those who differed from him, whom he would labour to convince, but not to compel; being as much an enemy to sedition as he was to persecution. Hence we find even Wood giving him all his just commendations without those abatements and restrictions which are usual in his characters. It was allowed also, that, in hit “Court of the Gentiles,” and other works, he shewed extensive learning, and considerable abilities.

, celebrated for his knowledge of the Greek language and antiquities, and descended from a family considerable in the North and East Riding of Yorkshire , was born in 1636, at Scruton in Yorkshire. He was sent to Westminster-school, and, being admitted king’s-scholar there, was elected to Trinity college, Cambridge, and became fellow of that society He took his degree of B. A. in 1656; of M. A. in 1662. In the prosecution of his studies, he applied himself to classical and polite literature, and his extraordinary proficiency procured him early a seat in the temple of fame. His knowledge of the Greek tongue recommended him, in 1666, to the office of regius professor of that language in the university, which he resigned in 1672; and his majesty’s Choice was approved by the accurate edition which he gave of the ancient mythologic writers, as well physical as moral, in Greek and Latin, published at Cambridge iri 1671, 8vo. This brought his merit into public view; and the following year he was appointed head master of St. Paul’s school in London; soon after which, by his majesty’s direction, he drew up those inscriptions which are to be seen upon the Monument, in memory of the dreadful conflagration in 1666, and was honoured with a present of plate made to him by the city. His excellent conduct and commendable industry in the school abundantly appear, from the great number of persons, eminently learned, who were educated by him: and, notwithstanding the fatigue of that laborious office, he found time to publish new and accurate editions of several ancient Greek authors.

He accumulated the degrees of B. and D. D. in 1675; and June 7, 1676, was collated to the prebend Consumpt. per mare in the cathedral of St. Paul. He was also elected in 1677 into the royal society, of which he became a very constant and useful member, was frequently of the council, and presented them with many curiosities, particularly a Roman urn with the ashes, found near Peckham in Surrey (part of these burnt bones he gave to Mr. Thoresby); and in 1685, the society having resolved to have honorary secretaries, who would act without any view of reward, Dr. Gale was chosen with sir John Hoskyns into that office, when they appointed the celebrated Halley for their clerkassistant, or under-secretary, who had been a distinguished scholar of our author’s at St. Paul’s school. Dr. Gale continued at the head of this school with the greatest reputation for 25 years, till 1697, when he was promoted to the deanry of York; and being admitted into that dignity Sept. 16, that year, he removed thither. This preferment was no more than a just reward of his merit, but he did not live to enjoy it many years. On his admission, finding the dean’s right to be a canon-residentiary called in question, he was at the expence of procuring letters patent in 1699, to annex it to the deanry, which put the matter out of all dispute. On his removal from London,' he presented to the new library, then lately finished at hi9 college in Cambridge, a curious collection of Arabic manuscripts. During the remainder of his life, which was. spent at York, he preserved an hospitality suitable to his station and his good government of that church is mentioned with honour. Nor has that care which he took, to repair and adorn that stately edifice, passed without a just tribute of praise.

Dr. Gale married Barbara daughter of Thomas Pepys, esq. of Impington, in the county of Cambridge, who died 1689, and by whom he had three sons and a daughter. To his eldest son he left his noble library of choice and valuable books, besides a curious collection of many esteemed manuscripts, a catalogue of which is printed in the “Catalogus MSStorum Anglia; & Hiberniae,” Hi. p. 185.

