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

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

Under his name are published, 1. Several speeches and discourses in the trial of the judges of Charles I. in the book entitled “An exact and most impartial account of the Indictment, Arraignment, Trial, and Judgment (according to law) of twenty-nine regicides, &c. 1660,” 4to, 1679, 8vo. 2. “Speeches to both Houses of Parliament, 7th Jan. 1673; 13th of April and 13th of Oct. 1675; 15th of Feb. 1676; 6th of March, 1678; and 30th of April, 1679.” These were spoken while he was lord keeper and chancellor. 3. “Speech at the Sentence of William Viscount Stafford, 7th Dec. 1680,” printed in one sheet, folio; and in the Trial of the said Viscount, p. 212. 4. “Answers by his Majesty’s command, upon several Addresses presented to his majesty at Hampton Court, the 19th of May, 1681,” in one sheet, in folio. 5. “His Arguments; upon which he made the Decree in the cause between the honourable Charles Howard, esq. plaintiff, Henry late duke of Norfolk, Henry lord Mowbray his son, Henry marquis of Dorchester, and Richard Marriott, esq. defendants; wherein the several ways and methods of limiting a trust of term for years are fully debated, 1615,” folio, 6, “An Argument on the claim of the Crown to pardon on Impeachment,” folio. He also left behind him, written with his own hand, “Chancery Reports,” ms. in folio, and notes on Coke’s Institute.

, second earl of Nottingham, son of the preceding, by his lady Elizabeth, daughter of Mr. Daniel Hervey, merchant in London, was born about 1647, and educated at Christ church, Oxford; but entered early into public life, and served in several parliaments in the Teign of Charles II. for the city of Lichfield, and for the borough of Newton in the county of Southampton, In. 1679 he was constituted first commissioner of the Admiralty, and sworn of the privy-council; and in the latter end of the year following, spoke with much vigour in the house of commons against the bill for the exclusion of the duke of York, declaring “that the kings of England do not rule by virtue of any statute-law,” as had been suggested by some persons on the other side of the question, “since their right was by so ancient a prescription, that it might justly be said to be from God alone and such as no power on earth ought to dispute.”

On the decease of his father in 1682, he succeeded him in his titles and estate; and on the death of Charles II. was one of the privy-council who signed the order, dated at Whitehall, Feb. 6, 1684-5, for proclaiming the duke of York king of England. In that reign he was one of the chief opposers of the abrogation of the test act, which he considered as the strongest fence of the protestant religion. Upon the trial of the seven bishops, he was present in court with several other noblemen; and his brother Heneage, afterwards earl of Aylesford, was of the counsel for those prelates. He was likewise one of the patriots, who, from a true zeal for their religion and their country, often met to concert such advices and advertisements as might be fit for the prince of Orange to know, that he might govern himself by them. When, however, it was secretly proposed to him to invite that prince into England, he felt a conscientious hesitation on the subject, and informed the friends of that measure that he could not personally adopt it, yet would preserve the secret with which they had intrusted him. Upon the prince’s landing in the West, he was one of those lords who made a last attempt on the obstinacy of the king, by presenting a petition to his majesty, advising him to call a parliament regular and free in all respects, to which he was even for adding, “that the peers who had joined the prince might sit in that free parliament;” but this by the other lords was thought unnecessary. He was afterwards one of the commissioners sent by^ his majesty to treat with the prince. When afterwards the convention was opened, he was the principal manager of the debates in favour of a regent, against those who were for setting up another king; supporting his opinion by many arguments drawn from the English history, and adding a recent instance in Portugal, "where Don Pedro had only the title of regent conferred upon him, while his deposed brother lived. However, he owned it to be a principle grounded on the law and history of England, that obedience and allegiance were due to the king for the time being, even in opposition to one, with whom the right was thought still to remain. He likewise told bishop Burnet, that though he could not argue nor vote, but according to the notions which he had formed concerning our laws and constitution, he should not be sorry to see his own side out-voted; and that though he could not agree to the making of a king, as things stood, yet if he found one made, he would be more faithful to him than those who made him could be, according to their principles.

When king William and queen Mary therefore were advanced to the throne, he was offered the post of lord high chancellor of England, which he excused himself from accepting, alledging his unfitness for an employment that required a constant application; but was appointed one of the principal secretaries of state. In 1690, he attended his majesty to the famous congress at the Hague; and Jdng James II. took such umbrage at his services, that in his declaration upon his intended descent in 1692, his lordship was excepted out of his general pardon. In March 1693-4, he resigned his place of principal secretary. of state; and the year following had a public testimony given to the integrity of his conduct in a very remarkable instance; for, upon an examination in parliament into the bribery and corruption of some of their own members, in order to obtain a new charter for the East-India Company, it appeared by the deposition of sir Basil Firebrace, that his lurdship had absolutely refused to take five thousand guineas for his interest in promoting that charter, and five thousand pounds on passing the act for that purpose.

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

By his first wife, the lady Essex Rich, second daughter and one of the co-heirs of Robert earl of Warwick, he had issue one daughter; and by his second, Anne, only daughter of Christopher lord viscount Hatton,he had five sons and eight daughters.

He was remarkably skilled in the whole system of the English law, as well as in the records of parliaments; and these qualifications, joined to a copious and ready eloquence, of which he was master, gave him great weight in all public assemblies. Besides the pamphlet against Winston, his lordship wrote “A Letter to Dr. Waterland,” printed at the end of Dr. Newton’s treatise on Pluralities; and a pamphlet entitled “Observations upon the State of the Nation in January 1712-13,” has been ascribed to him, but, as lord Orford thinks, he was not the author of it.

, a lady of considerable poetical talents, was the daughter of fcir William Kingsmill, of Sidmonton, in the county of Southampton, but the time of her birth is not mentioned. She was maid of honour to the duchess of York, second wife of James II.; and afterwards married to Heneage, second son of Heneage earl of Winchelsea; which Heneage was, in his father’s life-time, gentleman of the bed-chamber to the duke of York, and afterwards, upon the death of his nephew Charles, succeeded to the title of earl of Winchelsea. One of the most considerable of this lady’s poems was that “upon the Spleen,” printed in “A new jniscellany of original Poems on several occasion’s,” pub lished by Mr. Charles Gildon in 1701, 8vo, That poem occasioned another of Mr. Nicholas, Rovye, entitled ^ An Epistle to Flavia, on the sight of tvva Pindaric Odes on the Spleen and Vanity, written by a lady to her friend.“A collection of her poems, was printed in 1713, 8vo; containing likewise a, tragedy called” Aristomenes;" never acted; and many still continue unpublished, a few of which may be seen in the General Dictionary, which Dr. Birch inserted there by permission of the countess of Hertford, in whose possession they were. Her ladyship obtained the good will of Pope, who addressed some verses to her which drew forth an elegant replication, printed in Gibber’s Lives. She died August 5, 1720, without issue as did the earl her husband, Sept. 30, 1726.

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

, a physician of Bologna, in the sixteenth century, who possessed a considerable degree of reputation among his contemporaries, appears to have been an arrant empiric in the modern sense of the word. In his writings he dwells at great length on the excellence of the secret remedies which he possessed, and is violent in his condemnation of blood-letting. He died on the 4th of September 1588. The titles of his works, which are all in Italian, and have gone through several editions, are, “Del Specchio di Scientia Universale,” Venice, 1564; “Regimento della Peste,” ibid. 1565; “Capricci Medicinali,” ibid. 1568. “II Tesoro della vita humana,” ibid. 1570. “Compendio dei Secreti Naturali,” Turin, 1580, Venice, 1581, &c. “Delia Fisica, divisa in libri qnattro,” Venice, 1582; “Cirurgia,” ibid. 1588.

, so called from his native city, Florence (in Italian Firenze), though his family name was Nannini, was celebrated in his time as a poet, but his works are now in less repute, which, from their light character and indecencies, is not much to be regretted. He originally practised as an advocate at Rome, and then became an ecclesiastic of the congregation of Vallombrosa. He was personally esteemed by pope Clement VII. who was also an admirer of his works. He died at Rome in 1545. His works in prose were published in 8vo, at Florence, in 1548, and his poetry, the same size, in 1549. These editions, as well as his translation of the Golden Ass of Apuleius, are scarce, but a complete edition of his whole works was published at Florence, 4 vols. 8vo, in 1765-66, in which are some comedies, and other productions.

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

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

, a celebrated bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, in the third century, was one of the friends of Origen, who took St. Cyprian’s part against pope Stephen; maintaining the necessity of re-baptizing those who had been baptized by heretics; and wrote a long letter on this subject in the year 256, to St. Cyprian, by whom it was translated into Latin, and may be seen in his works. St. Firmilian presided at the first council of Antioch held in the year 264, against Paul of Samosata, who promised a change of doctrine; but, continuing to propagate his errors, was condemned at the second council of Antioch, in the year 269. St. Firmilian died at Tarsus, as he was going to this council.

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

, a person memorable for public benefactions and charities, was born at Ipswich in Sutfolk, in June 1633. His parents, whowere puritans, and very reputable and substantial people, at a proper age put out their son to an apprenticeship in London. His master was an Arminian, a hearer of Mr. John Goodwin; to whose sermons young Firmin resorting, “exchanged, 77 as we are told,” the harsh opinions of Calvin, in which he had been educated, for those more reasonable ones of Arminius and the remonstrants.“But here he did not stop: being what is called a free inquirer into religious matters, he was afterwards carried by this spirit and temper to espouse some opinions totally at variance with the orthodox faith: he became persuaded, for instance,” that “the unity of God is an unity of person as well as of nature; and that the Holy Spirit is indeed a person, but not God.” He adopted these principles first from the noted Biddle, who was imprisoned for his opinions in 1645, and Firmin was so zealous in his cause, that when he was only an apprentice, he delivered a petition for his release to Oliver Cromwell, who gave him this laconic answer: “You curl-pated boy, do you think I'll show any favour to a man that denies his Saviour, and disturbs the government?”

As soon as he was made free, he began to trade for himself in the linen manufacture, with a stock not exceeding 100l. which, however, he improved so far, as to marry, in 1660, a citizen’s daughter with 500l. to her portion. This wife did not live many years, but after bringing him two children, died, while he was managing some affairs of trade at Cambridge: and, according to the assertion of his biographer, he dreamed at the same time at Cambridge, that his wife was breathing her last. Afterwards he settled in Lombard-street, and became so celebrated for his public^ spiritedness and benevolence, that he was noticed by all persons of consequence, and especially by the clergy. He became upon intimate terms with Whichcot, Wilkins, Tillotson, &c. so particularly with the last, that when obliged to be out of town, at Canterbury perhaps, where he was dean, he left to Mr. Firmin the provision of preachers for his Tuesday’s lecture at St. Laurence’s church near Guildhall. Mr. Firmin was afterwards so publicly known, as to fall under the cognizance of majesty itself. Queen Mary having heard of his usefulness in all public designs, those of charity especially, and that he was heterodox in the articles of the trinity, the divinity of our Saviour, and the satisfaction, spoke to Tillotson to set him right in those weighty and necessary points; who answered, that he had often endeavoured it; but that Mr. Firmin had now so long imbibed the Socinian doctrine, as to be beyond the reach of his arguments. His grace, however, for he was then archbishop, published his sermons, formerly preached at St. Laurence’s, concerning those questions, and sent Mr. Firmin one of the first copies from the press, who, not convinced, caused a respectful answer to be drawn up and published with this title, “Considerations on the explications and defences of the doctrine of the Trinity,” himself giving a copy to his grace: to which the archbishop, after he had read it, only answered, “My lord of Sarum,” meaning Dr. Burnet, “shall humble your writers;” still retaining, however, his usual kindness for Mr. Firmin.

In 1664, he married a second wife, who brought him several children: nevertheless, his benevolent spirit did not slacken, but he went about doing good as usual, and the plague in 1665, and the fire in 1666, furnished him with a variety of objects. He went on with his trade in Lombard-street, till 1676: at which time his biographer supposes him to have been worth 9000l. though he had disposed of incredible sums in charities. This year he erected his warehouse in Little-Britain, for the employment of the poor in the linen manufacture; of which Tillotson has spoken most honourably, in his funeral sermon on Mr. Gouge, in 1681, giving the merit of the thought to Mr. Gouge, but that of the adoption and great extension of it to Mr. Firmin. The method was this he bought flax and hemp for them to spin when spun he paid them for their work, and caused it to be wrought into cloth, which he sold as he could, himself bearing the whole loss.

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

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

In all musical performances at the universities, and at the periodical meetings at the provincial towns, Fischer’s concertos were eagerly expected, and heard with rapture. His tone was not only uncommonly sweet, but so powerful, that Giardini, who never could praise a German but through the medium of abuse, used to say that he had such an impudence of tone as no other instrument could contend with, and his execution was quite as much as the instrument would bear to produce an agreeable effect. His taste and chiaro-scuro were exquisite, and he had his reed perfectly under his command. As to his composition, he was always so original, interesting, and pleasing, that he may be pronounced one of the few intuitive musicians who had powers which he knew not how he acquired, and talents at which study alone can never arrive. His taste and ear were exceeding delicate and refined; and he seemed to possess a happy and peculiar faculty of tempering a continued tone to different bases, according to their several relations: upon the whole, his performance was so capital, that a hearer must have been extremely fastidious not to receive from it a great degree of pleasure.

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

, a physician of Erfurt, the son of a celebrated apothecary, was born on the 28th of November, 16G7, and graduated in the university of Erfurt, in April 1691. He was appointed professor extraordinary in the faculty of Erfurt in 1695, and professor of logic in the Evangelical college in 1699; but he relinquished, both these appointments in 1718, in order to assume the duties of the professorship of pathology and of the practice of medicine, to which he had been nominated three years before. Fischer acquired considerable reputation at Erfurt, and in the courts in the vicinity of that city, and had been ten years physician to the court of Mentz, when he died on the 13th of February, 1729. He has left several essays in the form of inaugural theses; which were published between the year 1718 and that of his death; but he was also author of some more important works: viz. 1. “Consilia Medica, quae in usum practicum et forensem, pro scopo curandi et renunciandi adornata stint.” Three volumes of this work were published successively at Francfort, in 1704, 1706, and 1712. 2. “Ilias in mice, seu Medicina Synoptica,” Erfurt, 1716. 3. “Responsa Practica,” Leipsic, 1719.

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

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

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

, bishop of Rochester, and a great benefactor to learning, was born at Beverley, in Yorkshire, 1459, His father, a merchant, left him an orphan very young; but, by the care of his mother, he was taught classical learning at Beverley, and afterwards admitted in Cambridge, of Michael-house, since incorporated into Trinity-college. He took the degrees in arts in 1488, and 1491; and, being elected fellow of his house, was a proctor of the university in 1495. The same year, he was elected master of Michael-house; and having for some time applied himself to divinity, he took holy orders, and became eminent. The fame of his learning and virtues reaching the ears of Margaret countess of Richmond, mother of Henry VII. she chose him her chaplain and confessor; in which high station he behaved himself with so much wisdom and goodness, that she committed herself entirely to his government and direction. It was by his counsel, that she undertook those magnificent foundations of St. John’s and Christ’s colleges at Cambridge; established the divinity professorships in both universities; and did many other acts of generosity for the propagation of learning and piety.

