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

, 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.

, younger brother of the rev. Charles Fotherby, dean of Canterbury, was born at Great Grimsby, in Lincolnshise, in 1659, and was the son of Martin Fotherby, esq. of that place. He was educated at Trinity college, Cambridge, of which he became a fellow, and proceeded to the degree of D. D. He was collated by archbishop Whitgift in 1592 to the vicarage of Chiflet, on the resignation of his brother Charles, and in 1594 to the rectory of St. Mary-le-Bow, London. In 1596 he was presented by queea Elizabeth to the eleventh prebend of the church of Canterbury, and also to the rectory of Chartham, belonging to her by lapse. In 1601 he was collated by archbishop Whitgift to the rectory of Adistwm. He became afterwards chaplain to James I. by whom he was made one of the first fellows of Chelsea college in 1610, and was preferred by him to the bishopric of Sarum in March 1618. He died in March 1619, and was buried in the church of Allhallows, Lombard-street, London, where there was a monument erected to his memory, but which was destroyed by the great fire in 1666. The inscription, however, -which represents him as a man of remarkable merit, is preserved in “Antiqnitates Sarisburienses,” printed at Salisbury in 1771. Dr. Martin Fotherby published in 1608, “Four Sermons, -whereunto is added, an answere unto certaine objections of one unresolved, as concerning the use of the Crosse in Baptism.” He was also the author of “Atheomastix,” which was sent to the press before his death, but not published till 1622.

, D. D. and principal of St. Edmund Hall in Oxford, was the eldest of seven sons of Henry and Elizabeth Fothergill. He was born on the last day of 1705, N. S. at Lockholme in Ravenstonedale, in the county of Westmorland, where the family had long been situated and possessed of a competent estate, which had descended from father to son for many generations. He received the first part of his education in the place of his nativity, at a free grammar school, founded and endowed by a person of the same name and family. He was afterwards removed to Kendal-school, and from thence, at sixteen years of age, to Queen’s college in Oxford; where he became fellow, and an eminent tutor. On Oct. 17, 1751, he was elected principal of St. Edmund hall, an.d presented to the vicarage of Bramley in Hampshire. After having been long afflicted with an asthma, he died Oct. 5, 1760, and was buried in the chapel of Edmund hall, at the north end of the communion-table; where his modesty forbade any monument to be erected to his memory. He was author of two volumes of sermons, in octavo. The first consists of occasional discourses published by himself; the second was printed from his Mss. and published by his brother: both were reprinted in 1765.

, 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.

Dr. Fothergill’s writings, with the exception of his inaugural thesis “De Emeticorum Usu,” and his “Account of the putrid sore-throat,” consist principally of papers printed in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, and in the “Medical Observations and Inquiries,” a work of which six volumes were published, and which is known and highly esteemed wherever medical science is successfully cultivated. Besides the numerous essays in this excellent collection to vThich the name of Dr. Fothergiil is prefixed, we learn that he was the author of the three anonymous papers in the fourth volume, which constitute the 8th, 10th, and 17th articles. He also published, as already remarked, several little essays, on the weather And reigning diseases, on the Simarouba, and other subjects, in the Gentleman’s Magazine, anil other periodical publications, which, however, were written in haste, and not publicly avowed. These works have been collected and reprinted by Dr. Elliott, 1781, 8vo, and by Dr. Letttorn, 1784, 4to.

, born at Paris Jan. 8, 1643, was a man of some political rank, advocate-general to the grand council, a celebrated intendant, and chief of the council to ber royal highness madame, duchess of Orleans, and in the literary world was an eminent antiquary, and an honorary member of the academy of belles-lettres; He was successively intendant of Montauban, of Pau, and of Caen, and within six miles of the latter place, discovered in 1704 the ancient town of the Vinducassians. An exact account of this discovery is inserted in the first volume of the history of the academy of inscriptions, with an enumeration of the coins, marbles, and other antiquities there found. His museum, formed from this and other sources, was of the most magnificent kind. Some time before this, he had made a literary discovery also, having found, in the abbey of Moissac in Querci, a ms. of “Lactantius de mortibus Persecutorum,” then only known by a citation of St. Jerom from it. From this ms. Baluce published the work. He died Feb. 7, 1721. He was of gentle manners, though austere virtue; and pleasing, though deeply learned.

, 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.

, count of Belle-Isle, more known by the name of marechal Bellisle, grandson of the preceding, was born in 1684. Politics and history attracted his attention from his very infancy, to which studies he afterwards added that of mathematics. He had hardly finished his education when Louis XIV. gave him a regiment of dragoons. He signalized himself at the siege of Lisle, received other steps of promotion, and at the peace returned to court, where the king entirely forgot the faults of the grandfather in the merits of his descendant. When war again broke out, after the death of Louis XIV. he proceeded to distinguish himself, but a change of ministry put a check to his career. He shared the disgrace of the minister Le Blanc, was for a time im-prisoned in the Bastile, and then banished to his own estate. In this retreat he composed a complete justification of himself, was recalled to court, and from that time experienced only favour, fortune, and promotion. In the war of 1733, he obtained a principal command in Flanders, distinguished himself before Philipsburg, and commanded during the rest of the campaign in Germany. In 1735 he was decorated with the order of the Holy Ghost, and was the confidential adviser of the minister, cardinal Fleury. About this time, taking advantage of an interval of peace, he wrote memoirs of all the countries in which he had served: but on the death of the emperor Charles VI. in 1740, he urged the cardinal to declare war. Ambition prompted this advice, and his ambition was not long without gratification. In 1741, he was created marechal of France. The witlings attacked him on his elevation, but he despised their efforts: “These rhymers,” said he, “would gain their ends, should I do them the honour to be angry.” At the election of the emperor in 1742, marechal Bellisle was plenipotentiary of France at the diet of Francfort, where his magnificence was no less extraordinary than the extent of his influence in the diet. He appeared rather as a principal elector than an ambassador, and secured the election of Charles VII. Soon after, by the desertion of the Prussians and Saxons, the marechal found himself shut up in Prague, and with great difficulty effected a retreat. He was obliged to march his army over the ice, and three thousand troops left in Prague were compelled to surrender, though with honour. On his return to Francfort, Charles VII. presented him with the order of the golden fleece, having already declared him a prince of the empire. In December 1743, as he was going again into Germany, he was taken prisoner at Elbingerode, a small town encircled by the territory of Hanover, and was carried into England, where he remained till August 1744. He then served against the Austrians in Provence; and, returning to Versailles to plan the campaign of 1748, was created a peer of France. He had enjoyed the title of duke of Gisors, from 1742. Afterthe peace in 1743, his influence at court continued to increase, and in 1757 he became prime minister; but in this situation he lived only four years; falling a victim, it is said, to his application to business, his sorrow for the misfortunes of France, and his anxious cares to extricate her from them. This patriotic character coincides with other anecdotes related of him. Having lost his brother, whom he tenderly loved, at a very critical period of public affairs, he suppressed his private grief as soon as possible, saying, “I have no brother; but I have a country, let me exert myself to save her.” He died in January, 1761, at the age of 77.

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.

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

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

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.

, a German divine and historian, was born at Liege, of an ancient and distinguished family, in 1609; and in 1625 he entered the order of the Jesuits. His tutors, observing that his qualifications were peculiarly adapted to the duties of a preacher, took care to instruct him in the requisites for undertaking the office, and be became celebrated for his public services for more than thirty years, as well as for his extensive knowledge, which embraced every branch of science. He was successively appointed rector of the colleges at Huy and Tournay, and died of a pestilential disorder in the latter city, in 1668. He is known as an author by many theological pieces, particularly “Commentarii Historici et Morales ad libros I. et II. Machabxorum, ndditis liberioribus Excursibus,” in 2 vols. folio; and by his “Historia Leodiensis, per Episcoporum et Principum Seriem digesta ab origine populiusque ad Ferdinandi Bavari tenipora,” &c. in 3 vols. fol. This work, though not very ably executed, is said to throw much light on the history of the Low Countries.

, a Dutch Latin poet, styled by himself, in allusion to his real name, Gulieluius Gnaphaus, was born in 14-S3, at the Hague, and became master of a school in that place. He wrote several comedies in Latin, which sometimes have been sought by foreign collectors, rather as rare than for their intrinsic merit; yet the “AcoJastus” is common and cheap in this country. We know of three of these comedies: 1. “Martyrium Johannis Pistorii,” Leyden. 2. “Hvpocrisis,” a tragi-comedy, 1554-. 3. “Acolastus, de filio prodigo,” a comedy all in 8vo. He died at Horden in FriezeJand, where he had arrived to the rank of a burgomaster, in 1558. Many critics would say that nothing very lively could be expected in the comedies of a Dutch burgomaster. His “Acolastus” was reprinted at Paris, in 1554, with elaborate notes by Gabriel Prateolus; and is said, in the title, to be formed so diligently of sentences from Plautus and Terence, that to interpret it might serve as an extensive comment on both those authors.