1. “Antonini Iter Britanniarum Commentariis illnstratutn Thomae Gale, S, T. P. nuper Decani Ebor. Opus posthumum revisit, auxit, edidit R. G. Accessit Anonymi Ravennatis Britannia; Chorographia, cum amographo Regis Galliae Mss. & cociice Vaticano collata adjiciuntur conjecturse plurimae, cum nominibus locorum Anglicis, quotquot iis assignari potuerint,” Lond. 1709, 4to. In the preface to this book, Mr. Gale very properly points out what parts of it were his father’s and what his own. Mr. Gough had, among the books which he bequeathed to the Bodleian library, three copies of this edition, enriched with many valuable ms notes by Mr. Roger Gale, Nicholas Man, esq. and Dr. Abraham Francke, fellow of Trintycollege, Cambridge, and rector of West Dene in Wiltshire, 1728; and a fourth with ms various readings from the two Mss. whence H. Stephens first printed this Itinerary . 2. “The Knowledge of Medals, or Instructions for those who apply themselves to the study of Medals both ancient and modern, by F. Jobert,” translated from the French, of which two editions were published without his name; one of them in 1697, the other in 1715, 8vo. 3. “Registrum Honoris de Richmond,” Lond. 1722, folio. His discourse on the four Roman Ways in Britain, is printed in the sixth volume of Leland’s Itinerary. His “Remarks on a Roman Inscription found at Lanchester,” in the Philosophical Transactions, vol. XXX. p. 823 and in vol. XLIII. p. 265, extracts of two of his letters to Mr. Peter Collinson, F. R. S. concerning “the vegetation of melon seeds 33 years old,” and of “a fossil skeleton of a man found at Lathkill-dale near Bakewell, in the county of Derby,” dated in 1743 and 174-1-f. “Explanation of a Roman altar found at Castle Steeds in Cumberland,” in Gent. Mag. vol. XII. p. 135. In Horsley’s “Britannia Romana,” p. 332, &c. is published, “An Account of a Roman Inscription found at Chichester. By Roger Gale, esq.” “Observations on an Inscription at Spello, by Fred. Passarini and Roger Gale, esq.” are printed in the Archaeologia, vol. II. p. 25. He presented to Mr. Drake’s History of York a plate of a beautiful little bronze female bust, which he supposed to be a Lucretia, found at York, and in his possession, engraved by Vertue. To him also Mr. Drake acknowledges himself obliged for a discovery that fixes the building of the Chapter-house at York to archbishop Grey. He died at Scruton, June 25, 1744, in his 72d year, universally esteemed, and much lamented by all his acquaintance; and left all his Mss. by will to Trinity-college, Cambridge, of which he was once fellow, and his cabinet of Roman coins to the public library there, with a complete catalogue of them drawn up by himself, of which Mr. Nichols printed twenty copies in 1780, for the use of particular friends. His correspondence included all the eminent antiquaries, of his time; and the late Mr. George Allan of Darlington possessed, by the gift of his grandson, a large collection of letters to and from him, the principal of which are printed in the “Reliquiae Galeanae,” as a valuable addition to antiquarian literature. The originals are still in the possession of Henry Gale, esq. The “Bibliotheca Topographica Britannica,” No. II. contains many other fragments and notices of the labours of Mr. Gale.

, brother of the preceding, and youngest son of the dean, was born in the parish of St Faith, near St. Paul’s, London, Dec. 17, 16$2, was educated under his father at St. Paul’s school, and intended for the university, but his elder brother Roger being sent to Cambridge, and his father dying 1702, he was provided for in the custom-house, London, and at the time of his death was one of the land surveyors there. He was one of the revivers of the society of antiquaries in 1717, and their first treasurer. On resigning that office Feb. 21, 1740, the society testified their opinion of his merit and services, by presenting him with a handsome silver cup, value ten guineas, with a suitable inscription. He was a man of great learning and uncommon abilities, and well versed in the antiquities of England, for which he left many valuable collections behind him; but printed nothing in his life-time, except “A History of Winchester Cathedral,” London, 1715, begun by Henry earl of Clarendon, and continued to that year, with cuts. A few of his communications have been since printed in the “Archoeologia,” and spme in the “Bibl. Top. Britannica.” He died of a fever Jan. 10, 1754, at his lodgings at Hampstead. His library and prints were sold by auction in the same year, by Langford, but his Mss. became the property of Dr. Stukeley, who married his sister, and some of them, afterwards descended to Dr. Ducarel, at whose sale they were purchased by Mr. Gough. A list of them, which may be seen in our authority, sufficiently attests his industry and knowledge as an antiquary.

He was now only twenty-eight years of age, and had made some considerable advances toward improving his art. He had acquired a particular skill in the wounds of the nerves, and was possessed of a method of treating them never known before; for Galen, as well as all other ancient physicians, united surgery to medicine. The pontiff of Pergamus gave him an opportunity of, trying his new method upon the gladiators, and he was so successful that not a single man perished by any wounds of this kind. He had been four years at Pergamus, exercising his faculty with unrivalled fame, when, being made uneasy by some seditious disturbances, he quitted his country and went to Rome, resolving to settle in that capital. But his views were disappointed. The physicians there, sensible of the danger of such a competitor, found means by degrees so completely to undermine him, that he was obliged, after a few years, to leave the city. He had, however, in that time made several acquaintances, both of considerable rank, and the first character for learning. Among others, he had a particular connection with Eudemus, a peripatetic philosopher of great repute. This person he cured of a fever, which from a quartan, bad degenerated into a triple quartan, by the ill-judged application which the patient had made of the theriacum; and what is somewhat remarkable, Galen cured the malady with the same medicine that had caused it; and even predicted when the fits would first cease to return, and in what time the patient would entirely recover. Indeed, so great was his skill and sagacity in these fevers, that if we may believe his own words, he was able to predict from (he first visit, or from the first attack, what species of a fever would appear, a tertian, quartan, or quotidian. He was also greatly esteemed by Sergius Paulus, praetor of Reme; as also by Barbarus, uncle to the emperor Lucius; by Severus, then consul, and afterwards emperor; and last^ by Boethus, a person of consular dignity, in whose presence he had an opportunity of making dissections, and of shewing, particularly, the organs of respiration and the voice, His reputation, likewise, was much increased by the success which he had in recovering the wife of Boethus, who on that occasion presented him with four hundred pieces of gold. But that on which he valued himself most, was the case of a lady, who was said to lie in a very dangerous condition; whose disorder he discovered to be love, the object of which was a rope-dancer thus rivalling th discovery of the luve of Antiochus for Stratonice, which had given so much celebrity to Krasistratus.