In 1501, he took the degree of D. D. and the same year was chosen chancellor of the university; during the exercise of which office he encouraged learning and good manners, and is said by some to have had prince Henry under his tuition in that university. In 1502 he was appointed by charter the lady Margaret’s first divinity-professor in Cambridge; and in 1504, made bishop of Rochester, at the recommendation of Fox, bishop of Winchester, and never would exchange this bishopric, though then the least in England; for he called his church his wife, and was, used to say, “he would not change his little old wife, to whom he had been so long wedded, for a wealthier.” In 1505 he accepted the headship of Queen’s college, in Cambridge, which he held for little more than three years. The foundation of Christ’s-coliege was completed under his care and superintendence in 1506; and himself was appointed hy the statutes visitor for life, after the death of the munificent foundress. The king’s licence for founding St. John’s, was obtained soon after; but, before it was passed in due form, the king died, April 1, 1509, and the lady Margaret herself, the 29th of June following. The care of the new foundation now derolved upon her executors, of whom the most faithful and most active, and indeed the sole and principal agent, was Fisher; and he carried it on with the utmost vigour. In 1512 he was appointed to the council of Lateran, at Rome, but never went, as appears from procuratorial powers, and letters recommending him to great men there, still extant in the archives of St. John’s college. This college being finished in 1516, he went to Cambridge, and opened it with due solemnity; and was also commissioned to make statutes for it. He became afterwards a great benefactor to that college.

Upon Luther’s appearance and opposition to popery, in 1517, Fisher, a zealous champion for the church of Rome, was one of the first to enter the lists against him. He not only endeavoured to prevent the propagation of his doctrine in his own diocese, and in the university of Cambridge, over which as chancellor he had a very great influence, but also preached and wrote with great eanifstness against him. He had even resolved to go to Rome, but was diverted by Wolsey’s calling together a synod of the whole clergy, in which the bishop delivered himself with great freedom, on occasion of the cardinal’s stateliness and pride. Hitherto he had continued in great favour with Henry; but in the business of the divorce, in 1527, he adhered so firmly to the queen’s cause and the pope’s supremacy, that jt brought him into great trouble, and in the end proved his ruin. For the king, who greatly esteemed him for his honesty and learning, having desired his opinion upon his marriage with Catherine of Arragon, the bishop declared, that there was no reason at all to question the validity of it; and from this opinion nothing afterwards could ever make him recede.

In the parliament which met Nov. 1529, a motion being made for suppressing the lesser monasteries, Fisher opposed it in a very warm speech, at which some lords were pleased, others displeased. The duke of Norfolk, addressing himself to him, said, “My lord of Rochester, many of these words might have been well spared; but it is often seen that the greatest clerks are not always the wisest men.-” To which the bishop replied, “My lord, I do not remember any fools in my time, that ever proved great clerks.” Complaint was made by the commons of this speech to the king, who contented himself with gently rebuking Fisher, and bidding him “use his words more temperately.” In 1530 he escaped two very great clangers, first that of being poisoned, and then of being shot in his house at Lambeth-marsh; upon which he retired to Rochester. One Rouse, coming into his kitchen, took occasion, in the cook’s absence, to throw poison into gruel which was prepared for his dinner. He could eat nothing that day, and so escaped; but of seventeen persons who eat of it, two died, and the rest never perfectly recovered their health. Upon this occasion, an act was made declaring poisoning to be high treason, and adjudging the offender to be boiled to death; which punishment was soon after inflicted upon Rouse in Smithfield. The other danger proceeded from a cannon bullet, which, being shot from the other side of the Thames, pierced through his house, and came very near his study, where he used to spend most of his time.

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

Respect to his great reputation for learning and piety, occasioned very earnest endeavours to bring him to a compliance. Some bishops waited on him for that purpose, as did afterwards the lord chancellor Audeley, and others of the privy-council; but they found him immoveable. Secretary Cromwell was also with him in vain, and afterwards Lee, bishop of Lichfield. The issue was, a declaration from Fisher, that he would “swear to the succession never dispute more about the marriage and promise allegiance to the king but his conscience could not be convinced, that the marriage was not against the law of God.” These concessions did not satisfy the king; who was resolved to let all his subjects see that there was no mercy to be expected by any one who opposed his will. Therefore, in the parliament which met Nov. 3, he was attainted for refusing the oath of “succession; and his bishopric declared void Jan. 2. During his confinement, the poor old bishop was most barbarously used, was left without decent clothing, and scarce allowed necessaries. He continued above a year in the Tower, and might have remained there till released by a natural death, if an unseasonable honour, paid him by pope Paul III. had not hastened his destruction; which was, the creating of him, in May 1535, cardinal, by the title of Cardinal Priest of St. Vitalis. When the king heard of it, he gave strict orders that none should bring the hat into his dominions: he sent also lord Cromwell to examine the bishop about that affair, who, after some conference, said,” My lord of Rochester, what would you say, if the pope should send you a cardinal’s hat would you accept of it“The bishop replied,” Sir, I know myself to be so far unworthy any such dignity, that I think of nothing less; but if any such thing should happen, assure yourself that I should improve that favour to the best advantage that I could, in assisting the holy catholic church of Christ; and in that respect I would receive it upon my knees.“When this answer was brought, the king said in a great passion,” Yea, is he yet so lusty Well, let the pope send him a hat when he will, Mother of God, he shall wear it on his shoulders then; for I will leave him never a head to set it on."

From this time his ruin was absolutely determined; but as no legal advantage could be taken against him, Richard Rich, esq. solicitor-general, a busy officious man, went to him; and in a fawning treacherous manner, under pretence of consulting him, as from the king, about a case of conscience, gradually drew him into a discourse about the supremacy, which he declared to be “unlawful, and what his majesty could not take upon him, without endangering his soul.” Thus caught in the snare purposely laid for him, a special commission was drawn up for trying him, dated June 1, 1535; and on the 17th, upon a short trial, he was found guilty of high treason, and condemned to suffer death. He objected greatly against Rich’s evidence, on which he was chiefly convicted and told him, that “he could not but marvel to hear him bear witness against him on these words, knowing in what secret manner he came to him.” Then addressing himself to his judges, and relating the particulars of Rich’s coming, he thus went on: “He told me, that the king, for better satisfaction of his own conscience, had sent unto me in this secret manner, to know my full opinion in the matter of the supremacy, for the great affiance he had in me more than any other; and farther, that the king willed him to assure me on his honour, and on the word of a king, that whatever I should say unto him by this his secret messenger, I should abide no danger nor peril for it, nor that any advantage should be taken against me for the same. Now, therefore, my lords,” concludes he, “seeing it pleased the king’s majesty, to send to me thus secretly under the pretence of plain and true meaning, to know my poor advice and opinion in these his weighty and great affairs, which I most gladly was, and ever will be, willing to send him; inethinks, it is very hard and unjust to hear the messenger’s accusation, and to allow the same as a sufficient testimony against me in case of treason” Hard and unjust it unquestionably was, but suitable enough to the temper of the king, who was not subject to scruples; and his will, unfortunately, was a law. June 22, early in the morning, he received the news of his execution that day; and when he was getting up, he caused himself to be dressed in a neater and finer manner than usual; at which his man expressing much wonder, seeing he must put it all off again within two hours, and lose it “What of that,” said the bishop “does thou not mark, that this is our marriageday, and that it behoves us therefore to use more cleanliness for solemnity of the marriage sake” He was beheaded about ten o'clock, aged almost 77 and his head was fixed over London-bridge the next day.

Such was the tragical end of Fisher, “which left one of thegreatest blots upon this kingdom’s proceedings,” as Burnet says in his “History of the Reformation.” He was a very tall well-made man, strong and robust, but at the end of his life extremely emaciated. As to his moral and intellectual attainments, nothing could well be greater. Erasmus represents him as a man of integrity, deep learning, sweetness of temper, and greatness of soul. His words are remarkable, and deserve to be transcribed. “Reverendus Episcopus Roffensis, vir non solum mirabili integritate vitae, vertim etiam aha et recondita doctrina, turn morum quoque incredibili comitate commendatus maximis pariter ac minimis. Aut egregie fallor, aut is vir est unus, cum quo nemo sit hac tempestate conferendus, vel integritate vitae, vel eruditione, vel animi magnitudine.” It is, however, to be lamented that a man of such distinguished worth and literature, should have been enslaved by narrow prejudices, and seduced by the enthusiasm and imposture of Elizabeth Barton.

He was the author of several works, as, 1. “Assertionum Martini Lutheri confutatio.” 2. “Defensio Assertions Henrici Octavi de septem sacramentis,” &c. 3. “Epistola Responsoria Epistolge Lutheri.” 4. “Sacerdotii Defensio contra Lutherum.” 5, “Pro Damnatione Lutheri.” 6. “Pe veritate cornoris et sanguinis ChristJ in Eucharistia a adversus Oecolampadium.” 7. “De unica Magdalena.” 8. “Peirum fuisse Romse.” 9. “Several Sermons, among which was one preached at the funeral of Henry VII. and one at the funeral of Margaret countess of Richmond.” The latter was republished in 1708, by Thomas Baker, B. D. with a learned preface. And one preached at London, on the day that Luther’s writings were publicly burnt. 10. Several Tracts of a smaller nature upon subjects of piety. 11. “His opinion of king Henry VIII.'s marriage, in a letter to T. WoKey.” This is printed in the Collection of Records at the end of the second volume of Collier’s “Ecclesiastical History.” Most of the forementioned pieces, which were printed separately in England, were collected and printed together in one volume folio at Wurtzburg, in 1595. It is also supposed that he had a considerable hand in Henry VIII.'s book, “Assertio septern sacramentorum,” &c. although bishop Burnet seems angry with Sanders for saying so: it is nevertheless highly probable. In the Norfolk library of Mss. belonging to the royal society is an answer of bishop Fisher’s to a book printed at London in 1530, concerning king Henry’s marriage with queen Catherine.

, an English Jesuit of the seventeenth century, whose true name was Piercy, was born in Yorkshire, and admitted in the English college at Rome, whence he removed to Louvaine, and became a Jesuit in 1594. Afterwards he was sent on a mission to England, and laboured several years in endeavouring to make proselytes, until he was imprisoned and banished. Those of his order then made him professor of divinity at Louvaine, and vice-provincial of the English Jesuits. Returning thence to England, he made a considerable figure in the reigns of James I. and Charles I. in various controversies and conferences with some noted divines of the church of England. His most remarkable conference was with Dr. Francis White, dean of Carlisle, and afterwards bishop of Norwich, which was held in the king’s presence in 1622, at three different times, at the request of the duke of Buckingham, on account of his duchess being a Roman catholic. At the conclusion of these conferences, king James desired Fisher to return an answer to nine points, proposed by his majesty, which Fisher did in writing, except an article concerning the supremacy, about which he desired to he excused. He had conferences also with Laud, Featley, and othrrs. He was alive in 1641, but how long afterwards we do not find. He published 1. “A Treatise of Faith,” Lond. 1600, and St. Omers, 1614. 2. “A Defence of the preceding against Wooton and White,” St. Omers, 1612. 3. “A Challenge to Protestants; to shew the succession of their pastors, from Christ down,” ibid. 1612. 4. “An Answer to nine points of Controversy proposed by king James I. with the censure of Mr. White’s reply,” 1625, 4to. In answer to him were published, 1. “The Romish Fisher caught in his own net,” by Dr. Featley, Lond. 1624, 4to. 2. Two other pamphlets by the same. 3. “A Conference between bishop Laud and Fisher,” ibid. 1639, by Laud. 4. “Reply to the relation, of the conference between Laud and Fisher,” by an anonymous author, 1640, 4to. 5. “Reply to Fisher’s answer to some questions propounded by king James,” 1624, by Francis White. 6. “Orthodox faith and the way to the church explained,” by the same, 1617. 7. “Fisher’s folly unfolded,” &c. by George Walker, 1624. 8. “Catalogus protestantium before Luther,” by George Webb, 1624, 4to. 9. “An answer to Mr. Fisher the Jesuit, &c. in a dialogue,” by Henry Rogers, 1623. 10. “The Protestant church existent, and by whom their faith professed in all ages,” by the same, 1638, 4to. 11. “A Dialogue about this question, Where was your church before Luther?” by C. W. 1623.

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

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

, a poetical writer of queen Elizabeth’s reign, was the son of Alexander Fitzgeffrey, of a good family in Cornwall, and born in 1575. He became a commoner of Broadgate-ball, Oxford, in 1592, took the degrees in arts, and entered into orders. At length he became rector of St. Dominick, in his own county, where he was esteemed a grave and learned divine, as he was, while at the university, an excellent Latin poet. He died at his parsonage of St. Dominick, and was buried in the chancel of the church therein 1636. His works are, 1. “The Life and Death of Sir Francis Drake,” which being written in lofty verse, while he was A. B. he was then called “the high towering Falcon.” 2. “Affanias sive epigrammata lib. III. and Cenotaphia, lib. I.” Oxford, 1601, 8vo. 3. Several Sermcns. Wood has erroneously ascribed to him a collection of poetry, under the title of “Choice flowers and descriptions,” which belongs to Allot, but he appears to have been the author of a prose tract entitled “A curse for Corne-horders,” 1631, 4to, and a religious poem, called “The blessed Birth-day,” 1634, 4to; 1636, 1654, 8vo. An interesting account of some of his works may be seen in our authorities.

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

His lordship married July 1, 1786, Miss Whaley, daughter of Richard Chapel Whaley, esq. of Whaley abbey, in Ireland, by whom he had issue, John, the present peer, and another son and two daughters. At his death his lordship was a privy-counsellor, a lord of trade and plantations, vice-chancellor of the university of Dublin, and LL. D. In the elevated and arduous situation of lord chancellor, during a very eventful period, he uniformly acted with a manly decision and ability that extorted applause even from his political adversaries. He banished chicanery and artificial delay from the court where he presided; and was on every emergent occasion the firm and undaunted supporter of the constitution of the British realms, at a time when it was every where assailed by secret machinations, and in his own country by open rebellion. For such emergencies he was peculiarly fitted by a dauntless spirit, joined to great ability, virtue, and patriotism in its true sense. The only printed document of his composition is his “Speech on the Union.”