, 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.

Fourcroy’s works rank among the most considerable which France has produced in chemistry, and must be allowed in a great measure to confirm the high encomiums which his countrymen have bestowed on him, not only as a profound, but a pleasing and elegant writer. He published, 1. “The translation of Ramazzini,” before-mentioned. 2. “Lemons elementaires d'histoire naturelle et de chimie,” 1782, 2 vols. 8vo, of which there have been many editions, the last in 1794, 5 vols. 8vo. 3. “Memoires et observations pour servir de suite aux elemens de chimie,” 1784, 8vo. 4. “Principes de chimie a l‘usage de l’ecole veterinaire,” 2 vols. 12mo. 5. “L‘art de connoitre et d’employer les medicamens dans les maladies qui attaquent le corps humain,” 1785, 2 vols. 8vo. 6. “Entomologia Parisiensis” by Geoffrey, an improved edition, 1785, 2 vols. 12mo. 7. “Methode de nomenclature chimique proposer par Morveau, &c.” with a new system of chemical characters, 1787, 8vo. 8. “Essai sur le phlogistique, et sur la constitution des acides,” from the English of Kirwan, with notes by Morveau, Lavoisier, Bertholet, and Fourcroy, 1788, 8vo. 9. “Analyse chimique de l‘eau sulphureuse d’Enghein, pour servir a l'histoire des eaux sulphureuse en general,” by Fourcroy & La Porte, 1788, 8vo. 10. “Annales de Chimie,” by Fourcroy and all the French chemists, published periodically from 1789 to 1794, 18 vols. 8vo. 11. “La eclairée par les sciences physiques,” 1791, 1792, 12 vols. 12. “Philosophic chimique,” 1792. Fourcroy wrote also in the “Magasin encyclopeclique,” and the “Journal de l'ecole polytechnique,” and drew up several reports for the national convention, which were published in the Moniteur, &c. His last publications were, 13.“Tableaux pour servir de resume aux Ie9ons de chimie faites a l'ecole de medicine de Paris pendant 1799 et 1800. 14.” Systeme des connoissances chimiques, et de leurs applications aux phenomenes de la nature et de Part," 1800, 10 vols. 8vo, and 5 vols. 4to. To these extensive labours may be added the chemical articles in the Encyclopaedia. Fourcroy left a very valuable library, which was sold by auction at Paris, in 1810, and of which Messrs. Tilliard, the booksellers, published a well-arranged catalogue. Several of his works have been translated into English.

, marechal de camp, grand cross of the order of St. Louis, director of the royal corps of engineers, member of the council at war and of the naval council, and free associate of the academy of sciences, was born at Paris Jan. 19, 1715. He was the son of Charles de Fourcroy, an eminent counsellor at law, and Elizabeth L'Heritier. Destined to the bar as an hereditary profession, his inclination impelled him into the paths of science, and accident led him into the corps of engineers. An officer of that corps was involved in an important law-suit, which he chose M. de Fourcroy to conduct. M. de Fourcroy directed his son to converse with the officer for the purpose of procuring every information necessary to the success of his cause; but the youth, whose thirst of science was already conspicuous, shewed less attention to the particulars of the lawsuit, than desire to be acquainted with what concerned the service of an engineer; and being informed of the preliminary studies requisite to an admission into that body, he was soon enabled to offer himself for examination.

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

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.

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

, 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 French engraver and letter-founder, was born at Paris in 1712, and excelled in his profession. His letters not only embellished the typographical art, but his genins illustrated and enlarged it He published in 1737 a table of proportions to be observed between letters, in order to determine their height and relations to each other. This ingenious artist ascended to the very origin of printing, for the sake of knowing it thoroughly. He produced at different times several historical and critical dissertations upon the rise and progress of the typographical art, which have since been collected and published in 1 vol. 8vo, divided into three parts; the last including a curious history of the engravers in wood. But the most important work of Fournier, is his “Manuel Typographique, utile aux gens de Lettres, et a ceux qui exercent les differents parties de PArt de Plmprimerie,” in 2 vols. 8vo. The author meant to have added two more, but was prevented by his death, which happened in 1768. In this “Manuel” are specimens of all the different characters he invented. He was of the most pleasing manners, and a man of virtue and piety.

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

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

, 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.

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

In the registers of St. Giles’s, Cripplegate, which Mr. Malcolm appears to have examined with care, we find no mention made of any litigious proceedings of the parishioners against Dr. Fowler; but on the contrary, there arc the following entries, which show how much he was respected by them after the revolution: “Feb. 7, 1700. Ordered, that in consideration the bishop of Gloucester has a long time, at his own charge, provided a lecturer in this parish, and been otherwise kind and bountiful to the same, that the chancel of this parish church be forthwith put in good repair at the charge of the parish.” In 1708 he represented to the vestry that he was grown so extremely infirm and old, he could no longer preach in a morning; and having a large family, with but small profits from the vicarage, together with having provided a lecturer for twenty-five years past at his own charge, he now entreated them to elect one themselves, which they did, with many acknowledgments for his lordship’s fatherly conduct towards them.

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

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

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

, 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."

Active as was his life, he found some time to write. He published a book, “De vera differentia Regiee Potestatis et Ecclesiastics, et quae sit ipsa veritas et virtus utriusque,” 1534, and 1538. It was translated into English by Henry lord Stafford. He also wrote annotations upon Mantuan, the poet. There is likewise an oration of his extant, in the story of Thomas lord Cromwell, in the second volume of Fox’s “History of the Acts and Monuments of the Church;” and a letter from him and Gardiner about their proceedings at Cambridge, when they were sent in 1530 to obtain that university’s determination concerning the king’s marriage and divorce, in the collection of records at the end of Burnet’s first volume of the “History of the Reformation.”

, 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.

Fox was a man of great humanity and uncommon liberality. He was a most laborious student, and remarkably abstemious; a most learned, pious, and judicious divine, and ever opposed to all methods of severity in matters of religion. That he was not promoted was entirely owing to his retaining some opinions adverse to the habits and ceremonies of the church, which he had imbibed abroad. “Although,” says Fuller, “the richest mitre in England would have counted itself preferred by being placed upon his head, he contented himself with a prebend of Salisbury. How learnedly he wrote, how constantly he preached, how piously he lived, and how cheerfully he died, may be seen at large in the life prefixed to his book.” Wood and Strype are united in their praises of his talents and personal character; the former only, like his successor Collier, cannot forgive him for being “a severe Calvinist, and a bitter enemy to popery.” Of his liberality many anecdotes may be found in our authorities.

This excellent man died in 1587, in the 70th year of his age, and was buried in the chancel of St. Giles, Cripplegate, of which, it is said, he was sometime vicar; but, as Wood thinks, if he had it at all, he kept it but a little while, in the beginning of Elizabeth’s reign. He left two sons, Samuel and Thomas. Samuel became demy, and afterwards fellow of Magdalen-college, in Oxford. In 1610, he wrote his father’s life, prefixed to his “Acts and Monuments of the Church.” Thomas was fellow of King’s college, in Cambridge, and" became afterwards an eminent physician at London.

Besides what has been mentioned, Fox wrote, 1. “De Censura, seu Excommunicatione Ecclesiastica, Interpellatio ad Archiepiscopum Cantuariensem, 1551,” 8vo. 2. “Tables of Grammar, 1552.” Wood tells ns, that these “Tables were subscribed in print by eight lords of the privy council but were quickly laid aside, as being far more too short, than king Henry the VHIth’s Grammar was too long.” 3. “Articuli sive Aphorismi aliquot Joannis Wiclevi sparsim aiit ex variis illius opusculis excerpti per adversaries Papicolas, ac Concilio Constantiensi exhibiti.” 4. “Collectanea qusedam ex Reginaldi Pecocki Episcopi Cicestriensis opusculis exustis conservata, et ex antique psegmate transcripta.” 5. “Opistographia ad Oxonienses.” The three last are printed with his “Commentarii rerum in Ecclesia gestarum,” at Strasburg, 1554, in 8vo, mentioned above. 6. “Concerning Man’s Election to Salvation, 1581,” 8vo. 7. “Certain Notes of Election, added to Beza’s Treatise of Predestination, 1581,” 8vo. 8. “The Four Evangelists in the old Saxon Tongue, with the English thereunto adjoined, 1571,” 4to, and many other pieces, which were levelled against the Papists.

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.

, 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-.