, a very learned lawyer in the reign of Henry VIII. was descended from an ancient family, and was the younger son of Ralph Fitzherbert, esq. He was born at Norbury, co. Derby, but it is not known in what year. After he had been properly educated in the country, he was sent to Oxford, and from thence to one of the inns of court; but we neither know of what college, nor of what inn he* was admitted. His great parts, judgment, and diligence, soon distinguished him in his profession; and in process of time he became so eminent, that on Nov. 18, 1511, he was called to be a serjeant at law. In 1516 he received the honour of knighthood, and the year after was appointed one of his majesty’s Serjeants at law. He began now to present the world with the product of his studies; and published from time to time several valuable works. In 1523, which was the fifteenth year of Henry the Eighth’s reign, he was made one of the justices of the court of common pleas, in which honourable station he spent the remaining part of his life; discharging the duties of his office with such ability and integrity, that he was universally respected as the oracle of the law. Two remarkable things are related of his conduct; one, that he openly opposed cardinal Wolsey in the height of his power, although chiefly on the score of alienating the church lands; the other, that on his death-bed, foreseeing the changes that were likely to happen in the church as well as state, he pressed his children in very strong terms to promise him solemnly neither to accept grants, nor to make purchases of abbey-lands. He died May 27, 1515—8, and was buried in his own parish church of Norbury. He left behind him a very numerous posterity; and as he became by the death of his elder brother John possessed of the family estate, he was in a condition to provide very plentifully for them. The Fitzherbert family, in the different branches of it, continues to flourish, chiefly in Derbyshire and Staffordshire.

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

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

Wood has given a list of his writings, containing ten different works, chiefly of the controversial kind, in defence of popery, and directed against Barlow, Donne, Andrews, and other English divines. But the treatises which were received with most general approbation by protestants and papists, are, 1. “Treatise concerning Polity and Religion,” Doway, 1606, 4to, wherein are confuted several principles of Machiavel. The second part of the said treatise was printed also at Doway, 1610, and both together in 1615, 4to. A third part was printed at London, in 1652, 4to. 2. “An sit utilitas in scelere, vel de infelicitate Principis Machiavellani” Romae, 1610, 8vo, The language of these pieces is a little perplexed and obscure, and the method, according to the manner of those times, somewhat embarrassed and pedantic; but they evince strong sense, a generous disposition, with much reading and experience, and abound with matter, which has served as a fund to several authors, who have since written against Machiavel.

, grandson also to sir Anthony Fitzherbert, and cousin to Thomas, was born about 1550, and became a student of Exeter college in Oxford. About 1572, be left his native country, parents, and patrimony, for religion, as a voluntary exile. At first he settled at Bologna in Italy, 'to obtain the knowledge of the civil law, and was there in 1580. Not long after he went to Rome, and in 1587 began to live, as his secretary, in the family of William Alan, the cardinal of England. He continued with him till his death, after having distinguished himself by his knowledge in the laws, and in polite literature. He was unfortunately drowned, 1612, in a journey he made from Rome. He published the following pieces: 1. “Casao Galataei de bonis moribus,” 1595; a translation from Italian. 2. “Oxoniensis in Anglia Academiae Descriptio,” 1602. 3. “De Antiquitate et Continuatione Catholicse Religionis in Anglia,” 1608. 4. “Vitse Cardinalis Alani Epitome,” 1608: all printed at Rome. He also wrote the life of that cardinal, who was his patron, more at large; which, for reasons of state, was never published.

, of Tissington, bart. a descendant of the same fa'mily as the preceding, the son of William Fitzherbert, of Tissington, esq. was born May 27, 1748, and was educated at St. John’s college, Cambridge, and obtained the degree of M. A. by mandamus, in 1767. Having studied the law, he was, during seven years, a practising barrister, but passed the latter part of his life at his seat in Derbyshire, and took a very active and useful share in the public business of that county as one of its magistrates, and as recorder of the borough of Derby. He was created a baronet Jan. 22, 1784. He was for some years one of the gentlemen ushers daily waiters to his present majesty, which he resigned before his death, which took place July 30, 17S1, in his forty-third year. He was the author of two small tracts, one entitled “Maxims,” and the other “A Dialogue on the Revenue Laws;” both of which are elegantly written, and display much useful and practical knowledge and observation, together with the highest benevolence and zeal for the public good. A third pamphlet is ascribed to him, “On the Knighu made in 1778.” Sir William’s younger brother is the present lord St. Helen’s.

, duke of Berwick, natural son of James II. when duke of York, and of Arabella Churchill, sister to the great duke of Marl borough, was born at Moulins in 1670, when his mother was on her return from the medicinal waters of Bourbon. He was bred to arms in the French service, and in 1686, at the age of fifteen, was wounded at the siege of Buda; he signalized himself also in 1687, at the battle of Mohatz, where the duke of Lorraine defeated the Turks. In 1688, after'his father’s abdication, he was sent to command for him in Ireland, and was distinguished, both at the siege of Londonderry, in 1690, and at the battle of the Boyne, where he had a horse killed under him. In 1703 he commanded the troops that Louis XIV. sent to Spain to support the claim of Philip V. In a single campaign he made himself master of several fortified places. On his return to France he was employed to reduce the rebels in the Cevennes. He then besieged Nice, and took it in 170. For his services in this campaign he was raised the next year to the dignity of mareschal of France; after which he greatly signalized himself in Spain against the Portuguese and others. In 1707 he gained the celebrated battle of Almanza, against the English under lord Galloway, and the Portuguese under Das-Minas, who had above 5000 men killed on the field. This victory fixed the crown on the head of Philip V. who was studious to prove his gratitude to the general to whom he was indebted for it. In 1714 he took Barcelona, being then generalissimo of the armies of Spain. When the war between France and Germany broke out in 1733, he again went out at the head of the French army; but in 1734 he was killed by a cannon-bail before Philipsburg, which he was besieging. It was the fortune of the house of Churchill, says Montesquieu, speaking of the dukes of Marlborough and Berwick, to produce two heroes, one of whom was destined lo shake, and the other to support, the two greatest monarchies^ jf Europe. The character of Fitzjames was in some degree dry and severe, but full of integrity, sincerity, and true greatness. He was unaffectedly religious; and, though frugal in his personal expences, generally in debt, from the expences brought upon him by his situation, and the patronage he gave to fugitives from England, who had supported the cause of his father. The French are lavish in his Braise, and certainly not without reason. His character has been well and advantageously drawn by the great Montesquieu; and there are memoirs of him written by himself, with a continuation to his death by the English editor, Mr. Hooke, a doctor of the Sorbonne, and son of the Roman historian. They were published in 2 vols. 8vo, in 1779.

, bishop of Rochester, Chichester, and London, and a distinguished benefactor to Merton college, Oxford, was a native of a good family in Somersetshire. About 1459 he went to Oxford, and in 1465 was elected probationer fellow of Merton college, and when M. A. entered into holy orders, and in 1473 served the office of proctor. In March 1474 he became prebend of Taunton in the church of Wells, and when appointed chaplain to Edward IV. took his degrees in divinity. In March 1482 he was elected warden of Merton college, which office he retained for twenty-five years, during which he greatly advanced the credit and prosperity of the college, built the whole of what is now the ancient part of it, and made considerable additions to the fine chapel. In March 1484-5 he was made vicar of Minehead, and about the same time rector of Aller in Somersetshire. In June 1495 he was admitted almoner to Henry VII, and in May 1469 consecrated bishop of Rochester, from which, in Jan. 1503, he was translated to Chichester, and in March 1505 was again translated to the see of London. On this last preferment he resigned his wardenship of Merton, which he had hitherto held in commendam with Rochester and Chichester. While bishop of London, he was a munificent contributor to the cathedral church, and is also on record as a great benefactor to the completion of St. Mary’s church, Oxford. Along with his brother, sir John Fitzjames, lord chief justice of England, he founded the school at Bruton, in Somersetshire. He died in 1522, very aged, and was buried in St. Paul’s cathedral.

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

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

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

, an eminent naval commander, and earl of Southampton, in the sixteenth century, was the second son of sir Thomas Fitzvviliiam, of Aldwarke, in Yorkshire, knt. by Lucia, his wife, daughter and co-heir to John Neville, marquis Montacute. In 151O he was made one of the esquires for the body of king Henry VIII. which office was renewed to him for life ia 1512. The year following he was one of the chief commanders in the fleet sent out against France, to clear the sea of French ships before Henry and his allies attacked France by land; and he was seriously wounded by an arrow in attempting to destroy the French fleet at Brest. Shortly after he attended king Henry at the siege of Tournay, where his bravery procured him the honour of knighthood. In 1620 he was vice-admiral of England, and em^ ployed in guarding the channel at the time the emperor Charles V. came to England. He so ingratiated himself with his royal master that he obtained from him, in 1521, 9. grant of the manor of Navesby in Northamptonshire, part of the possessions of Edward Stafford, duke of Buckingham, then lately attainted. At that time he was ambassador in France; but, upon a rupture between that kingdom and England, he was recalled, Jan. 1521-2, and ordered to sea with a strong fleet of twenty-eight sail, to secure our merchants, and take what French ships he could. Shortly after he assisted at the taking of Morlaix, in Bretagne; and with sir William Sandes and sir Maufice Berkeley, went and burnt Marguison, which was newly built and fortified, and many villages. In 1523, the king of France, preparing to send John duke of Albany, regent of Scotland, into that kingdom in order to invade England from that quarter, sir William was made admiral, and dispatched with a strong fleet to intercept him. Having missed him, he landed on the French coast at Treport, in Normandy, and burnt the suburbs of that town and several ships in the harbour, though there were but 700 English opposed to 6000 French. The year following, being captain of Guisnes, in Picardy, he greatly annoyed Boulogne, and other places adjacent. Before the end of that year he was made treasurer of the king’s household; and in October sent to France with Dr. John Taylor, a civilian, to see the lady regent (whose son, Francis I. was then prisoner in Spain) swear to observe the articles of a treaty newly concluded between the two crowns. In 1529 he was one of those who subscribed the articles exhibited in parliament against cardinal Wolsey. At the grand interview between the ki:igs of England and France, in 1532, he attended his master Henry V11I. to Boulogne, the place of interview between many other persons of the highest quality. In May 1535, he was sent with the duke of Norfolk, the of Ely, and Dr. Fox, to treat with the French king’s commissioners about a league between the crowns of England and France; one of the articles of which was, that the duke of Angonleme, third son to the king of France, should marry Elizabeth, second daughter of king Henry. Shortly after, he was made knight of the garter, and chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster; and in 1536 constituted admiral of England, Wales, Ireland, Normandy, Gascony, and Aquitaine. On Oct. 18, 1537, he was advanced to the title of earl of Southampton, and made lord privy-seal Oct. 27,1539. In April following, some disputes having arisen between England and France, he, with John lord Russel, lately made high admiral, were sent over to Calais with a few troops of horse, and returned quickly after executing their orders. He was also employed as captain of the Foreward in the expedition to Scotland, in October 1542, but died in his way thither, at Newcastle, so much esteemed, that, in honour of his memory, his standard was borne in the vanguard in all that expedition. By his will bearing date Sept. 10, of the same year, he ordered his body to be buried in the church of Midhurst, in Sussex. He left no issue by Mabel his wife, daughter to Henry lord Clifford, and sister to Henry first earl of Cumberland. Of his personal character it is only recorded that there was not a serviceable man under his command whose name he knew not; not a week passed but he paid his ships; not a prize but his seamen shared in as well as himself; and it was his opinion, that none fought well but those who did it for a fortune, which may be admitted, in some measure, if we consider that fortune and honours in the naval and military services are generally joined.

, an eminent German astronomer, was born May 28, 1721, at Achleiten, a village in hither Austria, not far from Kremsmunster. He received the rudiments of his education in the convent of Kremsmunster, which was indebted to his uncle the abbot, Alexander Fixlmillner, for an excellent school and an observatory. Placidus conceived an early attachment to the mathematics, and took so much pleasure in delineating mathematical figures, that his mother, out of derision, called him the almanack-maker. After some stay at the above seminary he removed to Salzburg, where he completed his course of philosophy, and obtained in that faculty the degree of doctor. His taste for the mathematics, however, became still stronger. His father having asked him one da)' what present he should give him, he requested Wolff’s Epitome of the Mathematics; which he studied with the greatest pleasure and satisfaction during such hours as he could spare from his other avocations: but having destined himself for the convent, he was admitted a noviciate at Kremsmunster, in 1737, and next year he publicly took the vows before the abbot Alexander. After a stay of two years in the convent, he was sent again to Salzburg, to complete his studies in jurisprudence and theology; but at the same time he applied with great assiduity to the mathematics, languages, history, and antiquities. He learned also to play on the harpsichord and organ, and made so much progress in music, that he composed several pieces, both in the sacred and theatrical style. He disputed in some theological theses; and in 1745 returned to his convent, where he was consecrated to the priesthood.

About this time the Ritterschule having been established at Kremsmunster, Placid us was appointed professor of canon-law; a department in which he had acquired great reputation at the university. This office he held for forty years, and resigned it only a short time before his death. Almost about the same period he was appointed dean of the higher school, and soon after principal regent over the young nobility; which places he retained also till his death. He possessed great knowledge of the canonlaws, and on that account was often employed in processes and other affairs relating to the convent. He was likewise inscribed Apostolical notary in the Roman court.

In 1760 he published a theological work entitled “Reipublicae Sacrae Origines Divinse,” but he acquired far more celebrity by his astronomical labours, both as an observer and a writer. The abbot Alexander Fixlmillner, a great friend of the sciences, and particularly of the mathematics, having resolved in 1747 to form an establishment in his convent for promoting the latter, first set apart a spacious room for containing mathematical and philosophical instruments. This paved the way for something further; and he determined, for the improvement of his conventuals in astronomy, to erect an observatory. Among those convents which for a long time have devoted their leisure and riches to the advancement of science and the good of mankind, none has distinguished itself more than that of Kremsmunster. This very old abbey is not the seat of infidelity and indolence, but a patron of the noblest branches of science. The observatory founded in 1748, was completed in 1758, and the superintendence of it was intrusted to Eugenius Dobler, a brother of the order.

Alexander’s successor, the abbot Berthold Voge), who long resided at Salzburg, as professor of canon law and rector of the university, being well acquainted with Fixlmillner’s great knowledge, particularly in the mathematics, appointed him in 1762 to be astronomer at Kremsmunster, with leave to retain his office as professor of canon-law. He now applied with great zeal to render himself more fit for his new occupation, as he had not yet attended much to practical astronomy, and was even but little acquainted with those books from which he could obtain information on the subject. His great attachment, however, to this science, fine genius, and a desire of being useful to the institution in which he resided, and to the world, made him overcome every difficulty. The first book that fell into his hands was Lalande’s “Exposition du Calctil Astronomique,” with which alone, without any ^oral instruction, he began to study and to make observations. This work, together with Ylacq’s Logarithmic Tables, were for a long time his only sources and guides, till he at length obtained Lalande’s large work on astronomy. Fortunately, a carpenter, John Illinger, born in a village belonging to the abbey, though he could neither read nor write, waa able, under the direction of Fixlmillner, to construct for him very neat mural quadrants, zenith sectors, transit instruments, and pendulum clocks. Other instruments were made for him by Brander, of Augsburgh, and he procured achromatic telescopes from Dollond; so that by his activity the observatory at Kremsmunster soon became one of the most celebrated, and best supplied with apparatus, in Germany.