In 1500, the university of Cambridge elected him their chancellor, which he retained till 1502; and in the same year (1500) he was promoted to the see of Winchester. In 1507 he was chosen master of Pembroke-hall, Cambridge, which he retained until 1519. In 1507 and 1508 he was employed at Calais, with other commissioners, in negociating a treaty of marriage between Mary, the king’s third daughter, and Charles, archduke of Austria, afterwards the celebrated Charles V. In 1509-10, he was sent to France with the earl of Surrey, and Ruthal, bishop of Durham, and concluded a new treaty of alliance with Lewis XII. In 1512 he was one of the witnesses to the foundation charter of the hospital in the Savoy. In 1513 he attended the king (Henry VIII.) in his expedition to France, and was present at the taking of Teroiiane, and in October following, jointly with Thomas Grey, marquis of Dorset, he concluded a treaty with the emperor Maximilian against France. In 1514, he was one of the witnesses to the renunciation of the marriage with prince Charles of Spain by the princess Mary; one of the commissioners for the treaty of peace between Henry VIII. and Lewis XII. of France; and for the marriage between the said king of France and the princess Mary, the same year. He was also one of the witnesses to the marriage treaty, and to the confirmation of both treaties; to the treaty of friendship with Francis I. and to its continuation in the following year.

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.

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

His last appearance in parliament was in 1523; he had then been nearly five years deprived of his sight, which he never recovered. Wolsey endeavoured to persuade him to resign his bishopric to him, and accept of a pension, but this he rejected, asserting, according to Parker, that “Tho' by reason of his blindness he was not able to distinguish white from black, yet he could discern between true and false, right and wrong; and plainly enough saw, without eyes, the malice of that ungrateful man, which be did not see before. That it behoved the cardinal to take care not to be. so blinded with ambition as not to foresee his own end. He needed not trouble himself with the bishopric of Winchester, but rather should mind the king’s affairs.”

His last days were spent in prayer and meditation, which at length became almost uninterrupted both day and night. Me died Sept. 14, 1528, and was buried in the fine chantry which he built for that purpose in Winchester cathedral, immediately behind the high altar, on the south side. During his residence here, he was indefatigable in preaching, and exciting the clergy to their duty. He was also unbounded in his charities to the poor, whom he assisted with food, clothes, and money; at the same time excrcising hospitality, and promoting the trade of the city, by a large establishment which he kept up at Wolvesey, of two hundred and twenty servants.

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

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

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.

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

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

To this trifling dispute, we are left to refer the whole of Mr. Fox’s subsequent conduct, and as he appears to have immediately commenced hostilities with the minister and his friends, -it has been recorded, as peculiarly fortunate for him, that he had no occasion to degrade his consistency by opposing any of the measures he had formerly supported, in detail at least; and that a new sera of political hostility had just commenced on which he could enter with all the apparent earnestness of honest conviction. This, we need scarcely add, originated in the dispute between Great Britain and her American colonies. During the whole of this period, and of the war which followed, Mr. Fox spoke and voted in direct opposition to the ministerial system, which ended at last in the separation of the colonies from the mother state. It was now that Mr. Fox’s talents appeared in their fullest lustre, and that he took the foremost rank among the speakers of the house, although it could at that time, and in his own. party, boast of a Burke, a Barre, and a Dunning.

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 policy of the war which followed, belongs to history. On its concluision in 1801, after the resignation of Mr. Pitt, when Mr. Addington, (since lord Sid mouth,) concluded the treaty of Amiens, Mr. Fox and his friends gave him his support. When hostilities were again meditated, Mr. Fox at first expressed his doubts of their necessity; but when, on the death of Mr. Pitt, in 1806, he came again into power, as secretary of state for the foreign department, in conjunction with the Grenville party, he found it necessary to support the war by the same means and in the same spirit as his predecessor. Some measures of a more private nature, which he was obliged to adopt in order to satisfy the wishes of the new coalition he had formed, served rather to diminish than increase his popularity but his health was now decaying; symptoms of dropsy appeared, and within a few months he was laid in the grave close by his illustrious rival. He died Sept. 13, 180G, without pain and almost without a struggle, in the 58th year of his age.

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.

It does not appear that the parliamentary speeches, printed separately as his, of which there are many, were ever revised by him, but were taken from the public papers. But “A Sketch of the Character of the late most noble Francis duke of Bedford, as delivered in his introductory speech to a motion for a new writ for Tavistock, on the 16th of March, 1802,” was printed by his authority, and from his own manuscript copy; and it is said, that he observed on that occasion, “that he had never before attempted to make a copy of any speech which he had delivered in public.” After that he wrote an epitaph on the late bishop of Downe, which is engraved on his tomb in. the chapel of St. Jatnes, in the Hampstead road. “There are,” says lord Holland, “several, specimens of his composition in verse, in different languages; but the lines on. Mrs. Crewe, and those on Mrs. Fox, on his birth-day, are, as far as I recollect, all that have been printed.” An ode to Poverty, and an epigram upon Gibbon, though very generally attributed to him, are certainly not his com,-' positions.

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

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

an eminent Italian poet and physician, was born at Verona in 1483. Two singularities are related of him in his infancy; one, that his lips adhered so closely to each other when he came into the world, that a surgeon was obliged to divide them with his knife; the other, that his mother, Camilla Mascarellia, was killed by lightning, while he, though in her arms at the very moment, escaped unhurt. Fracastorio was of parts so exquisite, and made so wonderful a progress in every thing he undertook, that he became eminently skilled, not only in the belles lettres, but in all arts and sciences. He was a poet, a philosopher, a physician, an astronomer, and a mathematician. He was a man also of great political consequence, as appears from pope Paul Ill.'s making use of his authority to remove the council of Trent to Bologna, under the pretext of a contagious distemper, which, as Fracastorio deposed, made it no longer safe for him to continue at Trent. He was intimately acquainted with cardinal Bembo, Julius Scaliger, and all the great men of his time. He died of an apoplexy, at Casi near Verona, in 1553; and in 1559 the town of Verona erected a statue in honour of him.

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

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

, 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.

, commonly called Francesco Dal Borgo A San Sepolcro, a painter of considerable renown, was born at Borgo in Umbria, in 1372. In his youth he studied the mathematics; but at fifteen years of age determined on being a painter, when he was patronised by Gindobaldo Fettro, duke of Urbino. He did not, however, so completely devote his time to painting as to neglect his former studies, but wrote several essays on geometry and perspective, which were long preserved in the duke’s^ library at Urbino. He afterwards painted in Pesara, Ancona, and Ferrara; but few of his works remain at either of these places. Having obtained much reputation, he was sent for to Rome by pope Nicholas V. to paint two historical subjects in the chambers of the Vatican, in concurrence with Bramante di Milano, called Bramantino; but Julius II. destroyed these to make room for Raphael’s Miracle of Bolsena, and St. Peter in Prison. Notwithstanding this degradation of his labours, before the superior powers of Raphael, he was very deserving of esteem, if the account which Vasari gives of him be true, and we consider the imperfect state of the art at the time in which he lived. He exhibited much knowledge of anatomy, feeling of expression, and of distribution of light and shade. The principal work of Franceses was a night scene, in which he represented an angel carrying a cross, and appearing in vision to the emperor Constantine sleeping in his tent with his chamberlain near him, and some of his soldiers. The light which issued from the cross and the angel illuminated the scene, and was spread over it with the utmost discretion. Every thing appeared to have been studied from nature, and was executed with great propriety and truth. He also painted a battle, which was highly commended for the spirit and fire with which it was conducted; the strength of the expression, and the imitation of nature; particularly a groupe of horsemen, which, Vasari says, “considering the period, cannot be too highly commended.”

Having exercised the various talents nature had bestowed upon him till he was eighty-six years old, he died in 1458.

, 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.

, an historical painter, whose real name was Raibolini, was born at Bologna in 1450, and wa bred to the profession of a goldsmith, which he exercised for some time with very considerable celebrity, having the coinage of the city of Bologna under his care. His desire of reputation, and his acquaintance with Andrea Mantegna and other painters, led him to the study of painting-, but from whom he received the first elements of instruction is not known. In 1490 he produced a picture of the Virgin seated, and surrounded by several figures; among whom is the portrait of M. Bart. Felisini, for whom the picture was painted. In this he still calls himself “Frauciscus Francis, aurifex,” and it, with another picture of a similar subject, painted for the chapel Bentivoglio a St. Jacopo, gained him great reputation. He painted many pictures for churches, &c. in Bologna, Modena, Parma, and other cities; but they were in the early, Gothic, dry manner, called “stila antico moderuo,” which he greatly improved upon in his latter productions. On Pietro Perugino he formed his characters of heads, and his choice of tone and colour; on Gian. Bellino, fullness of outline and breadth of drapery; and if the best evidence of his merit, the authority of Raphael, be of weight, in process of time he excelled them both. In a letter dated 1508, edited by Malvasia, Raphael declares that the Madonnas of Francia were inferior, in his opinion, to none for beauty, devoutness, and form. His idea of Francia’s talents exhibited itself still stronger in his entrusting his picture of St. Cecilia, destined for the church of St Gio da Monte at Bologna, to his care, by letter soliciting him as a friend to See it put in its place, and if he found any defect in it, that he would kindly correct it. Vasari says that Francia died with grief in 1518, upon seeing by this picture that he was as nothing in the art, compared with the superior genius of Raphael; but Malvasia proves that he lived some years afterwards, and in an improved style produced his celebrated St. Sebastian, which Caracci describes as the general model of proportion and form for the students at Bologna. A copy of this figure still exists in the church della Misericordia.

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

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

, 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.

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

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

, an English clergyman, and the able translator of Horace and Demosthenes, was of Irish extraction, if not born in that kingdom, where his father was a dignified clergyman, and, among other preferments, held the rectory of St. Mary, Dublin, from which he was ejected by the court on account of his Tory principles. His son, our author, was also educated for the church, and obtained a doctor’s degree. His edition of “Horace” made his name known in England about 1743, and raised him a reputation as a classical editor and translator, which no subsequent attempts have greatly diminished. Dr. Johnson, many years after other rivals had started, gave him this praise: “The lyrical part of Horace never can be properly translated; so much of the excellence is in the numbers and the expression. Francis has done it the best: I'll take his, five out of six, against them all.”

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

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.

, 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.

Franck was a member of several learned societies, and was ennobled by the emperor Leopold in 1692, and in 1693 was created count palatine, by the title of “De Franckenau.” His principal works are, 1. “Institutionum Medicarum Synopsis,” Heidelberg, 1672. 2. “Lexicon Vegetabilium usualium,” Argentorati, T672. This was re-published several times. In the edition of Leipsic, 161)8, the title of “Flora Francica” was given to it. 3, ?' Bona nova Anatomica,“Heidelberg, 1680. 4.” Parva Bibliotheca Zootomica,“ibid. 1680. 5.” De caVumniis in Medicos et Medicinam,“ibid. 1686. 6. * De Medicis Philologis,” Wittebergse, 1691. 7. “De palingenesis, five resuscitatione artiBciali planlarum, hominum, et amuialiuiii, e sure cineribus, liber singularis,” Hala-, 1717, edited by Nehring. 8. “Satyra; Medictc XX.” Leipsic, 1722. These pieces, which had begun to appear in 1673, were published by his son, George Frederic Franck, whp was also a teacher of medicine at Wittemberg, and wrote several works qn botany and physip.

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

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

He had a great particularity in touching the white of the eyes of his figures, which appears as if a small lump of unbroken white was touched on, with the point of a fine pencil, and it gives the figures a great deal of spirit. liven that particularity, well attended to, may be a means of determining the hand of this master. It ought to ht observed, that from the similarity of names, taste, style, and colouring of the Old and Young Francks, their works are often mistaken and miscalled, and the work of the one purchased for the work of the other. The most capital performance of this painter, is a scriptural subject in the church of Notre Dame at Antwerp; and an excellent picture, in the small size, is “Solomon’s Idolatry,” in which that king is represented as kneeling before an altar, on which is placed the statue of Jupiter. There is a noble expression in the figure of Solomon, apd the drapery of the figure is broad and flowing; the altar is exceedingly enriched with fine bas-relief in the Italian style, and it exquisitely finished; the penciling is neat, the colouring clear and transparent, and the whole picture appears to have been painted on leaf gold. Young Francks died in 1642.

, a learned and pious German divine, and a great benefactor to his country, was born at Lubeck, March 12, O. S. 1663. His father, John Francke, was then one of the magistrates of Lubeck, and afterwards entered into the service of Ernest the Pious, duke of Saxe Gotha, as counsellor of the court and of justice. His mother, Anne Gloxin, was the daughter of one of the oldest burgomasters of Lubeck. Young Francke had the misfortune to lose his father in 1670, when he was between six and seven years old, and at this early age had shown such a pious disposition, that he was intended for the church, and with this view his mother placed him under the instructions of a private tutor. His proficiency in classical studies was such, th.'t at the age of fourteen he vvas considered as well qualified to go to the university. It was not, however, until 1679, that he went to that of Erfurt, and from thence to Kiel, where he st-idied some years under Kortholt and Morhoff. In 1682, he returned to Gotha, and visited Hamburgh in his way, where he remained two months to improve his knowledge of the Hebrew language, under Esdras Edzardi. In 1684 he went to Leipsic, and took his degree of M. A. in the following year. During his stay l;ere, he formed a society for literary conversation among his friends, which long subsisted under the name of “Collegium Philobiblicum,” their favourite topic being the study of the* Holy Scriptures. Some time after he went to Wittemberg, where he was received with great respect by the literati of that university, and thence to Luueburg, where he attended the divinity lectures of the celebratd Sandhagen. From Lunebourg he returned to Leipsic, and gave a course of lectures on the holy scriptures, practical as well as critical, which were frequented by above three hundred students. This success, with a more than common earnestness and seriousness in his method and address, occasioned some jealousy, and created him enemies likewise at Erfurt, whither, in 1690, he was invited to become pastor of St. Austin. The objection to him was that of pietism, and it increased with so much violence, that in 1691 he was deprived of his charge, and ordered to quit the city within two days. How little he deserved this treatment, had already appeared in some of his writings, and was more manifest afterwards in his conduct and services.

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

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

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.

The history of his celebrated Orphan house has been long known in this country, in a translation by Dr. Josiali Woodward, under the title of “Pietas Hallensis,” Lond. 1707, 12mo, often reprinted, with some of his devotional tracts. These last were generally published by professor Francke in German. His Latin works are, 1. “Manuductio ad lectionem Scripture Sacrse,” Halle, 1693. Of this an improved translation by William Jaques, was published in 1813, 8vo. 2. “Observationes Biblicae menstrua: iti Versionern Germanicam Biblionun Lutheri,” Halle, 1695, 12mo. 3. “De Emphasibus Sac. Script,” ibid. 1698, 4to. 4. “Idea studii Theologise,” ibid. 1712, 12mo. 5. “Praelectiones Hertneneuticae,” ibid. 1712, 8vo. 6. “Monita Pastoralia Theologica,” ibid. 1717,' 12mo. 7. “Method us studi! Theologici,” ibid. 8vo. 8. “Introductio ad lectionem Prophetarnrti,” ibid. 1724, 8vo. 9. “Commentatio de’scopo librorum veteris et novi Testamenti,” ibid. 8vo.

, 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.

, an English physician and historian of singular character, was born in Lancashire in 1633, and was entered a student in Brasenose college, Oxford, in 1649. He took a degree in arts, and obtained a fellowship in 1654. Afterwards studying divinity, he became a preacher according to the form of ordination during the usurpation. In 1662 he served the office of proctor, and the year after, having taken orders regularly, he was, but with much difficulty, admitted to the reading of the sentences. He afterwards studied physic, and settled in London, where he imposed upon the public for some time, by pretending to have taken his doctor’s degree in that faculty, and at length offering himself as a candidate for fellow of the college of physicians, he produced a forged diploma, was admitted fellow, and afterwards was censor. His ungracious manners, however, procuring him enemies, an inquiry was made at Oxford in 1677, which discovered the fraud, and although by the connivance of some of the college of physicians, he remained among them, yet his credit and practice fell off, and being reduced in circumstances, he was imprisoned in the Fleet, where he died in 1690, and was interred in St. Vedast’s church, Foster-lane. He wrote, “The Annals of King James and King Charles I. containing a faithful history and impartial account of the great affairs of state, and transactions of parliament in England, from the tenth of king James, 1612, to the eighteenth of king Charles, 1642. Wherein several passages relating to the late civil wars (omitted in former histories) are made known,” Lond. 1681, fol. He was supposed also to be the author of a folio pamphlet, Lond. 1679, entitled “The honours of the Lords Spiritual asserted, and their privileges to vote in capital cases in parliament maintained by reason and precedents;” but Wood does not give this as certain. Dr. Frankland was esteemed a good scholar while at Oxford, but in the subsequent part of his character appears deserving of little esteem.

, 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.

"On my arrival at Philadelphia, I was in my working dress, my best clothes being to come by sea. I was covered with dirt; my pockets were filled with shirts and stockings; I was unacquainted with a single soul in the place, and knew not where to seek for a lodging. Fatigued with walking, rowing, and having passed the night without sleep, I was extremely hungry, and all my money consisted of a Dutch dollar, and about a shilling’s-worth of coppers, which I gave to the boatmen for my passage. As I had assisted them in rowing, they refused it at first, but I insisted on their taking it. A man is sometimes more generous when he has little, than when he has much money; probably because in the first case he is desirous of concealing his poverty.

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

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.

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

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

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

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 1755, general Braddock, with some regiments of regular troops and provincial levies, was sent to dispossess the French of the posts upon which they had seized in the back settlements. After the men were all ready, a- difficulty occurred, which had nearly prevented the expedition this was the want of waggons. Franklin now step-: ped forward, and, with the assistance of his son, in a little time procured 150. After the defeat of Braddock, Franklin introduced into the assembly a bill for organizing a militia, and had the dexterity to get it passed. In consequence of this act, a very respectable militia was formed; and Franklin was appointed colonel of a regiment in Philadelphia, which consisted of 1200 men; in which capacity he acquitted himself with much propriety, and was of singular service, though this militia was soon after disbanded by order of the English ministry.