Fixlmillner now acquired a considerable rank among astronomical writers. In 1765 he published his “Meridianns Speculae Astron. Cremisanensis,” in which he established the first elements of his observatory, and determined its longitude and latitude. In 1776 he published his second astronomical work called “Decennium astronomicum,” which contained the observations made by him at Kremsmunster from 1765 to 1775, and which is replete with important and useful information. His third work, on which he was employed towards the close of his life, and which was printed after his death, appeared in 1792. It contains a valuable collection of observations made between 1776 and 1791, together with a great many calculations and treatises, which still add to his celebrity in this department. Besides these, many important articles written by him are to be found in the “Journal des Savans,” and other literary journals and memoirs.

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

, an eminent physician of Montpellier, the son of Nicholas Fizes, professor of mathematics in that university, was born in 1690, and at first educated by his father, who hoped that he would succeed him in the mathematical chair; but his disposition being more to the study of medicine, his father sent him to complete his medical education at Paris, under the tuition of Du Verney, Lemery, and the two messrs. De Jussieu. On his return to Montpellier, he employed himself in observing diseases in the hospital de la Charite, and in public teaching. On the death of his father, he was appointed joint professor of mathematics with M. de Clapiers, and soon became his sole successor. In 1732, the medical professorship in the university being vacant by the resignation of M. Deidier, Fizes was elected his successor. He fulfilled the duties of this chair with great propriety, but was more highly distinguished as a practitioner. He appreciated at once the character of the most complicated disease; and was above all admired for the accuracy of his prognostics. These qualifications placed him at the head of his profession at Montpellier; his fame extended to the metropolis, and he was invited to the office of physician to the duke of Orleans. His age was now, however, advanced; and the fear of the jealousy which this high appointment might produce among his brethren, led him to make some efforts to be permitted to decline this honour. He removed to Paris, nevertheless; but, unused to the intrigues and railJeries and cabals of a court, he was unhappy in his situation; his health began to fail, and he was induced to request permission to resign his office, and returned to Montpellier, after residing fourteen months at Paris, honoured with the protection of the prince, and the friendship of M. Senac, Astruc, Bordeu, &c. He was accused of a little misanthropy on this occasion; but he was an enemy to adulation and selfishness, and seemed to revolt from very species of artificial politeness. He resumed the functions of his professorship at Montpellier but for a short period; for he was carried off by a malignant fever in the course of three days, and died on August 14, 1765, aged about seventy-five years. His works were principally essays on different points of theory and practice. 1. “De Hominis Liene sano,” Montpellier^ 1716; 2. “De naturali Secretione Bilis in Jecore,” ibid.' 1719 3. “Specimen de Suppuratione in Partibus mollibus,” ibid. 1722 4. “Partium Corporis himiani Solidarum Conspectus Anatomico-Mechanicus,” ibid. 1729; 5. “De Cataracta” 6. “Universae Physiologiae Conspectus,” ibid. 1737; 7. “De Tumoribus in Genere,” ibid. 1738; 8. “Tractatus de Febribus,” ibid. 1749. The greater part of the writings of Fizes were collected in one 4to volume, and were published at Montpellier in 1742.

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

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

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

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

Mr. O-Flaherty promised a second part, in which he intended to give an account at large of the Christian kings of Ireland, but never accomplished it; although Harris mentions a report that it existed in manuscript, in the hands of his relations, which probably was only a short abstract of annals from 1187 to 1327, which Nicolson say was extant in his time. He wrote also a treatise in vindication of his “Ogygia” against the objections of sir George Mackenzie and others, which was intended for the press, but we know not that it ever appeared. Sir Richard Cox only seems to speak slightingly -of the “Ogygia,” which is highly praised by Dr.Dudley Loftus, Belling, and Stillingfleet.

, a painter of historical subjects, was born at Liege in 1614, and began his studies in Flanders, but at the age of twenty-four he went into Italy to cultivate his talents by a view of the works of the renowned painters of that country. At Rome, he copied the best works of the great masters, and soon acquired a reputation which recommended him to the court of Florence, to which the grand duke invited him, and there employed him in several works, the execution of which acquired for him the esteem of that prince, and the applause of the public. In returning from hence homewards, after an absence of nine years, he went to Paris, where some of his best works were executed. In 1647 he returned to Liege, where he was received with great warmth, and by his subsequent works confirmed the high, opinion which his countrymen had conceived of his merit. He then visited Paris again, was admitted a member of the academy of painting, and appointed professor. Returning home, he became rich enough to build a house at St. Remi, which cost 50,000 florins. He also embraced the clerical profession, and although he knew nothing of Latin, was made a canon of St. Paul, by a dispensation from the pope. But in the midst of wealth, possessed of public and private esteem, and of every other circumstance that could render life comfortable, he was seized with an unaccountable melancholy and dejection of spirits, which incessantly oppressed him, till it occasioned his death in 1675; and many persons believed his disorder to have been occasioned by poison administered to him by the celebrated marchioness de Brinvilliers, with whom he had formed an unfortunate connexion, but for this there appears no proof, and his death seems more reasonably attributed to his disordered mind. He appears indeed to have given way to that selfish jealousy which some have reckoned a system of approaching derangement. When one of his scholars, Carlier, had begun to give extraordinary proofs of excellence in his art, Flameel did every thing he could to discourage him, and actually transferred him to a grinder of colours. Carlier, however, conscious of his abilities, secretly painted “the Martyrdom of St. Denis,” which was placed in the church dedicated to that saint; and Flameel had no sooner seen it, than he threw his pencil into the fire, and never painted more.

This master had a lively imagination, and a noble taste for historical compositions. He was singularly skilled in antiquities, and in all his designs strictly observant of the costume. His pictures usually are enriched with porticos and colonnades, as he was an accomplished architect; his choice of nature was elegant, his expression animated, and his pencil delicate. His colouring was exceedingly good; and his taste of design was entirely of the Roman school, as well in regard to correctness, as to the objects which he chose to represent. In the cupola of the barefooted Carmelites at Paris, he painted, in fresco, Elijah ascending to Heaven in a Chariot of Fire, and Elisha below, with his arms extended, to catch the mantle of the Prophet. At Liege are several grand altar-pieces, among which one in St. Paul’s church describes the Conversion of that saint and in the cathedral there is another by this master, representing the Resurrection of Lazarus.

, falsely celebrated as an alchymist, under which supposition some forged works have been attributed to him (as, “A Philosophical Summary,” in verse, 1561, and a treatise “On the Transformation of Metals,” in 1621), was a native of Pontoise, towards the close of the fourteenth century, and exercised the profession of a notary at Paris. He began life without any fortune, but suddenly became rich, which occasioned the upposition that he had found the grand secret. He made, however, no other use of his riches than in relieving the distressed, founding hospitals, and repairing places of divine worship. To account for this sudden wealth in a more probable way, it has been said, that he bought up the debts owing to the Jews when they were expelled in 1394, and made great profits by the contracts, This, however, has been refuted, and the truth perhaps is, that he made his money by a profound knowledge of commerce, at a time when men in general were ignorant of its principles. He died at Paris, March 22, 1418. He and his wife Pernelle have been the subject of some curious inquiries at Paris, where they pretended to have found his alchemical apparatus. Paul Lucas, a thorough traveller, asserted that he had heard of him alive in India, long after his real decease. In the “Essais sur Paris,” by IVt,. St. Foix, there are many particulars of Flamel, also in the 44 Hermippus Redivivus,“London, 1749, second edit, anc) in the” Varieties of Literature," 1795, 8vo.

, an eminent Latin poet, whose family name was Zarrabini, was born at Serevalle in 1498. His father, John Anthony, who first changed the family name to Flaminio on entering a literary society at Venice, was himself a man of learning, and professor of belles-lettres in different academies in Italy, and has left some works both in prose and verse, particularly twelve books of letters, in which are many particulars of literary history. He bestowed great pains on the instruction of his son, and sent him, when at the age of sixteen, to Rome, with a poem addressed to Leo X. exhorting him to make war against the Turks, and a critical work entitled “Annotationum Sylvae.” Leo appears to have been so pleased with the appearance of young Flaminio, as to request that he might remain at Rome, promising to encourage his studies there; but although this did not take place, in his after-visits to Rome, the pope patronized him with great liberality, and Flaminio answered every expectation that had been formed of his talents. In 1515 he accompanied the count Castiglione to Urbino, where he resided some months, and was held in the highest esteem by that accomplished nobleman for his amiable qualities and great endowments, but particularly for his. early and astonishing talents for Latin poetry. In this year he published at Fano, the first specimen of his productions, with a few poems of Marullus, not before printed, in a very rare volume in 8vo. entitled, “Michaelis Tardaaniotas Marulli Neniae. Ejusdem epigrammata nunquarn alias impressa. M. Antonii Flaminii carminum libellus. Ejusdem Ecloga Thyrsis.” Of these poems some have been printed, often with variations, in the subsequent editions of his works; but several pieces appear there which are not to be found in the edition by Mancurti, published at Padua, by Comino, in 1727, which is considered as the most complete; whence it is probable this early publication of Flaminio was not known to his editors.

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

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

Having, however, calculated by these tables an eclipse of the sun, which was to happen June 22, 1666, he imparted it to a relation, who shewed it to Mr. Halton of Wingfield manor in Derbyshire, a good mathematician, as appears from some pieces of his, in the appendix to Foster’s “Mathematical Miscellanies.” He came to see Flamsteed soon after; and finding he was not acquainted with the astronomical performances of others, he sent him Riccioli’s “Almagestum Novum,” and Kepler’s “Tabulae Rudolphinae,” to which he was before a stranger. He prosecuted his astronomical studies from this time with all imaginable vigour and success. In 1669, he collected some remarkable eclipses of the fixed stars, by the moon, which would happen in 1670, calculating them from the Caroline Tables; and directed them to lord Brouncker, president of the royal society. This produced very good effects; for his production being read before that society, was so highly approved, that it procured him letters of thanks, dated Jan. 14, 1669-70, from Oldenburg their secretary, and from Mr. John Collins, one of their members, with whom he corresponded several years. These Jetters were in the hands of William Jones, esq. F. R. S, father of the celebrated sir William Jones. Extracts from them are given in the “Biographia Britannica.”

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

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

Having taken his degree of master of arts at Cambridge, he designed to enter into orders, and to settle on a small living near Derby, promised to him by a friend of his father’s. In the mean time, sir Joitas Moore, having notice of his design, wrote to him to come to London, whither he returned Feb. 1674-5. He was entertained in the house of that gentleman, who had other views for serving him, but Flamsteed persisting in his resolution to take orders, he did not dissuade him from it. March following, sir Jonas brought him a warrant to be the king’s astronomer, with a salary of iOOl. per annum, payable out of the office of ordnance, to commence from Michaelmas before; which, however, did not abate his inclinations for orders, so that at Easter following he was ordained at Elyhouse by bishop Gunning, who ever after conversed freely with him, and particularly upon the new philosophy and opinions, though that prelate always maintained the old. August 10, 1675, the foundation of the royal observatory at Greenwich was laid; and during the building of it, Flamsteed lodged at Greenwich; and his quadrant and telescopes being kept in the queen’s house there, he observed the appulses of the moon and planets to the fixed stars. In 1681, his “Doctrine of the Sphere” was published in a posthumous work of sir Jonas Moore, entitled, “A new System of the Mathematics,” printed in 4to.

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

His great work, and that which contained the main operations of his life, was the “Historia Cœlestis Britannica,” published in 1725, in 3 large folio volumes. The first of which contains the observations of Mr. William Gascoigne, the first inventor of the method of measuring angles in a telescope by means of screws, and the first who applied telescopical sights to astronomical instruments, taken at Middleton, near Leeds in Yorkshire, between the years 1638 and 1643; extracted from his letters by Mr. Grubtree: with some of Mr. Crabtree’s observations about the same time; and also those of Mr. Flamsteed himself, made at Derby between the years 1670 and 1675; besides a multitude of curious observations, and necessary tables to be used with them, made at the Royal Observatory, between the years 1675 and 1689. The 2d volume contains his observations, made with a mural arch of near 7 feet radius, and 140 degrees on the limb, of the meridional zenith distances of the fixed stars, sun, moon, and planets, with their transits over the meridian; also observations of the diameters of the sun and moon, with their eclipses, and those of Jupiter’s satellites, and variations of the compass, from 1689 to 1719: with tables shewing how to render the calculation of the places of the stars and planets easy and expeditious. To which are added, the moon’s place at her oppositions, quadratures, &c. also the planets’ places, derived from the observations. The 3d volume contains a catalogue of the right-ascensions, polardistances, longitudes, and magnitudes of near 3000 fixed Stars, with the corresponding variations of the same. To this volume is prefixed a large preface, containing an account of all the astronomical observations made before his time, with a description of the instruments employed; as also of his own observations and instruments; with a new Latin version of Ptolomy’s catalogue of 1026 fixed stars; and Ulegh-beig’s places annexed on the Latin page, with the corrections a small catalogue of the Arabs Tycho Brahe’s of about 780 fixed stars the Landgrave of Hesse’s of 386 Hevelius’s of 1534: and a catalogue of some of the southern fixed stars not visible in our hemisphere, calculated from the observations made by Dr. Halley at St. Helena, adapted to the year 1726.

This work he prepared in a great measure for the press, with much care and accuracy; but through his natural weakness of constitution, and the decline of age, he died before he had finished it, leaving the care of finishing and publishing his work to his friend Mr. Hodgson. A less perfect edition of the “Historia Ccelestis” had before been published, without his consent, viz. in 1712, in 1 vol. folio, containing his observations to 1705. Thus then, as Dr. Keil observed, our author, with indefatigable pains, for more than forty years watched the motions of the stars, and has given us innumerable observations of the sun, moon, and planets, which he made with very large instruments, accurately divided, and fitted with telescopic sights; whence we may rely much more on the observations he has made, than on former astronomers, who made their observations with the naked eye, and without the like assistance of telescopes.

Of his personal character we are only told that he was a man of warm passions, but of great good nature and humour, and associated with some of the wits of his day.

, an English poet, was born in Aldersgate-street, London, about 1633; and educated at Winchester school. He went from thence to New college, in Oxford; but leaving the university without a degree, he removed to the Inner Temple, where in due time he became a barrister. Jt does not appear that he ever followed the profession of the law; but, having a turn for the fine arts, he indulged his inclination, and made some proficiency, both as a poet and a painter. He speaks of himself as a painter, in a poem called “The Review,” and it appears from thence, that he drew in miniature. The third edition of his poems, with additions and amendments, was published by himself, with his portrait before them, in 1682, and dedicated to the duke of Ormond. The first poem in this collection is, “On the Death of the right honourable Thomas earl of Ossory,” and had been published separately the year before. Soon after, it was read by the duke of Ormond his father, who was so extremely pleased with it, that he sent Flatman a mourning ring, with a diamond in it worth 100l. He published also in 1685, two Pindaric odes; one on the death of prince Rupert, the other on the death of Charles II.

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

, a very popular nonconformist divine, was born in Worcestershire about 1627, and educated at University-college, Oxford, where he took his degree of B. A. In 1650 he settled as assistant minister to Mr. Waiplate, rector of Diptford, in Devonshire, and shortly after succeeded to the rectory, which, however, in 1656 he resigned to become minister of a very populous parish at Dartmouth, though the stipend in this situation was much less. In 1662, when ejected with the other nonconformists, he occasionally preached and administered the sacrament privately till the passing of the Oxford act, in 1665, when he was obliged to retire to Slapton, a village five miles from Dartmouth, where also he sometimes preached when he could do it with safety, and sometimes when his safety was endangered. In 1685, the mob was excited against him, and would probably have destroyed him, had he fallen into their hands. He then came to London, where he narrowly escaped being apprehended, but returning to Dartmouth, when in 1687 king James granted more liberty to nonconformists, Mr. Flavel’s congregation immediately obtained for him a large place, in which he was enabled to exercise his ministerial functions; and by the revolution in 1688, he enjoyed complete liberty. He died at KxeUT in 1691, in his sixty-fourth year, having long possessed, in an eminent degree, the respect and esteem of all good men. He was a man of exemplary piety, and his various works are still in considerable popularity, and are regarded by those who hold Calvinistic sentiments. They were collected after his death, in 2 vols. folio, and have been since often printed in 6 vols. 8vo.

, patriarch of Antioch, in the fourth century, was a man of illustrious birth, and still superior virtues, and was placed on the patriarchal throne during the life of Paulinus. This election being confirmed by the council of Constantinople in the year 382, was the origin of a schism, which was terminated by the prudence of Flavian, and the death of his rival, Paulinus. After this, he evinced his zeal for orthodoxy by prosecuting the Arians, and he expelled the Messalian heretics from his diocese. When the inhabitants of Antioch, vexed at a new tax imposed to celebrate the tenth year of the emperor’s reign, had proceeded to various acts of outrage, particularly against the statues of the emperor and empress, Flavian interceded with Theodosius for them, and obtained their pardon by his eloquence. This happened in the year 387. He died in the year 404, after having been patriarch thirteen years. He wrote some epistles and homilies, of which fragments only remain.

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

, a learned doctor of the house and society of the Sorbonne, was born in the diocese of Loan. He took a doctor’s degree in 1621, and was canon of Rheims, and Hebrew professor at the royal college, in 1630. In 1656 he was promoted to be dean of the college royal, and died April 29, 1674, in the Sorbonne. Flavigni assisted M. le Jay in the Polyglott Bible, and wrote against Abraham Echellensis, in his “Epistolsa de Heptaplis Parisiensibus,” the most important of his works. He also left the defence of a thesis he had signed, in which it was asserted that episcopacy was not a distinct sacrament from the priesthood. This apology was printed at Tournay, 1668, 4to, 128 pages. His style is said to have been as violent as his temper.

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

. If a man deserves to be celebrated who employs fifty years on one work, the name of Flaust should not be omitted. He was an advocate in the parliament of Rouen, and his great work was entitled “Explication de la Jurisprudence et de la coutume de Normandie, dans une ordre simple et facile.” “Explication of the Jurisprudence and Usage of Normandy, in an easy and simple order.” In 2 vols. folio. He died in 1783, at the age of seventy-two.

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

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

They who compare the eloquence of his funeral orations with those of Bossuet, whom he rivalled, say, that in Bossuet there is less elegance and purity of language, but greater strength and masculine character. The style of Flechier is more flowing, finished, and uniform; that of Bossuet unequal, but fuller of those bold traits, those lively and striking figures, which are characteristic of true genius. Flechier owes more to art, Bossuet to nature.

, an English poet and dramatic writer in the reign of Charles II. whose productions, although not without some proportion of merit, would not have preserved his name so long as the satire of Dryden, entitled “Mac Flecnoe,” is said to have been originally a Jesuit, and to have had connections with some persons of high distinction in London, who were of the Roman catholic persuasion. What was the cause of Dryden’s aversion is not determined. Some have said that when the revolution was completed, Dryden, having some time before turned papist, became disqualified for holding his place of poet-laurcat. It was accordingly taken from him, and conferred on Flecknoe, a man to whom Dryden is said to have had already a confirmed aversion; and this produced the famous satire, called from him Mac Flecknoe, one of the most spirited and amusing of Dryden' s poems; and, in some degree, the model of the Dunciad. That this is a spirited poem is as certain, as that all the preceding account from Cihber and his copiers is ridiculous. Shadwell was the successor of Dryden, as laureat, and in this poem is ridiculed as the poetical son of Flecknoe. However con.­temptibly Dryden treated Flecknoe, the latter at one time wrote an epigram in his praise, which, with his religion, might have conciliated both Dryden and Pope. Perhaps Dryden, says a modern critic, was offended at his invectives against the obscenity of the stage, knowing how much he had contributed to it. Be this as it may, Flecknoe himself wrote some plays, but not more than one of them was acted. His comedy, called “Damoiselles a la mode,” was printed in 1667, and addressed to the duke and duchess of Newcastle; the author had designed it for the theatre, and was not a little chagrined at the players for refusing it; He said upon this occasion: “For the acting this comedy, those who have the government of the stage have their humours, and would.be in treated and I have mine, and won't intreat them and were all dramatic writers of my mind, tljeyshould wear their old plays thread-bare, ere they should have any new,till they better understood their own interest, and how todistinguish between good *nd bad.”

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

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

After the death of general Ireton, Cromwell fixed upon him to marry his widow, not only on account of his own interest, but also that of his numerous relations, several of whom were persons of no small weight in the army, particularly Lambert; and being now Cromwell’s son-in-law, the latter in 1652 appointed him commander in chief of the forces in Ireland, and one of the commissioners for the civil affairs of that kingdom; upon which posts he entered in September following, and under his conduct Ireland was soon reduced to a perfect subjection; and he was made lord deputy of it after his father-in-law had assumed the protectorship. Notwithstanding this, he, in conjunction with Disbrowe and Lambert, vigorously opposed Cromwell’s taking the title of king, when pressed upon him by the parliament in May 1657; on which account, it is probable, he was soon after removed from his post of lord deputy, which was given to Henry Cromwell, the protector’s younger son: though Fleetwood had afterwards so much regard shewn him, as to he appointed, in December following, one of the other house of parliament.

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

Upon the restoration he was one of the persons excepted out of the general act of pardon and indemnity, to suffer such pains, penalties, and forfeitures, not extending to life, as should be inflicted on them by an act to be made for that purpose. The remainder of his life he spent in great obscurity among his friends at Stoke-Newington, near London, where he died soon after the revolution, leaving issue by his second wife, Frances, daughter of Solomon Smith of Norfolk, esq. one son, Smith Fleetwood, of Feltwell in that county, esq. who marrying Mary, daughter of sir John Hartopp, bart. had two sons, Smith Fleetwood, and Charles Fleetwood, esqrs. General Fleetwood had likewise a daughter, Elizabeth, married to sir John Hartopp, bart

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

His occupations prevented him from publishing much, yet there are some small pieces of his extant; as, 1. “An Oration made at Guildhall before the mayor, &c. concerning the late attempts of the queen’s majesties seditious subjects, Oct. 15,1571,” l'2mo. 2. “Annalium tarn Regum EdwardiV. Richard! II I. et Henrici VII. quam Henrici VIII. titulorum ordine alphabetico multo jam melius quam ante digestorum Elenchus, 1579 et 1597.” 3. “A Table to the Reports of Edmund Plowden,” in French. 4. “The Office of a Justice of Peace; together with instructions how and in what manner statutes shall be expounded, 1658,” 8vo, a posthumous publication. 5. A short copy of Latin verses prefixed to sir Thomas Chaloner’s “Repub. Anglorum instauranda.” 6. Notes upon Lambarde’s “ Areheion;” and several political discourses in ms. He is said also to have contributed much towards the last of the old editions of Holinshed.

, an English bishop, was descended from the family of Fleetwood just mentioned, and born in the Tower of London, in which his father, JefFery Fleetwood had resided, Jan. 21, 1656. He was educated at Eton, whence he was elected to king’s college in Cambridge. About the time of the revolution he entered into holy orders; and from the first was a celebrated preacher. He was soon after made chaplain to king William and queen Mary; and by the interest of Dr. Godolphin, at that time vice-provost of Eton, and residentiary of St. Paul’s, he was made fellow of that college, and rector of St. Austin’s, London, which is in the gift of the dean and chapter of St. Paul’s. Soon after he obtained also the lecture of St. Dunstan’s in the West, probably by his great reputation and merit as a preacher. In 1691 he published, 1. “Inscriptionum Antiquarum Sylloge,” &c. 8vo. This collection of ancient inscriptions consists of two parts: the first, containing remarkable pagan inscriptions collected from Gruter, Keinesius, Spon, and other writers the second, the ancient Christian monuments the whole illustrated with very short notes for the use of the young antiquary. In 1692 he translated into English, revised, and prefixed a preface to, 2. “Jurieu’s plain method of Christian Devotion, laid down in discourses, meditations, and prayers, fitted to the various occasions of a religious life;” the 27th edition of which was printed in 1750. In the mean time he was highly distinguished by his talents for the pulpit, which rendered him so generally admired, that he was frequently called to preach upon the most solemn occasions; as, before the king, queen, lordmayor, &c. In 1701 he published, 3. “An Essay upon Miracles,” 8vo, written in the manner of dialogue, and divided into two discourses. Some singularities in it occasioned it to be animadverted upon by several writers, particularly by Hoadly, in “A Letter to Mr. FleetvVood, 1702;” which letter is reprinted in Hoadly’s tracts, 1715, in 8vo. The author of Fleetwood’s life assures us that the bishop did not give up his opinions, though he disliked, and avoided controversy. This essay is said to contain the substance of what he would have preached at Mr. Boyle’s lectures, in case his health would have permitted him to undertake that task when it was offered him.

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

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

In the mean time he preached often before the queen, and several of those sermons were printed. He attended the house of lords constantly, and acted there with dignity and spirit. He visited his diocese; and his charge to his clergy, published in 1710, shews that he was a zealous, but not a furious churchman. Yet he was highly disgusted with the change of the ministry that year, and withdrew from, court. He could not he induced to give any countenance to the measures of the new ministry, though endeavours had been used, and intimations given by the queen herself, who had a great value for him, how pleasing his frequent coming to court would be to her. The same year, he published without his name> a piece entitled, 7. “The Thirteenth Chapter to the Romans vindicated from the abuses put upon it. Written by a Curate of Salop, and directed to the Clergy of that County, and the neighbouring ones of North Wales, to whom the author wisheth patience, moderation, and a good understanding, for half an hour.”* Upon the pretended authority of this chapter, the regal power had been magnified in such a manner, that tyranny might seem the ordinance of God, and the most abject slavery to be founded in the principles of religion. Thfc bishop was highly offended with this doctrine; and in this pamphlet argues, “that this chapter of St. Paul requires of the people any more submission to the higher powers, than the laws of their several countries require.”

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

We have already mentioned ten publications of this author, besides occasional sermons, of which he published many that were very excellent. There remain yet to be mentioned some pieces of a smaller kind; as, II. “The Counsellor’s Plea for the Divorce of sir G. D. (Downing) and Mrs. F.” 1715. This relates to an affair which was brought before -the house of lords. 12. “Papists not excluded from the Throne upon the account of Religion. Being a vindication of the right reverend lord bishop of Ban go r' a Preservative, &c. in that particular. In a short Dialogue,” 1717. 13. “A Letter from Mr. T. Burdett, who was executed at Tyburn for the murder of capt. Falkner, to some attorneys’ clerks of his acquaintance; written six days before his execution,” 1717. 14. “A Letter td an Inhabitant of the Parish of St. Andrew’s, Holborn, about new ceremonies in the church,” 1717. 15. “A Defence of Praying before Sermon, as directed 'by the 55th canon.” All these were published without his name. The indefatigable labours of this prelate brought him at length into a bad state of health, which made life troublesome to him a good while before his death. He died at Tottenham, in Middlesex, whither he had retired for the benefit of the air, Aug. 4, 1723 and was interred in the cathedral church of Ely, where a monument was erected to him by his lady, who did not long survive him. He left behind him an only son, Dr. Charles Fleetwood, who inherited his paternal estate in Lancashire; and had been presented a few years before by his father, as bishop of Ely, to the great rectory of Cottenham, in Cambridgeshire, which he did not long enjoy.

Bishop Fleetwood’s character was great in every respect. His virtue was not of the fanatical kind, nor was his piety the least tinctured with superstition; yet he cultivated and practised both to perfection. As for his accomplishments, he was inconteslibly the best preacher of his time; and for occasional sermons, may be considered as a model. He was also very learned, but chiefly distinguished as an antiquary. Dr. Hickes acknowledges him as an encourager of his great work entitled “Linguarum Veterum Septentrionalium Thesaurus,” and Mr. Hearne often confesses himself much obliged by many singular instances of his friendship. In the “Richardsoniana,” are two anecdotes of bishop Fleetwood, which we shall not copy, because we doubt their authenticity. If true, they would prove that the religious opinions of our prelate were extremely lax."

, a miscellaneous writer in the sixteenth century, and a classical translator, was a native of London. In 1575 he published a version of the “Bucolics of Virgil,” with notes, a plain and literal translation verse for verse. In 589 he published a new version, both of the “Bucolics and Georgics” with notes, dedicated to John Whitgift, archbishop of Canterbury. This is in the regular Alexandrine verse, without rhyme. He supervised, corrected, and enlarged the second edition of Holinshed’s Chronicle in 1585. He translated “Ælian’s Various History” into English in 1576, which he dedicated to Goodman, dean of Westminster, und^r the title of “Ælian’s Registre of Hystories,” 4to. He published also “Certaine select Epistles of Cicero into English,” Lond. 1576, 4to; and in the same year he imparted to our countrymen a fuller idea of the elegance of the ancient epistle, by his “Panoplie of Epistles from Tully, Isocrates, Pliny, and others,” Lond. 4to. He translated Synesius’s Greek “Panegyric on Baldness,” which had been brought into vogue by Erasmus’s “Moriae Encomium,” Lond. 1579', 12mo; at the end is his “Fable of Hermes.” Among some other pieces he Englished many celebrated books written in Latin about the fifteenth century and at the restoration of learning, which was a frequent practice, after it became fashionable to compose in English, and our writers had begun to find the force and use of their own tongue. Among his original pieces are, 1. “A memorial of the charitable almes deedes of William Lambe, gentleman of the chapel under Henry VIII. and citizen of London,” Lond. 1580, 8vo. 2. “The Battel between the Virtues and Vices,” ibid. 1582, 8vo. 3. “The Diamant of Devotion, in six parts,” ibid. 1586, 12mo. 4. “The Cundyt of Comfort,” 1579, &c. Verses by him are prefixed to various works published in his time. Sir William Cordall, the queen’s solicitor-general, was his chief patron. He had a brother, Samuel, who assisted in compiling the index to Holinshed, and who wrote an elegant Latin life of queen Mary, never printed. He has also a Latin recommendatory poem to Edward Grant’s “Spicilegium of the Greek Tongue,” &c. Lond. 1575, 8vo.