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.

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

, a Lutheran divine, was born in 1564 at Plawen, in the circle of Voightland, and was educated at Francfort on the Oder. He then removed to Wittetnberg, where in 1598, he was appointed professor of history, and took his doctor’s degree in divinity. Three years after, he was invited to be superintendant at Kemsperg, and remained there until 1605, when he was chosen divinity professor at Wittemberg. He died suddenly ia 1628, of a second attack of apoplexy. Among his numerous works are, 1. “Syntagma controversiarum theologicarum.” 2. “Historia animalium,” Francfort, 1671, 12mo; but the first edition was published at Wittemberg, 1616, 8vo, under the title “Historia animal iura sacra.”“It was afterwards reprinted often with improvements, the last of which editions appeared at Francibrt, 1712, 4 vols. 4to. There is also an English translation of the original work, Lond. 1674, 8vo. 3.” Schola sacrificiorum patriarchalium sacra, hoc est, assertio satisfactionis a Domino nostro J. C. pro peccatis totius mundi prcestitse, in sacrificiorum veterum typis fundata?, et recentibus Arianis et Photinianis oppositae,“Wittemberg, 1654, 4to. This has been sometimes sold in two parts; the one entitled” Schola sacrificiorum,“and the other” Assertio satisfactionis,“but it is the same work. 4.” Tractatus theologrcus de interpretatione scripturarnm maxime legitima, duabus constans regulis, a Luthero ad papatns Komani destructionem in versione Biblioruni Germanica usitatis, et 152 exemplis elucidatus," Wittemberg, 1634, 4to. Of this there have been several editions. Frantzius is also the author of various dissertations and disputations on subjects of theological controversy.

, a learned Franciscan, was born at Peronne in 1620, and admitted doctor of the Sorbonne in 1662. He afterwards taught theology in his convent, was elected definitor-general of the whole Franciscan order in 1682, and acquired great reputation by his writings, and the various commissions he was entrusted with. He died February 26, 1711, at Paris. His most esteemed works are, “A System of Divinity,” Paris, 1672, 4 vols. fol. Dissertations on the Bible, entitled “Disquisitiones Biblicae,” 2 vols. 4to.; the best edition of the first volume is that of Paris, 1711, but the work has been much enlarged, and reprinted at Lucca, 1764, 2 vols. folio. He also published a “System of Philosophy,” which has gone through several editions.

, an English versifier in queert Elizabeth’s time, whose works are still an object of some curiosity, was educated at the ex pence of air Philip Sydney at St. John’s college, Cambridge, where he took his master’s degree, and afterwards went to Gray’s-lnn, where be remained till he was called to the bar of the court of the Marches in Wales. In August 1590, he was recommended by Henry earl of Pembroke, to lord treasurer Burleigh, as 41 man in every respect qualified for the place of her majesty’s solicitor in that court, but his history cannot Ixe traced any farther. He wrote, 1 “The Lamentations of Amituas for the death of Phillis, in English hexameters,” London, 1587, 4to. 2. “The countess of Pembroke’s Ivy-church and Emamiel,” in English hexameters, London, 1591. In this is included a translation of Tasso’s Aminta. At the end of the Ivy-church is also a translation of Virgil’s Alexis into English hexameters, verse for verse, which he calls “The Lamentations of Corydon,” &c. Fraunce also translated the beginning of “Heliodorns’s Ethiopics,” Lond. 1591, 8vo. and wrote a book with the title of “Tke Lawier’s Logike, exemplifying the precepts of Logike by the practice of the Common Lawe.” Of this last, as well as of his “Sheapheardes Logike,” a ms., an account is givenin the “Bibliographer,” and a few particulars of the authors other writings may be found in our authorities.

, sieur de Chambrai, under which name he is classed in some biographical works, was a learned architect of the seventeenth century, and a native of Chambrai. He was connected by relationship, as well as love of the art, with Sublet des Noyers, secretary of state and superintend ant of the buildings under Louis XIII. About 1640, Freart was sent, with one of his brothers, to Italy, on an important mission to the pope, and he was also ordered to collect antiquities, &c. and engage the ablest artists to reside in France. Among the latter he brought Poussin to Paris. Freart died in iv76. He published a French translation of Da Vinci on painting, Paris, 1651, fol. and another of Palladia’s Architecture, Paris, 1650. Of this a fine edition was printed by Nicolas du Bois at the Hague in 1726, with engravings by Piea*t, but he has strangely divided the translator into two persons, asserting that Freart published one edition of Palladio, and the sieur de Chambrai another. But the work by which Freart is best known is his “Parallele de l'architecture antique avec la rooderne,” Paris, 1650, fol. reprinted by Erard in 1702. Our celebrated countryman Evelyn trans-, lated this work, as already noticed in his article (vol. Xjijl p. 435). It was much admired in France, and is still in esteem with artists.

, called the scholastic, the earliest French historian except Gregory of Tours, flourished in the seventh century, and was living in 658. By order of Childebrand, brother of Charles Martel, he wrote a chronicle, which extends as far as the year 64-1. His style is barbarous, his arrangement defective, and his whole narrative too concise and rapid, but he is the only original historian of a part of that period. His chronicle is to be found in the collection of French historians, published by Duchesne and Bouquet.

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.

In 1755, the contegt between England and France, concerning their American possessions, led those powers to eekallies. England made alliance with Prussia, and France with Austria. The boldness and decision of Frederick’s character were now remarkably displayed. Suspecting a design against him among the continental powers, and having even gained intelligence of a secret treaty, in which the king of Poland, elector of Saxony, was concerned, he published a strong manifesto, and marched at once with a powerful army into Saxony. But the states of the empire, not satisfied with the reasons he alleged, declared war against him, as a disturber of the public peace. In 1757, he found himself obliged to contend at once with Russia, the German empire, the house of Austria, Saxony, Sweden, and France. The numerous armies of his enemies overran his whole dominions; yet his activity and courage were ready in every quarter to give them battle. He was defeated by the Russians, had gained a battle against the Austrians, and had lost another in Bohemia, by the 18th of June, 1757. But on the 5th of November the same year, he met the Austrians and the French at Rosbach, on the frontiers of Saxony, and repaired his former losses by a signal victory. His genius had invented a new species of military exercise, and his enemies probably owed their defeat to their imperfect attempts to imitate what his soldiers had completely learned. Within a month he had gained another victory over the Austrians near Breslaw, in consequence of which he took that city, with 15,000 prisoners, and recovered all Silesia. Throughout the war, with an ability almost incredible, he gained so many advantages, and recovered with 'such promptitude the losses he sustained, that the prodigious force combined against him was rendered ineffectual. Peace was at length concluded, Feb. 15, 1763, when the possession of Silesia was confirmed to him, and he, on his part, promised his suffrage to the election of Joseph, son of the emperor, as king of the Romans. This was the most splendid military period of his life.

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

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

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.

, author of the very useful “Theatrum Virorum eruditione singulari clarorum,” Norib. 1688, 2 vols. fol. was of this family. Of him we have no account, except that he was a physician of Noriberg, where he was born in 1611, and died in 1682. The work was prepared for the press by a nephew.

, 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.

, a learned English physician, was born in 1675, at Croton in Northamptonshire, of which parish his father, William Freind, a man of great learning, piety, and integrity, was rector, and where he died in 1663. He was sent to Westminster school, with his elder brother Robert, and put under the care of the celebrated Dr. Busby. He was thence elected to Christ Church, Oxford, in 1690, over which Dr. Aldrich at that time presided; and under his auspices undertook, in conjunction with another young man, Mr. Foulkes, to publish an edition of Æschines, and Demosthenes, “de Corona,” which was well received, andhas since been reprinted. About the same time he was prevailed upon to revise the Delphin edition of Ovid’s Metamorphoses, reprinted in 8vo, at Oxford, in 1696, which Dr. Bentley has severely criticised. Mr. Freind was director of Mr. Boyle’s studies, and wrote the Examination of Dr. Bentley’s Dissertation on jEsop, which may account for that great critic’s speaking more disrespectfully of his talents than justice required.

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

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 1704- he was chosen professor of chemistry at Oxford; and, the year after, attended the earl of Peterborough in his Spanish expedition, as physician to the army there, in which post he continued near two years. From thence he made the tour of Italy, and went to Rome, as well for tho sake of seeing the antiquities of that city, as for the pleasure of visiting and conversing with Baglivi and Lancisi, physicians then in the zenith of their reputation. On his return to England in 1707, he found the character of his patron very rudely treated; and, from a spirit of gra*­titucie, published a defence of him, entitled “An Account of the earl of Peterborough’s Conduct in Spain, chiefly since the raising the siege of Barcelona, 1706;” to which is added, “The Campaign of Valencia. With original papers, 1707,” 8vo. This piece, relating to party-matters, made a great noise, some loudly commending, others as loudly condemning it; so that a third edition of it was published in 1708.

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.

In 1711 Dr. Freind was elected a member of the royal society, and the same year attended the duke of Ormond into Flanders, as his physician. He resided mostly after his return, at London, and gave himself up wholly to the cares of his profession*. In 1716 he was chosen a fellow of the college of physicians, and the same year published the first and third books of “Hippocrates de morbis popularibus,” to which he added, a “Commentary upon Fevers/* divided into nine short dissertations. This very learned work was indecently attacked by Dr. Woodward, professor of physic in Gresham college, in his” State of Physic and of Diseases, with an enquiry into the causes of the late increase of them, but more particularly of the Small-pox, &c. 1718,“8vo and here was laid the foundation of a dispute, which was carried on with great acrimony and violence on both sides. Parties were formed under these leaders, and several pamphlets were written. Freind supported his opinion *' concerning the advantage of purging in the second fever of the confluent kind of small-pox” (for it was on this single point that the dispute chiefly turned) in a Latin letter addressed to Dr. Mead in 1719, and since printed among his works. He was likewise supposed to be the author of a pamphlet, entitled * A Letter to the learned Dr. Woodward, by Dr. By field," in 1719, in which Woodward is rallied with great spirit and address; for Freind made no serious answer to Woodward’s book, but contented himself with ridiculing his antagonist under the name of a celebrated empyric. In 1717

* In 1"13 Dr. Freind was probably 1 am told it very able in his profession.

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

was of Christ Church. He has excel- you direct I am, kc. Boljncirokk."

leut paru, a a tnorouf h scholar, and Bolingbroke’s Letter*, by Parke. he read theGulstonian lecture in the college of physicians; and, in 1720, spoke the Harveian oration, which was afterwards published. In 1722 he was elected into parliament for Launceston in Cornwall; and acting in his station as a senator with that warmth and freedom which was natural to him, he distinguished himself by some able speeches against measures which he disapproved. He was supposed to have a hand in Atterbury’s plot, as it was then called, for the restoration of the Stuart family; and having been also one of the speakers in favour of A tterbury, this drew upon him so much resentment, that the Habeas Corpus act being at that time suspended, he was, March 15, 1722-3, committed to the Tower. He continued a prisoner there till June 21, when he was admitted to bail, his sureties being Dr. Mead, Dr. Hulse, Dr. Levet, and Dr. Hale; and afterwards, in November, was discharged from his recognizance. Dr. Mead’s princely conduct on this occasion must not be forgotten. When called to attend sir Robert Walpole in sickness, he refused to prescribe until Dr. Freind was set at liberty, and afterwards presented Dr. Freind with 5000 guineas, which he had received in fees from his (Dr. Freind’s) patients.

The leisure afforded him by this confinement was not so much disturbed by uneasy thoughts and apprehensions, but that he could employ himself in a manner suitable to his abilities and profession; and accordingly he wrote another letter in Latin to Dr. Mead, “concerning some particular kind of Small-pox.” Here also he laid the plan of his last and most elaborate work, “The History of Physic, from the time of Galen to the beginning of the sixteenth century, chiefly with regard to practice: in a discourse written to Dr. Mead.” The first part was published in 1725; the second, the year following. This work, though justly deemed a masterly performance, both for use and elegance, did not escape censure; but was animadverted upon both at home and abroad; at home by sir Clifton Wintringham, in an anonymous tract, “Observations on Dr. Freind’s History of Physic, &c.” 1726, and by John Le Clerc in the “Bibliotheque Ancienne et Moderne,” but its reputation suffered very little by either.

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.

There is little occasion to quote authorities in praise of Dr. Freind, whose works are a lasting testimony of his uncommon abilities in his profession. He was not only venerated in this country, but on the continent, by Hoffman, Helvetius, Hecquet, and Boerhaave. His character is perhaps drawn with most fidelity and elegance by Dr. Edward Wilmot in the Harveian oration of 1735.

, 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.

Dr. Freind wrote a good deal of poetry, Latin and English, the former thought preferable. His various pieces are inserted in Mr. Nichols’s collection. He was a man of unquestionable learning, but held in less estimation than his brother the physician, on the score of personal character. His son, Dr. William Freind, dean of Canterbury, some particulars of whom may be found in our authority, died in 1766.

, 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.

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

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

, 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.

Freitag was a follower of the chemical sect, and also a partisan of the philosophy of the ancients, to which indeed he retained his attachment with so much bigotry, that no efforts of hjs friends could ever prevail upon him to change his opinion. He published several works. 1 “Noctes Medicæ, sive de Abusu Medicinæ Tractatus,” Francfort, 1616. 2. “Aurora Medicorum Galeno-chernicorum, seu de rectâ purgandi methodo è priscis sapientiæ decretis postliminio in lucem redacta,” ibid. 1630. 3. “Disputatio Medica de morbis substantiæ et cognatis quæstionibus, contra hujus temporis Novatores et Paradoxologos,” Groningen, 1632. 4. “Disputatio Medica calidi innati essentiam juxta veteris Medicinæ & Philosophiæ decreta explicans, opposita Neotericorum et Novatorum Paradoxis,” ibid. 1632, 5. “De Ossis natura et medicamentis opiatis Liber singularis, &c.” Groningen, 1632. 6. “Disputatio Medico-philosophica de Formarum origine,” Groningen, 1663. 7. “Oratio panegyrica de persona et officio Pharmacopæi,” &c. ibid. 1633. 8. “Detectio et solida Refutatio novæ Sectæ Sennerto-Paracelsicæ,” Amsterdam, 1636.

, a celebrated French painter; was born at Paris in 1567. When he was studying at Rome, the suffrages of that place were divided between Michael Angelo Caravaggio, and Joseph of Arpino, called Giuseppino; and he succeeded in imitating the excellencies of both. He was a great master of design, and of the sciences connected with his art, perspective and architecture; but there is a boldness in his manner, approaching to hardness, which is not always approved. Henry IV. however, appointed him his chief painter, and Louis XIII. honoured him with the order of St. Michael. He painted the cieling in the chapel at Fontainbleau, and died at Paris, June 18, 1619.

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

, a celebrated French mathematician of the seventeenth century, was the contemporary and companion of Des Cartes, Fermat, and the other learned mathematicians of their time. He was admitted geometrician of the French academy in 1666; and died in 1675. He had many papers inserted in the ancient memoirs of the academy, of 1666, particularly in vol. V. of that collection, viz. 1. “A method of resolving problems by Exclusions.” 2. “Treatise of right-angled Triangles in Numbers.” 3. “Short tract on Combinations.” 4. “Tables of Magic Squares.” 5. “General method of making Tables of Magic Squares.” His brother Nicolas

, a poet of the seventeenth century, born 160O, at Paris, was counsellor to the court of the mint, and died dean of the same court, after the year 1661, leaving several children. Freriicle wrote many theatrical pieces as “Palemon,” a pastoral, 8vo; “Niobe,” 8vo; “L'Entretien des Bergers,” a pastoral, which is contained in “Les Illustres Bergers,” 8vo. Also a poem, entitled, “Jesus crucifiej” a “Paraphrase on the Psalms,” in verse, &c.

, an author of profound learning and considerable abilities, grossly misapplied, was born at Paris in 1688. He was bred nominally to the law, but his inclinations and talents not being suited to that profession, he devoted himself, from an early period, to his favourite studies of chronology and history. At twenty-five he was admitted into the academy of inscriptions, where he produced at the same time “A Discourse on the Origin of the French.” This treatise, at once bold and learned, added to some indiscreet conversations, occasioned his being confined in the Bastille. In his confinement, he could obtain no book but the dictionary of Bayle, which he consequently read so earnestly as almost to learn it by heart. He imbibed, at the same time, the scepticism of Bayle, and even went beyond him in the grpssness and impudence of his infidel sentiments, as clearly appears by some of his writings. These were, 1. “Letters of Thrasybulus to Leucippe,” in which atheism is reduced to a system. 2. “Examination of the Apologists for Christianity,” a posthumous work (not published till 1767), no less obnoxious than the other. Besides these, he was the author of, 3. Several very learned memoirs in the volumes of the academy, to which his name is prefixed; and a few light publications of no consequence. He died in 1749, in his 61st year. His works were revived afterwards, and eagerly disseminated by Voltaire and his associates in their hostilities against religion and morals.

, 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.