, a dissenting minister, and zealous Socinian, was born at Nottingham in 1698, where he was educated and brought up to trade, after which he studied at Warrington, with a view to enter into the ministry among the dissenters. His proficiency and talents being known to Dr. Thomas, bishop of Winchester, he offered him a living to enter into the church, but this he declined, as inconsistent with the opinions he had formed, and was chosen preacher of a congregation in Bartholomew-close, London, where he continued until 1752. He then became assistant to Dr. James Foster, at Pinners’ -hall, whom he succeeded, and remained sole pastor of that congregation as long as he was able to execute the duties of his office. He died in 1779. Few people, says Dr. Kippis, have written a greater number of pamphlets, some of which being published without his name, were but little noticed by the world; and none of them, we may add, a're now in request. There are, says the same author, instances in which he was singular, not to say whimsical, in his positions. His writings might have been more generally acceptable and useful, if they had been free from a certain quaintness and obscurity of style. Aiming at originality and strength of expression, he often lost perspicuity, and never attained to elegance. The doctor adds, that he was a determined enemy to civil and ecclesiastical tyranny, and a very zealous Socinian.

, an Irish Roman ecclesiastic and writer, the son of capt. Garret Fleming, nearly related to the lords of Slane, was born in the county of Louth, April 17, 1599. Being dedicated by his parents to the church, they sent him at the age of thirteen to Flanders, and placed him under the care of his maternal uncle Christopher Cusack, who was president of the colleges of Doway, Tournay, and other seminaries, founded in those parts for the education of Irish youth in the popish, religion. Having' studied at Doway for some time, he removed to the college of St. Anthony, at Louvaine, where he became a Franciscan, and changed his baptismal name (Christopher) to Patrick, according to a custom then very frequent. In 1623, after completing his philosophical and theological studies, he removed to Rome, but in his way through Paris, happening to become acquainted with Hugh Ward, he prevailed on the latter to undertake writing the Lives of the Irish Saints, and when he arrived at Rome he made large collections from Mss. for the same purpose, which he sent to Ward. At Rome he continued his studies in the Irish college of St. Isidore, and both there and afterwards at Louvaine, was appointed to lecture on philosophy. From Louvaine, where he continued for some years, he removed to Prague, and was appointed first superior and lecturer of divinity, and here he remained until the city was besieged by the elector of Saxony in 1631, when he was obliged to fly with his companion Matthew Hoar; but they had scarcely escaped the Saxon forces, when they were met by some peasants in arms who murdered them, both, Nov. 7. A third companion, Francis Magenis, also a Franciscan, who made his escape on this occasion, wrote an account of Fleming, which is prefixed to his “Collectanea Sacra,” under the title “Historia Martyrii venerabilis fratris Patricii Fleming!,” &c.

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

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

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

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

In 1410, being then rector of Boston in Lincolnshire, he exchanged his prebend of South Newbold for that of Langford in the cathedral church of York, and on April 28, 1420, was promoted to the see of Lincoln. In 1424 he was sent to the council of Sienna, where, in a dispute about precedency, he vindicated the honour and superiority of his country, against the Spanish, French, and Scotch deputies. This council was called to continue the proceedings of that of Constance against the Hussites, and other continental reformers, and our prelate distinguished himself so much as to become a favourite with Pope Martin V. who would have promoted him to be archbishop of York, had not the king as well as the dean and chapter opposed his -election with such firmness as to oblige the pope to yield. Flemming consequently remained in his diocese of Lincoln. In 1428, he executed that decree of the council of Constance which ordered that the bones of Wicklilf should be taken up and burned; the harmless remains of a man whom he once honoured with the warmth of his zeal, and supported with the vigour of his talents.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Fletcher left two sons, Giles and Phineas. The eldest, Giles, born, according to Mr. Ellis’ s conjecture, in 1588, was educated at Trinity college, Cambridge, where he took the degree of bachelor of divinity, and died at his living of Alderton, in Suffolk, in 1623. His widow married afterwards the rev. Ramsay, minister of Rougham, Norfolk. Winstanley and Jacob, who in this case have robbed one another, instead of better authorities, divide the two brothers into three, and assign Giles’s Poem of “Christ’s Victory” to two authors.

Phineas was educated at Eton, and admitted a scholar of King’s-college, Cambridge, in 1600, where, in 1604, he frook his bachelor’s degree, and his master’s in 1608. After going into the church, he was presented, in 1621, to the living of Hilgay, in Norfolk, by sir Henry Willoughby, bart. and according to Elomefield, the historian of Norfolk, he held this living twenty-nine years. Mr. Ellis conjectures that he was born in 1584, and died about 1650. Besides the poems which are added to the last edition of the “English Poets,” he was the author of a dramatic piece, entitled “Sicelides,” which was performed at King’s college, Cambridge, and printed in 1631. A manuscript copy is in the British Museum. The editor of the Biographm Dramatica informs us, that “it was intended originally to be performed before king James the First, on the thirteenth of March, 1614; but his majesty leaving the university sooner, it was net then represented. The serious parts of it are mostly written in rhyme, with choruses between the acts. Some of the incidents are borrowed from Ovid, and some from the Orlando Furioso.” He published also, at Cambridge, in 1632, some account of the lives of the founders and other learned men of that university, under the title of “De Literatis antique Britanniae, praesertim qui doctrina claruerunt, quique collegia Cantabrigise fundarunt.”

The only production we have of Giles Fletcher is entitled “Christ’s Victory and Triumph in Heaven and Earth over and after Death,” Cambridge, 1610, 4to, in four parts, and written in stanzas of eight lines. It was reprinted in 1632, again in 1640, and in 1783, along with Phineas Fletcher’s “Purple Island;” but many unwarrantable liberties have been taken in modernizing the language of this last edition. Mr. Headley, who has bestowed more attention than any modern critic on the works of the Fletchers, pronounces the “Christ’s Victory” to be a rich and picturesque poem, and on a much happier subject than the “Purple Island,” yet unenlivened by personification. He has also very ingeniously pointed out some resemblances which prove that Milton owed considerable obligations to the Fletchers.

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

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

In the supplement to his second volume, Mr. Headley has demonstrated at considerable length how much Fletcher owed to Spenser, and Milton to Fletcher. For this he has offered the apology due to the high characters of those poets, and although we have been accustomed to see such researches carried too far, yet it must be owned that there is a certain degree to which they must be carried before the praise of invention can be justly bestowed. How far poets may borrow from one another without injury to their fame, is a question yet undetermined. After, however, erery deduction of this kind that can be made, the Fletchers will still remain in possession of a degree of invention, imagination, spirit, and sublimity, which we seldom meet with among the poets of the seventeenth century before we arrive at Milton.

, zm evninmt French hydrographer, was born at Lyons in 1738, of a fatally distinguished in the profession of the law, but devoted his attention from his infancy to marine studies. He arrived at the rank of a naval captain in the French service, and was employed many years before the revolution in the office of their marine, under the title of director of the ports and arsenals. His countrymen impute to his labours and skill the figure which the French navy was enabled to make in the American war. In 1790 he was appointed minister of the marine, and filled that important situation with great integrity; but dreading the influence of popular opinion, he gave in his resignation in 1791, when the mob were gaining a fatal ascendancy. He had before requested of the king to separate the colonial department of the marine from the other, and make it a distinct office, with which his majesty did not at that time think it necessary to comply. During his administration he published a work to illustrate the history of navigation, entitled “Decouvertes des Francois en 1768 et 1769, dans le sud-est de la Nouvelle-Guine,” Paris, 1790, 4to; the professed object of which is to restore to the French navigators, and particularly to Bougainville, the merit of those discoveries of which the English have endeavoured to deprive them.

Fleurieu’s retirement from public life did not last long, as the king, who had a high opinion not only of his talents, but of his moral character, appointed him, in April 1792, tutor to the dauphin. In 1793, however, he was arrested by the revolutionary party, and imprisoned in the Madelonettes. By what means he escaped the general murder of all men of talents and worth we are not told. In 1797 he was again appointed to his old post of minister of marine, and was at the same time chosen deputy of the department of the Seine in the council of ancients, to which he was also secretary, but lost both of these offices in September following by a new turn of public arrangements. In 1799 Bonaparte appointed him a member of the council of state, of the section of the marine, in tend ant-general of his horse, and grand officer of the legion of honour. In July 1805 he resigned the office of intendant, and was made governor of the Thuilleries, having also just before been chosen member of the institute, and of the board of longitude. The improvements which his country men say he?, made in this last research, and the obligations the English owe to him, are detailed in a Voyage which he printed in 1774, 2 vols. 8vo, which he performed in 1768 and by order of the king, in order to prove some time-pieces invented by Berthoud. In 1800 he was the editor of Marchand’s < Voyage autour du monde.“His latter years were employed in completing a grand” Hydrographic Atlas," which was to have been published in 1811, but this was prevented by his death, Aug. 18, 1810. He had expended above 200,000 franks on this work. His countrymen speak of his talents with profound regard, and his private character appears to have been equally praiseworthy.

, the celebrated cardinal of that name, was born in 1653, at Lodeve in Languedoc, but was brought to Paris at the age of six, and there educated for the church. He distinguished himself in the progress of his studies; and when he began to mix with the world, appeared there with the natural advantages of a handsome figure, pleasing address, and wellmanaged wit. His first preferment was that of a canon of Montpellier; he was also a doctor of the Sorbonne. But his friends becoming numerous, much interest was made for him, and in 1698, Louis XIV. named him bishop of Frejus. “I have made you wait a long time,” said the king, “but you have so many friends, that I was determined to stay till I could have the sole merit of preferring you.” Louis XIV. a little before he died, appointed him preceptor to his grandson, in which office he succeeded Bossuet and Fenelon. In 1726 he was made cardinal, and soon after advanced to the place of prime-minister. He was then turned seventy. Yet the weight of this active: post did not alarm him; and, to the age of ninety, he manifested a mind in full vigour, and capable of conducting affairs. From 1726 to 1740, every thing prospered. He commenced and brought to a glorious conclusion for his country, the war for the succession in Spain; and he added Lorraine to the French territory. In the war which commenced in 174-0 he was not so fortunate; and in 1743 he died, full of grief for a succession of misfortunes, of which the nation reproached him as the author. A too rigid attention to economy had led him to neglect the marine of his country; and the successes of England by sea completed the evil which had been thus begun. We was of a mild and tranquil character, a lover of peace, and not a man to make himself feared. He governed, says Millot, if not like a sublime genius who executes great things, at least like a prudent man, who accommodates his plans to circumstances, prefers essential to specious adVantages, and regards tranquillity and order as the foundation of public happiness. He had neither the pride of Richelieu, nor the avarice of Mazarin. No minister could be less costly to the state; his income did not amount tq five thousand pounds sterling a year, one half of which was employed in secret acts of benevolence. In the state of disorder to which the profusion of Louis XIV. had reduced the finances of France, it was happy for that country to have such a minister as Fleury, whose pacific turn counterbalanced the impetuosity of Villars, which would continually have plunged the country in new wars.

, a celebrated French ecclesiastical historian, was the son of an advocate, and born at Paris. Dec. 6, 1640. He discovered early a strong inclination, for letters, but applied himself particularly to the law, in. consequence of which he was made advocate for the parliament of Paris in 1658, and attended the bar nine years. He then took orders, for which he was more eagerly disposed, and more highly qualified by virtues as well as learning; and in 1672 was made preceptor to the princes of Conti. In 1680 he had the care of the education of the count de Vermandois, admiral of France. After the death of this prince, which happened in about four years, the king preferred him to the abbey of Loc-Dieu, belonging; to the Cistercians, and in the diocese of Rhodez. In 1689 the king made him sub-preceptor to the dukes of Burgundy, Anjou, and Berri, in which important employment he acted under the celebrated Fenelon. In 1696 he was admitted a member of the French academy. In 1706, when the education of the three princes was finished, the king gave him the rich priory of Argenteuil, belonging to the Benedictines, in the diocese of Paris, upon which promotion he resigned the abbey of Loc-Dieu. If he had possessed ambition to solicit the greatest situations, he would have obtained them, but his disinterestedness was equal to his other virtues. He was a hermit in the midst of the court. In 1716 he was chosen confessor to Louis XV. in which situation it was said of him that his only fault wati that of being seventy-five years old; and on July 14, 1725, he died, in his eighty-third year.

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

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

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

Of his mental talents and literary acquirements, those who knew him before the infirmities of age came on, entertained a high opinion. Few persons possessed a' more., extensive and accurate acquaintance with English history. His memory was so retentive as to supersede recourse to written authorities; and it served him for the recital of dau s an i minute circumstances, which the most laborious researches can scarcely ascertain. This rendered him capable of communicating important information on various occasions, and he was often consulted by men of the first rank and character. In discussions of a political as well as literary kind, his knowledge was of considerable service; and it gave him access to many members of both houses of parliament, who availed themselves of hints and references with which he supplied them. In 1770 he was appointed one of the compilers of the “General Index to the Journals of the house of commons.” The interesting period of parliamentary proceedings from 1660 to 1697, comprehending vol. VIII, XI. was assigned to him. His plan was submitted to a committee of the house, soon after his appointment: and the execution of this elaborate work, begun in 1776, and completed in 1780, was much approved and liberally rewarded. He was frequently employed on making Indexes to inferior works; and among others that to the Rambler. Dr. Johnson, who sometimes founded his dislikes on very slender circumstances, on hearing Dr. Flexman’s name mentioned, exclaimed, “Let me hear no more of him, sir. That is the fellow who made the Index to my Ramblers, and set down the name of Milton thus; Milton, Mr. John.” Dr. Flexman was rather more creditably employed in superintending by far the best edition of Burnet’s “Own Times,” published in 1753, 4 vols. 8vo. His original works consist of a few occasional seripons and tracts. Among the latter are: 1. “The plan of divine worship in the churches of Dissenters justified,” 1754. 2. “Critical, historical, and political miscellanies; remarks on various authors, Potter, Seeker, Sherlock, &c.” 1752 1762. He wrote also the lives of the rev. S. Bourn, and of Dr. Chandler, prefixed to their respective works. In religious opinions he was a strenuous advocate for the pre-existent dignity of Christ, and the personality of the Holy Spirit. He maintained also the essential distinction between the soul and body, and the liberty of the human will, in opposition to Materialists and Necessarians. But whatever ardour he might show in maintaining his opinions, it was united with the most comprehensive charity and good will nor was his integrity less laudable.