Frron, though very skilful in his criticisms, and of uncommon abilities (as Voltaire himself confessed before he was irreconcileably provoked) suffered by the perpetual hostilities of an antagonist so high in reputation. His <* Anne'e Litte>aire," being constantly accused by Voltaire of partiality, began to be suspected, and the sale in some measure decreased. In foreign countries his talents were not well understood. He is the hero of Voltaire’s Dunchid, and nothing more is known about him. He was, in truth, a man of great natural genius and liveliness, with a correct taste, acute powers of discrimination, and a pecwliar talent of entertaining his reader, while he pointed out the faults of a work. He had an active zeal against false philosophy, innovation, and affectation, and was steadily attached to what he considered as sound principles. In private life he was easy and entertaining. Such were the real talents of this formidable journalist. It must be owned, also, that he had his partialities; that he was sometimes too precipitate in his judgments, and too severe in his censures. Too strong a resentment of injustice sometimes rendered him unjust. His language also was sometimes over-refined, though always perfectly pure. The academies of Angers, Montauban, Nancy, Marseilles, Caen, Arrai, and the Arcadi at Rome, were eager to have him enrolled among their members. He died in March 1776, at the age of fifty-seven.

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

, 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.

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

, a learned critical and poetical writer of Germany, was born at Baling, in Suabia, in 1547. His father being a minister and a man of letters, taught him the rudiments of learning, and then sent him to Tubingen, where he made so amazing a progress in the Greek and Latin tongues, that he is said to have written poetry in both when he was no more than thirteen years of age. He continued to improve himself in compositions of several kinds, as well prose as verse; and at twenty years old was made a professor in the university of Tubingen. Though his turn lay principally towards poetry, insomuch, that as Melchior Adam tells us, he really could make verses as, fast as he wanted them, yet he was acquainted with every part of science and learning. He used to moderate in philosophical disputes; and to read public lectures in mathematics and astronomy, before he had reached his twenty-fifth year. In 1579, his reputation being much extended, he had a mind to try his fortune abroad, and therefore prepared to go to the ancient university of Friburg, where he had promised to read lectures. But he was obliged to desist from this purpose, partly because his wife refused to accompany him, and partly because the duke of Wirtemberg would not consent to his going thither, or any where else.

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.

, an eminent scholar, and ingenious philologist, was born 1619, at Wertheim, in Franconia. He was teacher and afterwards professor of languages at Jena, in which city he died August 19, 1687, leaving some very excellent explications of several difficult passages in Holy Scripture, and above sixty philological and theological dissertations, all much esteemed; printed at different times at Jena, in 4to.

, a very eminent philosopher and mathematician, was born in Milan, April 13, 1727. He was first educated in the schools of the Barnabite fathers in that metropolis; and so uncommon was his progress in the classes, that it was soon predicted by his teachers and schoolfellows, that he would one day excel in polite literature, in poetry, and in pulpit eloquence; nature, however, had more unequivocally designed him to be what he really proved, a philosopher and a mathematician. In 1743, (the sixteenth of his age) he embraced the monastic life among the Barnabites of Lombardy, where he passed so rapidly through all the remainder of his studies, that he had the honour of being appointed, while still in the inferior orders, to the professorship of philosophy in the college of Lodi, and afterwards promoted, in the same capacity, to the royal school of Casale, in Monferrat, as a successor to the late celebrated cardinal Gerdil.,

Frisi unfortunately possessed a violent and atrabilarious temper, and a lofty, disdainful, and independent character; and hence he was never raised to eminent stations in church or state, but was perpetually involved in the most disagreeable contests with every person with whom he happened to be connected. Even as soon as he had taken possession of his chair in Casale, he quarrelled with his colleagues, and was compelled by his Sardinian majesty to withdraw. His superiors, not choosing to employ father Frisi any more in the scholastic department, sent him to Novara, in the capacity of annual preacher. His merit, however, as a scientific man, had already become so conspicuous, that in 1755, (the twenty-eighth of his age) he was requested by the superintendant of the university of Pisa to fill the vacant chair of metaphysics and ethics in that literary corporation, then in the zenith of its glory. He had indeed given some specimens of his knowledge in the philosophy of the human mind by his essays on moral philosophy, published at Lugano in 1753; but he had exhibited before that time still greater proofs of his superior abilities in mathematics and natural philosophy, by his two excellent works “Disquisitio Mathematica in causam physicam figurse et magnitudinis telluris nostrue,” and the “Nova Electricitatis theoria,” &c. which were published at Milan, the former in 1751, and the latter in 1755; and it is curious that he was thus indebted for his first step in the higher paths of literary honours to other pursuits than those which were his favourite, and which have so deservedly immortalized his name.

It is, perhaps, equally curious, that even when metaphysics and ethics had become his professed avocations, he never so much indulged in the study of them as to produce any other work in their several departments. He rather availed himself of his situation at Pisa, in cultivating natural science with greater ardour than before; and he seemed to have the best opportunity for the purpose. The veteran professor Perelli was still alive, and still retained his amiable disposition of communicating to his friends those valuable discoveries which were the fruits of his long meditations, and which, from his great modesty, had never been published under his own name. By this powerful assistance, and by his own extensive learning, Frisi, whilst at Pisa, was enabled to publish the two volumes of dissertations which appeared at Lucca under the title of “Dissertationum Variarum,” &c. 1759 and 1761, and the two hydraulic performances relative to the preservation of the provinces of Ferrara and Ravenna, from the inundation of rivers, which were likewise published at Lucca, in 1762. Among his dissertations, the most remarkable were that “De Atmosphaera Ccelestium corporuro,” which in 1758 obtained the prize from the royal academy of sciences in Paris, and that “De intequalitate MoiCls Planetarum,” which in 1768 received the honour of the accessit from the same corporation. The lust work published by Mr. Frisi at Pisa, was a tribute to the memory of his worthy and beneficent friend Perelli, which appeared in the 53d volume of the Journal of that university.

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.

, a doctor of the Sorbonne, born in the diocese of Rheims, was penitentiary of that church, and afterwards grand -master of the college of Navarre at Paris. He died in 1651. He published in 1629 a history of the French cardinals, entitled “Gallia Purpurata,” 1638, fol. M. Baluze has pointed out a great number of faults in this work, in his “Antifrizonius,”and his “History of the Popes of Avignon.” Frizon also published an edition of the Bible of Louvain, with a method of distinguishing the Catholic French translations of the Bible from the Protestant, 121, fol.

, 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.

, an enterprizing English navigator, was born near Doncaster, in Yorkshire, of low parents, but it is not known in what year. Being brought up to navigation, he very early displayed the talents of an eminent sailor, and was the first Englishman that attempted to find out a north-west passage to China. He made offers of this to several English merchants for fifteen years together; but meeting with no encouragement from them, he at length obtained recommendations to Dudley earl of Warwick, and other persons of rank and fortune. Under their influence and protection he engaged a sufficient number of adventurers, and collected proper sums of money. The ships he provided were only three; namely, two barks of about twenty-five tons each, and a pinnace of ten tons. With these he sailed from Deptford June 8, 1576; and the court being then at Greenwich, the queen beheld them as they passed by, “commended them, and bade them farewell, with shaking her hand at them out of the window.”

Bending their course northward, they came on the 24th within sight of Fara, one of the islands of Shetland; and on the llth of July discovered Friezeland r which stood high, and was all covered with snow. They could not land by reason of the ice and great depth of water near the shore; the east point of this island, however, they named “Queen Elizabeth’s Foreland.” On the 28th they had sight of Meta Incognita, being part of New Greenland; on which also they could not land, for the reasons just mentioned. August the 10th, he went on a desert island three miles from the continent, but staid there only a few hours. The next day he entered into a strait which he called “Frobisher’s Strait;” and the name is still retained. On the J2th, sailing to Gabriel’s Island, they came to a sound, which they named Prior’s Sound, and anchored in a sandy bay there. The 15th they sailed to Prior’s Bay, the 17th to Thomas Williams’s Island, and the 18th came to an anchor under Burcher’s Island. Here they went on shore, and had some communication with the natives; but he was so unfortunate as to have five of his men and a boat taken by those barbarians. They were like the Tartars, or Samoeids, with long black hair, broad faces, flat noses, and tawny; the garments both of men and women were made of seal-skins, and did not differ in fashion; but the women were marked in the face with blue streaks down the cheeks, and round the eyes. Having endeavoured in vain to recover hit men, he set sail again for England the 26th of August; and, notwithstanding a terrible "storm on the 7th, arrived safe at Harwich on the 2d of October.