, a German artist, was born in 1616, at Cloves, and by the appointment of his father was to have been bred up as a merchant; but neither the influence of his friends, nor the prospect of making an immense fortune, could prevail with him to abandon the art of painting, to which from his earliest youth he felt an invincible inclination. He was first placed with Lambert Jacobs; under whom he made extraordinary proficiency, by capacity, diligence, and emulation, to excel Backer, who was then a disciple of Jacobs. When he quitted his master, he went to Amsterdam, and entered himself in the school of Rembrandt, and became so captivated with the excellences of that great artist, that he studied his style of composition, manner of colouring, and penciling, incessantly; and at last shewed himself not only a good imitator of him, but in some respects his equal, and in freedom of hand rather his superior. Such talents being soon noticed, he was almost continually employed in painting the portraits of princes and illustrious personages, although his genius was abundantly more inclined to paint historical subjects; and several of his performances in that style were admired for the goodness of the design, and the beauty of the colouring. He remarkably excelled in imitating the manner of Rembrandt, and many of his paintings are sold at this day for the work of his master. But as the Italian taste began to be more esteemed after the death of Rembrandt, Flink took great pains to alter his first manner. For this purpose he made a large collection of the finest casts that could be procured from Rome of the best drawings and designs of the artists of Italy as also of several of their paintings and those he made his principal studies. When he imagined himself to be competently improved, he finished a noble design for the great hall of the senate-house at Amsterdam, representing Solomon praying for wisdom; in which his disposition and manner of grouping the figures appear excellent, and the tone of the colouring is strong and livety, He likewise painted a grand historical composition for the artillery company at Amsterdam, consisting of portraits of the most distinguished persons of that body. The figures were well disposed, and every part of the picture was painted by Flink, except the faces, which are by Vander Heist. He died in 1660, much regretted, and his collection of prints and drawings were sold for twelve thousand florins.

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

, a Spanish Augustine, and one of the most learned Spaniards of the eighteenth century, who died at Madrid about 1772, was the author of a most elaborate collection of ecclesiastical history, in 34 vols. 4to, printed from 1747 to 1784, entitled “L'Espana sagrada, theatro geographico-historico de la Iglesia de Espana,” which, say the editors of the “Diet. Historique,” answers to the French collection entitled “Gallia Christiana.” About 1743 he also published a “Clave historial,” which answers to their “Art de verifier les dates;” and as the latter did not appear until 1750, they do not refuse Florez the merit of the original plan. Another very valuable publication by Florez affords the most complete knowledge we have of the ancient coins of Spain. It is entitled “Meclallas de las Colonias municipios, y pueblos antiguos de Espana,” Madrid, 1757 and 1758, 2 vols. 4to, to which the author added a third, which was published after his death. The merit of this work procured his being elected an associate correspondent of the French academy. He is said also to have been the editor of some Spanish authors; but their names, except that of Ambrosio Moralcz, are not given in our authority.

, a very popular French writer, was born in 1755, at the chateau de Flonan, in the province of Languedoc. His father, Charles Claris, was a gentleman of small fortune, who, being by no means of an enterprising disposition, died poor. His mother was Gillette de Sulgue, a Castilian Spaniard; and it may be presumed that in this circumstance originated that high esteem and peculiar affection which Florian has since expressed for that sensible, generous, and highspirited nation. This affectionate mother dying in childfred, the care of young Florian devolved wholly on his father, who obtained for him the best masters, and spared no expence nor trouble in the superintendance of his education, and the cultivation of his mind. In his earliest days young Florian displayed that love of his fellow-creatures’which ever after so strongly marked his character; and he evinced even in infancy that suavity of manners and benevolence of disposition which afterwards rendered him so universally esteemed. Even his childhood was marked by acts of benevolence, and many instances of his sensibility and benevolence have been mentioned by his biographers. His occupations and amusements too were always of a nature much superior to those of other children of the same age. He employed much of his time in the cultivation of flowers, and in learning the art of gardening; and agriculture also engaged his attention, and gave him a taste for rural pleasures, to which his countrymen owe Jiis pastorals.

His father sent him to his near kinsman Voltaire for his education, who afterwards placed him in the rank of page to the duke de Penthievre. The duke soon distinguished his talents, bestowed many favours on him, and although, he at one time gave him a commission in the army, on observing the success of his first publication, the duke determined that he should confine himself to literature, and furnished him with a library. His first production was his “Gaiathee,” which appeared in 1782, and was followed by the first two volumes of his “Theatre,” containing “Les deux Billets,” “Le bon Menage,” “Le bon Pere,” <? La bonne Mere,“and” Le bon Fils.“Notwithstanding the success of these, the duke so reproved him for writing on profane subjects, that he chose his next subject” Ruth" from the sacred history, which completely reconciled him to his patron, and was followed hy a succession of dramas and novels which placed him in the first rank of popularity as a sentimental writer.

Though Florian was reared in the very bosom of nobility, he never sacrificed to adulation the dignity of a man. Esteemed and patronised by a benevolent and sensible prince, he became the active agent of his bounty; and the orphan and the poor, especially the unfortunate man of letters, ever found in Florian a zealous advocate and an active protector.

It is mentioned by one of his biographers, as an instance of his weakness, that he had a great desire to obtain a seat in the French academy, and we are told that the force of this ambition imperceptibly undermined his constitution, and changed the natural suavity of his temper to a restless fretfulness. It was not a sufficient gratification of this passion, that he was already a member of the academies of Madrid, Lyons, and Florence; nothing short of a seat in the academy of Paris seemed to him capable of satisfying that ambition, which was gratified on the death of cardinal de Luines. He never was present at the admission of a new member into the academy, without experiencing a most singular agitation, and a violent oppression of the heart, which he was unable to conceal from observation. It is added, however, that notwithstanding the violence of this passion, Florian never so far yielded to its influence as to sacrifice to it those principles of honour and liberality which were the constant motives of his actions.

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

, the Resolute, as he used to style himself, was born in London in the reign of Henry VIII. and descended from the Florii of Sienna, in Tuscany. A little before that time his father and mother, who were Waldenses, had fled from the Valtoline into England, from the persecutions of popery; but when Edward the Sixth died, and the protestant religion became oppressed under Mary, they left England, and went to some other country, where John Florio received his juvenile literature. Upon the re-establishment of protestantism by Elizabeth, they returned; and Florio for a time lived in Oxford. About 1576, Barnes bishop of Durham, sending his son to Magdalencollege, Florio was appointed to attend him as preceptor in French, and Italian; at which time he was admitted a member of that college, and became a teacher of those languages in the university. After James came to the cvown, he was appointed tutor to prince Henry in those languages; and at length made one of the privychamber, and clerk of the closet to queen Anne, to whom he was also tutor. He was a very useful man in his profession, zealous for the protestant religion, and much devoted to the English nation. Retiring to Fulham in Middlesex, to avoid the plague which was then in London, he was seized and carried off by it in 1625, aged about eighty.

He was the author of several works: 1. “First Fruits, which yield familiar speech, merry proverbs, witty sentences, and golden sayings,” 1578, 4to, and 1591, 8vo. 2. “Perfect Introduction to the Italian and English Tongues.” Printed with the former, and both dedicated to Robert earl of Leicester. 3. “Second Fruits to be gathered of twelve trees, of divers but delightsome tastes to the tongues of Italian and English men,” 151H, 8vo. 4. “Garden of Recreation, yielding six thousand Italian Proverbs;” printed with the former. 5. “Dictionary, Italian and English,” 1597, folio. It was after* ards augmented by him, and published in 1611, in folio, by way of compliment to his royal mistress, under this title, “Queen Anna’s New World of Words.” This was a work of great merit, being at that time by far the most perfect of the kind. The author, however, laboured to make it still more perfect, by collecting many thousand words and phrases, to be added to the next edition; but, not living to complete this, the care of it fell to one Gio. Torriano, an Italian, and professor of the Italian tongue in London; who, after revising, correcting, and supplying many more materials out of the Dictionary of the Academy della Crusca, printed them in 1659, folio, all in their proper places. 6. “The Essays of Montaigne,” translated into English, and dedicated to queen Anna, 1603, 1613, 1632, folio. Prefixed to this work we find rather a long copy of verses, addressed to him by Samuel Daniel, the poet and historiographer, whose sister Florio had married. Wood says, that he wrote other things, but he had not seen them.

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

, an ancient Latin historian of the same family with Seneca and Lucan, flourished in the reigns of Trajan and Adrian, in the beginning of the second century, and wrote an abridgement of the Roman history in four books. It is believed, that the poet E'lorus, whose verses Spartian quotes in the life of the emperor Adrian, with whom the poet carried on a rhyming contest, is the same with the historian. Florus says,

Culices pati rotundos." What makes it more reasonable to suppose them the samfe is, that the phrase of the historian savours strongly of the poet, is full of flowers and exuberance, and not altogether free from the fabulous. Thus in the seventeenth chapter of the second book, where he relates the expedition of Decimus Brutus along the Celtic and Gallic coasts, he affirms, that Brutus never stopped his victorious course, till he beheld the sun fall into the ocean, and with horror beard its fire extinguish in the waters. He is also notoriously incorrect in his chronology.

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

Others again have made Seneca the author of this history of Florus, upon the authority of Lactantius. This father has ascribed to Seneca, as the inventor, a division of the JKoinan empire into the four different seasons of Infancy, Youth, Manhood, and Old Age: and, because a division of the same nature is seen in Florus’s preface, they concluded Seneca to have been the author, and Florus nothing more than a fictitious name. But Seneca and Florus have differed in this matter sufficiently to prevent their being confounded. Seneca makes the Youth of Rome, as he terms it, reach to the end of the last Punic war; while Florus continues it only to the first. Seneca begins its Old Age when the civii wars broke out between Caesar and Pompey; whereas Florus only reckons it from the establishment of Augustus in absolute monarchy. It is probable, indeed, that Florus made use of Seneca’s thought; but has adapted it to his own judgment. Another circumstance has given room to this conjecture, which is, that Florus and Seneca being both of the family of the Annei, their names may have been confounded, and Floras called Seneca, as it is said that he is in some few copies ^ but this is not thought of any decisive weight. On the other hand, Vossius suspects Florus to have been the author of Octavia, a tragedy, printed among those of Seneca. It has been observed, that the very high praises he has frequently given to Spain, which is supposed to have been his country, have led to a suspicion that he has occasionally transgressed the bounds of truth in its favour, particularly when he treats of the warlike exploits of Sertorius.

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

, an English Jesuit, who merits some notice from his controversial connections, was born in Cambridgeshire, and going abroad, became a Jesuit in 1593, and returned to England as a missionary. After some years spent in this employment, he was apprehended and banished; but his sufferings and his talents procured him great respect in France, where he was employed by his superiors to teach humanity and divinity at St. Omer’s and Louvaine. He was alive at St. Omer’s in 1641, but the time of his death is not on record. In his publications, written in controversy with Chillingworth, Antonius de Dominis, Crashaw, sir Edward Hobby, and other learned protestants, he assumed the fictitious names of Daniel a Jesu, Hermannus Loemelius, and Annosus Fidelis Verimontanus. Under these he wrote, 1. “Synopsis Apostasiæ M. A. de Dominis,” Antw. 1617, 8vo. 2. “Detectio hypocrisis M. A. de Dominis,” ibid. 1619, 8vo. 3. “Censura decem Lib. de republica ecclesiast. M. A. de Dominis,” Cologne, 1621, 8vo. 4. “Apologia sedis Apostolicæ,” &c. Rothomag. 1631, 8vo. 5. “The church conquerant over human wit,” against Chillingworth, St. Omer’s, 1631, 4to. 6. “The Total Sum,” against the same, ibid. 1639, 4to. 7. “Answer to William Crashaw,” ibid. 1612, 4to. 8. “A treatise of Purgatory, in answer to sir Edward Hobby,” ibid. 1613. 9. “Answer to Francis White’s Reply concerning Nine Articles offered by king James I. to F. John Fisher (See Fisher), ibid. 1626. 10.” Spongia,“against the bishops of France, and the censure of the Sorbonne. 11.” Answer to a book entitled `Instructions for the Catholics of England'," with several other small treatises relative to the bishop of Chalcedon’s case; which attack of his on that bishop, and on the clergy of France, was repelled in various pamphlets by his brethren, who took part with the bishop. Floyd also published a translation of St. Augustine’s Meditations, and of some other religious works.

, an eminent physician, was born at Hinters, in Staffordshire, about 1649, and received his education at the university of Oxford, where the degree of doctor of physic was conferred upon him, on the 8th of July, 1680. He settled himself in the practice of his profession at Litchfield, in his native county; where his indefatigable attention to the sick, and the consequent practical skill which he attained, not only procured for him the confidence of the inhabitants, but gained him a reputation so extensive, that his sovereign honoured him with knighthood, as a reward for his talents. He was a great friend to the use of cold bathing, and left no means untried, by which he might disseminate the knowledge of its utility and safety, and bring the practice into general vogue: he particularly recommended it in chronic rheumatisms, and in nervous disorders, and he maintained that consumptions had prevailed extensively in England only since the practice of baptizing children by immersion had been relinquished. This recommended his work in a very particular manner to the attention of the Baptists, whose historian, Crosby, has made some extracts from it in corroboration of the propriety of baptism by immersion. It appears to have been by sir John’s advice, that Dr. Johnson, when an infant, was sent up to London to be touched by queen Anne for the evil; a proof that he had not surmounted the prejudices of his age. Sir John died Feb. 1, 1734. The following are the titles of his different publications: 1. “The Touchstone of Medicines,” London, 1687, 8vo. 2. “The Preternatural state of the Animal Humours described by their sensible qualities,” London, 1696, 8vo, in which he maintained the doctrine of fermentation. 3; “An Enquiry into the right use of Baths,” London, 1697, 8vo. This work afterwards appeared under different titles, such as “Ancient Psychrolusy revived,” London, 1702 and the subject was more amply treated in another edition “History of hot and cold Bathing, ancient and modern, with an Appendix by Dr. Baynard,” London, 1709, and again in 1715, and 1722. It was also in some measure renewed in his “Essay to restore the dipping of infants in their baptism,” 1721. 4. His next work was “A Treatise on the Asthma,” first published in 1698, and re-published in 1717 and 1726. He was himself the subject of asthma from the age of puberty, yet lived to be an old man. 5. “The Physicians’ Pulsewatch,” 1707 and 1710, in 2 vols. 8vo. Sir John Floyer was one of the first to count the pulsations of the arteries; for although the pulse had been the subject of observation from ancient times, the number of beats in a given time had not been attended to. 6. “Medici na Geronomica; of preserving old men’s health; with an appendix concerning the use of oil and unction, and a letter on the regimen of younger years,” Lond. 1724. Several of these treatises were translated into the continental languages.