He took possession of that country in the queen of England’s name; and, in token of such possession, ordered his men to bring whatever they could first find. ( One among the rest brought a piece of black stone, much like seacoal, but very heavy. Having at his return distributed fragments of it among his friends, one of the adventurer’s wives threw a fragment into the fire; which being taken out again, and quenched in vinegar, glittered like gold; and, being tried by some refiners in London, was found to contain a portion of that rich metal. This circumstance raising prodigious expectations of gold, great numbers earnestly pressed Frobisher to undertake a second voyage the next spring. The queen lent him a ship of the royal navy of 200 tons; with which, and two barks of about 30 tons each, they fell down to Gravesend May 26, 1577, and there received the sacrament together; an act of religion not so frequently performed as it ought to be, among men exposed to so many perils, and more particularly under the protection of heaven. They sailed from Harwich on the 3 1st of May, and arrived in St. Magnus Sound at the Orkney Islands, upon the 7th of June; from whence they kept their course for the space of twenty-six days, without seeing any land. They met, however, with great drifts of wood, and whole bodies of trees; which were either blown off the cliffs of the nearest lands by violent storms, or rooted up and carried by floods into the sea. At length, on the 4th of July, they discovered Friezeland; along the coasts of which they found islands of ice of incredible bigness, some being 70 or 80 fathoms under water, besides the part that stood above water, and more than half a mile in circuit. Not having been able safely to land in this place, they proceeded for Frobisher’s Straits; and on the 17th of the same month made the North Foreland in them, otherwise called Hall’s Island; as also a smaller island of the same name, where they had in their last voyage found the ore, but could not now get a piece so large as a walnut. They met with some of it, however, in other adjacent islands, but not enough to merit their attention. They sailed about to make what discoveries they could, and gave names to several bays and isles; as Tackman’s Sound, Smith’s Island, Beare’s Sound, Leicester’s Isle, Anne countess of Warwick’s Sound and Island, York Sound, &c.

The captain’s commission directed him in this voyage only to search for ore, and to leave the further discovery of the north-west passage till another time. Having, therefore, in the countess of Warwick’s Island, found a good quantity, he took a lading of it; intending the first opportunity to return home. He set sail the 23d of August, and arrived in England about the end of September. He was most graciously received by the queen; and, as the gold ore he brought had an appearance of riches and profit, and the hope of a north-west passage to China was greafcly increased by this second voyage, her majesty appointed commissioners to make trial of the ore, and examine thoroughly into the whole affair. The commissioners did so, and reported the great value of the undertaking, and the expediency of further carrying on the discovery of the north-west passage. Upon this, suitable preparations were made with all possible dispatch; and, because the mines newly found out were sufficient to defray the adventurers charges, it was thought necessary to send a select number of soldiers, to secure the places already discovered, to make further discoveries into the inland parts, and to search again for the passage to China. Besides three ships as before, twelve others were fitted out for this voyage, which were to return at the end of the summer with a lading of gold ore. They assembled at Harwich the 27th of May, and sailing thence the 31st, they came within sight of Friezeland on the 20th of June; when the general, going on shore, took possession of the country in the queen of England’s name, and called it West-England. They met with many storms and difficulties in this voyage, which retarded them so much, that the season was too far advanced to undertake discoveries; so that, after getting as much ore as they could, they sailed for England, where, after a stormy and dangerous voyage, they arrived about the beginning of October.

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.

He was a man of great courage, experience, and conduct, but accused by some of having been harsh and violent. There is a good painting of him in the picture gallery at Oxford.

, a learned medallist, was born at Gratz in Stiria in 1700, and entered the society of the Jesuits in 1716. His reputation afterwards procured him. the professorship of belles lettres and mathematics at Vienna, where he employed his leisure hours in the pursuit of medallic history. He died in 1758. His works are, 1. “Utilitas rei nummariae, et Appendiculse ad numos coloniarum per Cl. Vaillantium editse,” Vienna, 1733, 8vo. 2. “Quatuor Tentamina in re numaria vetere,” ibid. 1737, 4to. 3. “Animadversiones in quosdam numos veteres urbium,” ibid. 1738, 8vo, reprinted at Florence in 1751. 4. “Appendiculae duae novae ad numismata antiqua a Cl. Vaillantio edita,” ibid. 1744, 8vo, reprinted at the end of “Opusculum posthumum de familia Vaballathi,” where there is also an eulogium on Froelich. 5. “Annales compend. regum et rerum Syriae,” ibid. 1744, folio. 6. “Regum veterum numismata,” ibid. 1753. 7. “Dubia de Minnisari, aliorumque Armenias regum numis et Arsacidarum epocha nuper vulgatis proposita,” ibid. 1754. 8. “Diplomatorium Garstensium emendatum, auctum, et illustratum,” ibid. 1754, 4to. 9. “Casulse S. Stephani, regis Hungariae, vera imago et expositio,” ibid. 1754, 4to. 10. “Ad numismata regum veterum anecdota aut rariora accessio nova,” ibid. 1755, 4to. 11. “Notitia elementaria antiquorum illorum, quse urbium liberarum, regum et principum, ac personarum illustrium, appellantur,” ibid. 1758, 4to, a work which Mr. Pinkerton pronounces “most excellent and useful,” although not altogether without faults. He particularly mentions that the list of Greek cities of which we have coins is defective in about a third of the number; and he censures, in strong terms, the plan of splitting the series of kings of every realm into different epochs. After Froelich’s death was published, as already mentioned, the “Opusculum posthumum de familia Vaballathi numis illustrata,” with an appendix to the “Numismata antiqua,” edited by Joseph Khell, 1762, 4to. Saxius gives us the title of another work by Froelich printed the year of his death in 4to, “Specimen Archontologiae Carinthiae.”

, an eminent and ancient French historian and poet, was born in Valenciennes, about 1337. Of his parents we know only that his father, Thomas Froissart, was a painter of arms, and although our historian is titled knight, at the beginning of a manuscript in the abbey of St. Germain des Prez, it is thought that the copyist had given it to him of his own authority. His infancy announced what he would one day be: he early manifested that eager and inquisitive mind, which during the course of his life never allowed him to remain long attached to the same occupations, and in the same place; and the different games suitable to that age, of which he gives us a picture equally curious and amusing, kept up in his mind a fund of natural dissipation, which during his early studies tried the patience and exercised the severity of his masters. He loved hunting, music, assemblies, feasts, dancing, dress, good living, wine and women; these tastes, which almost all shewed themselves from twelve years of age, being confirmed by habit, were continued even to his old age, and perhaps never left him. The mind and heart of Froissart being not yet sufficiently occupied, his love for history filled up that void, which his passion for pleasure left; and became to him an inexhaustible source of amusement.

He had but just left school, and was scarcely twenty years ol i, when at the intreaty of “his dear lord and master sir Robert de Namur, lord of Beaufort,” he undertook to write the history of the wars of his own time, more particularly of those which ensued after the battle of Poitiers. Four years afterwards, having gone to England, he presented a part of this history to queen Philippa of Hainault, the wife of Edward III. However young he might then be, he had already travelled into the most distant provinces of France. The object of his visit to England was to tear himself from the pains of an attachment which had tormented him for a long time. This passion took possession of his heart from his infancy; it lasted ten years, and sparks of it were again rekindled in a more advanced age. The history of this attachment may be seen in our authority. It appears to have been first childish, and then romantic, and for his feelings in either state, we have only poetical evidence, and from that we learn that he had more mistresses than one. He had made two journies to England, but on which occasion he presented his history to queen Philippa is not certain. It was well received, however, and probably gained him the title of Clerk (secretary or writer) of the chamber to that princess, which he was in possession of from 1361. She is said frequently to have amused herself, in that age of romantic gallantry, by making Froissart compose amorous ditties; but this occupation must be considered solely as a relaxation that no way impeded more serious works, since during the five years he was attached to the service of queen Philippa, he travelled at her expence to various parts of Europe, the object of which seems to be a research after whatever might enrich his history.

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.

It was about this time that Froissart experienced a loss which nothing could recompense, the death of Philippa, which took place in 1369. He composed a lay on this melancholy event, of which, however, he was not a witness; for he says, in another place, that in 1395 it was twenty-seven years since he had seen England. According to Vossius and Bullart he wrote the life of queen Philippa; but this assertion is not founded on any proofs. Independently of the employment of clerk of the chamber to the queen of England, which Froissart had held, he had been also of the household of Edward III. and even of that of John, king of France. Having, however, lost his patroness, he did not return to England, but went into his own country, where he obtained the living of Lestines. Of all that he performed during the time he exercised this ministry, he tells us nothing moiv than that the tavernkeepers of Lestines had live hundred francs of his money in ike short space of liuwj he was their rector. It is mentioned in a ms journal of the bishop of Chartres, chunceHor to the duke of Anjou, that according to letters sealed Dec. 12, 138 >, this prince caused to be seized fifty-six quires of the Chronicle of Froissart, rector of the parish church of Lestines, which the historian had sent to be illuminated, and then to be forwarded to the king of England., the enemy of France. Froissart attached himself afterwards to Winceslaus of Luxembourg, duke of Brabant, perhaps in quality of secretary. This prince had a taste for poetry; he had made by Froissart a collection of his songs, rondeaus, and virrlays, and Froissart adding s-nne of his own pieces to those of the prince, formed a soft of romance, under the title of “Meliador, or the Kujght of the Sun;” hut the duke did not live to see the completion of the work, for he died in 1334.

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.