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

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

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

, a learned Italian ecclesiastic, was born at Florence in 1713, and went through his principal courses of study in that city, and evinced so much fitness for the office, that his superiors appointed him their librarian. This society, of which he became a member in 1737, was composed of the theologians of Florence, and he made his first public display in some historical and polemical theses respecting what were called the four articles of the clergy of France, agreed upon in 1682; but his subsequent writings have consigned these to oblivion. In 1741 he published a dissertation “de primisFlorentinorum apostolis,” a work much praised by Manni and Lami. The same year appeared another “against the reveries of certain Protestants;” but what procured him more reputation, was his edition of “Virgil,” published at Florence, 1741, 4to. This is a fac-simile of the Codex Mediceus, on which Heinsius had written a learned dissertation, inserted by JBurman in the first volume of his own edition of Virgil. The original manuscript is conceived to be more ancient than the Vatican one. It appears to have formerly belonged to Rodolphus Pius, a cardinal in the time of pope Paul III. who bequeathed it to the Vatican, from which it is supposed to have been fraudulently conveyed to the Medicean.

In 1742, Foggini refused the professorship of ecclesiastical history at Pisa, which was then vacant; but accepted an invitation from Bottari, second librarian of the Vatican, to come to Rome; where his merit being known to pope Benedict XIV. he gave him a place in the pontifical academy of history. Instead, however, of employing himself on the history of the popes, he devoted his time to a careful examination of the most valuable Mss. and had thus an opportunity of furnishing the editors of classics with much important assistance. The same researches enabled him to publish a Latin translation of a book of St. Epiphanius, addressed to Diodorus, which was printed in 1743, with a preface and notes; the subject is the twelve precious stones on the breast-plate of the high-priest of the Hebrews. About this time the pope appointed him coadjutor to Bottari; and in 1750 he drew up the form of prayers and instructions for the Jubilee. The same year he printed his Latin translation of St. Epiphnnius’s commentary on the Canticles. In 1752 he published a collection of passages from the Fathers, occasioned by a homily of the archbishop of Fermo, on the saying of Jesus Christ, respecting the small number of the elect. The following year he published the opinions of St. Charles Borromeo, and others on the theatre. In 1754 he published the first of eight volumes of writings of the fathers on the subject of grace; and in 1758 “The Works of St. Prosper,” 8vo, and separately, a poem by that saint, on ingratitude, with notes. These were followed by his “Treatise on the clergy of St. John de Lateran,” and in 1760, by an edition of the works of St. Fulgentius. The same year pope Ganganelli made him chamberlain of honour. He afterwards published some ecclesiastical pieces, and some on antiquities, among which was, “Fastorum Anni Ronaani Verrio Flacco ordinatorum reliquiae,” &c. Rome, 1780, fol. Verrius Flaccus composed a series of the Romania**!, which was engraved on tables of marble, and exposed to the view of the public at Praeneste. To recover these marbles, cardinal Stoppani, bishop of Praeneste, at the request of Foggini, ordered several excavations to be made, by which the fragments of four tables were discovered in 1774, and of these Foggini has given a description in this work. The last work by Foggini, noticed in our authority, is an appendix to the Byzantine history, published in 1777. When Pius VI. became pope, he promoted him to the charge of the secret chamber, and in 1775 he succeeded Bottari, as first librarian, but on account of his age, he was excused from the duties of the place, while he enjoyed the title and emoluments. He died May 31, 1783, regretted as a scholar of great accomplishments, and an amiable man.

, a learned Genoese, was born in that city in 1518, and descended from a noble family. Some writers have styled him a priest, but we do not find him in any of his writings assuming any other title than that of a Genoese noble. The troubles which agitated his country induced him to write a work by which they might be quieted, the subject of which was the distinction between noble and plebeian families; but he took so many liberties with the characters of the nobles, that they procured his banishment, a treatment which suggested to him as his future device, a lighted tiambeau with the inscription “Officio mihi officio.” Moreri says that he took an active part in the troubles at Genoa, which was the cause of his banishment, but this does not appear to have been the case. He submitted, however, to his sentence, like a philosopher, and applied his leisure to the cultivation of his mind. He chose Rome as the place of his retirement, and there acquired the patronage of Hippolyto cardinal d'Este, who received him into his house, where he died in 1581. His works were numerous, of which the following are the chief: 1. “Historia Genuensium, lib. 12.” L535, folio; diffuse, but faithful and elegant; translated into Italian by Francesco Sardonati. 2i “De ratione scribendae HistQrise.” 3. “Conjuratio Johannis Ludovici Flisci,” Neapoli, 1571, 4to, a very rare edition. 4. “Elogia clarorurn Ligurum,” 1574, 4to. 5. “De Linguae Latinae usu et prsestantia,” Romse, 1574, repubiished by Mosheim, 1723, with a life of the anthor. 6. “De causis magnitudinis Turcarum imperil.” 7. “Delia Republica di Genoa,” 8vo. 8. “Opuscula nonnulla,” 1574, 4to. Most of these works are scarce. His Latin style was peculiar, elegant, and pure, and his judgment at once accurate and sound.

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

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

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

, was born at Mantua in 1490, and at the age of sixteen he entered into a Benedictine monastery in his native city, where his talents and industry obtained for him a high reputation for proficiency in literature and sacred criticism, while the excellence of his disposition rendered him an object of general esteem. He was selected to fill the most important and distinguished stations in his order, and he was afterwards chosen by pope Paul IV. as visitor of the Benedictine foundations in Spain. When he had performed this task, he had returned to his native country, and devoted himself almost wholly to theological studies, in the course of which he conceived the hopeless project of uniting Catholics and Protestants in one communion. After a life spent in the service of his fellow creatures, he died in 1559, in his seventieth year. He left behind him many theological works, of which the principal were “Commentaries upon the Epistles of St. James, St. Peter, and the first Epistle of St. John,” published in 1551, in 8vo; also a “Commentary upon the Psalms.” These works must have had more than common merit in respect to liberality of sentiment, as they were prohibited by his church. His “Commentary on the Psalms” indeed was reprinted in 1585, but revised and curtailed. Dupin says that he “writes purely and nobly” and Thuanus had reason to say, “that no man will ever repent the reading of his Commentaries.”

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

, an Italian prelate and poet, was born at Foligno, in the fourteenth century, but the year is not known. He became a Dominican, and after some inferior preferments, was in 1403 appointed bishop of Foligno. He was afterwards called, both as a theologian and a bishop, to the council of Pisa, and was also made one of the fathers of the grand council of Constance, where he died in 1416. No other work of his is fcnown but his great poem entitled “Quadriregio,” in which he describes the four reigns of Love, Satan, the Vices and the Virtues. The morality of this poem was probably its greatest recommendation; but the author, who was an admirer of Dante, has endeavoured to imitate him, and in some respects, not unsuccessfully. The first edition of the “Quadriregio” was published at Perugia, in 1481, fol. and the second at Bologna, in 1494; but the best is that published by the academicians of Foligno, 2 vols. 4to, 1725.

, an eminent English scholar and antiquary, was the eldest son of Martin Folkes, esq. counsellor at law, and one of the benchers of Gray’s Inn, and was born in Queen-street, Lincoln’s-hm-fields, Oct. 29, 1690. From the age of nine to that of sixteen, he was under the tuition of the learned Mr. Cappel, son and successor to Mr. Lewis Cappel, Hebrew professor at Saumur, in France, which he quitted when that university was suppressed in 1695. After making great proficiency in the Greek and Roman classics under this master, Mr. Folkes was in 1707 entered of Clare-hall, Cambridge, where his progress in all branches of learning, and particularly in mathematics and philosophy, was such, that when he was scarcely more than twenty-three years of age, he was in 1714 admitted a fellow of the royal society, and two years afterwards had so distinguished himself as to be chosen one of the council. About this time he made his first communication to the society, relative to the eclipse of a fixed star in Gemini by the body of Jupiter. This was followed at various times by other papers, for which it may be sufficient to refer to the Philosophical Transactions. In Oct. 1717 he had the degree of M. A. conferred on him by the university of Cambridge, when that learned body had the honour of a visit from king George I. He was chosen a second time of the council of the royal society, December 14, 1718, and continued to be re-chosen every year till 1727; and in Jan. 1723, had the farther distinction of being appointed by their illustrious president, sir Isaac Newton, one of his vice-presidents nor were these honours unjustly bestowed for Mr. Folkes was not only indefatigable himself in observing the secret operations and astonishing objects of nature, but also studious to excite the same vigilance in others. In February 1720, he was elected a fellow of the society of antiquaries.

At the first anniversary election of the roval society after the death of sir Isaac Newton, in 1727, Mr. Folkes was competitor with sir Hans Sloane for the office of president, find his interest was supported by a great number of members, though the choice was determined in favour of sir Hans. He was, however, again chosen of the council in 1729, and continued in it till he was advanced to the president’s chair twelve years after. In the mean time he was, in 1733, appointed one of the vice-presidents by sir Hans Sloane. In this year he set out with his whole family on a tour to Italy, and after residing a considerable time both at Rome and Florence, returned to England in September 1735. The opportunities which he had of consulting the best-furnished cabinets of Italy, enabled him to compose there an excellent “Dissertation on the weights and values of ancient coins.” This was read in the society of antiquaries, who requested that a copy of it might be registered in their books, which he promised to give, after he had revised and enlarged it; but, for whatever reason, this was never done. In the same year, however, 1736, his “Observations on the Trajan and Antonine Pillars at Rome” were read in this society, and afterwards printed in the first vol. of their “Archajologia,” where is another paper by him on the brass equestrian statue at Rome, occasioned by a small brass model of it being found near London. In April he also communicated to them “A Table of English Gold Coins, from the 18th of Edward III. when gold was first coined in England, to the present time, with their weights and intrinsic values,” which, at their desire, he printed the same year in 4to, and afterwards with additions in 1745, but far more complete, by the society, in 1763, 2 vols.

His ingenious friend, Dr. Robert Smith, then Plumian professor of mathematics in Cambridge, and afterwards master of Trinity college there, being engaged in composing “A complete system of Optics,” Mr. Folkes furnished him with several curious remarks, for vhich. he received the acknowledgments of the professor in the preface to that work, published in 1738, 4to. As he had not seen France in his travels to Italy, he made a tour to Paris in May 1739, chiefly with a view of seeing the academies there, and conversing with the learned men who do honour to that city and the republic of letters, and by whom he was received with all the testimonies of reciprocal regard. Sir Huns Sloane having, on account of his advanced age and growing infirmities, resigned the office of president of the royal society, at tlje annual election in 1741, Mr, Folkes was unanimously chosen to fill that honourable post, which he did with the highest reputation to the society and himself, and soon after his election he presented the society with 100l. The following year he was chosen to succeed Dr. Halley, as a memher of the royal academy of sciences at Paris. The university of Oxford also, being desirous of having a gentleman of his eminence in the learned world a member of their body, conferred on him in the year 1746, the degree of LL. D. upon receiving whick be returned them a compliment in a Latin speech, admired for its propriety and elegance. He was afterwards admitted to the same degree at Cambridge.

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

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

, a learned Dominican of Lisbon, who studied at Paris, was admitted doctor of the Sorbonne in 1542. Returning to Portugal, he was appointed professor of divinity at Coimbra, and preacher to the king. He left “Remarks on cardinal Cajetan’s Commentaries on the Bible,” Paris, 1539, fol.; “de Epidemia Febrili,” 4to, and other works. We find no account of the time of his death.

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

, a celebrated French poet, was born at Chatteau-Thierry, July 8, 1621, a year after the birth of Moltere. He was liberally educated, and at nineteen admitted among the fathers of the oratory, but left them in a little time. His father, who was supervisor of the water-courses and forests in this dutchy, put his sou into the place as soon as he appeared capable of managing it: but Fontaine had no taste for business, his talents being formed altogether for poetry. It is very remarkable, however, that he did not make this discovery in himself till he had commenced his 22d year; when, hearing accidentally the famous ode of Malherbe, on the assassination of Henry IV. he found himself affected with surprise and transport; and the poetic fire, which had lain concealed in him, was kindled into ablaze. He immediately applied to the study of this poet, and at length imitated him. The first froits of his pen he usually communicated to a near relation, who encouraged him, and frequently read with him the best Latin poets and critics, as Horace, Virgil, Terence, Quintilian, &c. He passed from thence to such French and Italian writers as excelled in the manner and style to which his genius led him particularly Rabelais, Marot, Ariosto, Boccace, &,c. Rabelais was uniformly his favourite and idol. He had recourse also to the Greek authors, and especially to Plato and Plutarch; from whom he drew those fine moral maxims with which he has enriched his fables.

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

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

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

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

It has been observed, that the finest writers, and the deepest thinkers, have frequently been but indifferent companions. This was Fontaine’s case: for, having once been invited to dine at the house of a person of distinction, for the more elegant entertainment of the guests, though he ate very heartily, yet not a word could be got from him; and when, rising soon after from the table, on pretence of going to the Academy, he was told he would be too soon, “Oh then,” said he, “I'll take the longest way.” Kacine once carried him to the Tenebrae, which is a service in the church of Rome, in representation of our Saviour’s agony in the garden; and, perceiving it too long for him, put a Bible into his hands. Fontaine, happening to open it at the prayer of the Jews in Baruch, read it over and over with such admiration, that he could net forbear whispering to Racine, “This Baruch is a fine writer do you know any thing of him” and for some days after, if he chanced to meet with any person of letters, when the usual compliments were over, his question was, “Have you ever read Barnch there’s a lirst-rate genius” and this so loud, that every body might hear him. This is of a piece with another anecdote. Being one day with Boileau, Racine, and other eminent men, among whom were some ecclesiastics, St. Austin was talked of for a long time, and with the highest commendations. Fontaine listened with his natural air; and at last, after a profound silence, asked one of the ecclesiastics with the most unaffected seriousness, “Whether he thought St. Austin had more wit than Rabelais?” The doctor, eyeing Fontaine from head to foot, answered only by observing, that “he had put on one of his stockings the wrong side outward;” which happened to be the case.

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

His principal works are, I. “Tales,” Amsterdam, 1G85, 2 vols. 8vo, with plates by Remain de Hooge. To distinguish the original of this edition from the counterfeits, it is necessary to observe that the word Kalverstraat on the title pagre is put with a little s; in the other the S is a capital; but this edition has been eclipsed by one with engravings from Eisen’s designs, and vignettes by Choffort, 1762, 2 vols. 8vo. This also has been counterfeited in Holland, in. 1764, but the plates are so much inferior, that the genuine edition may be easily distinguished. In the copies which have the best proofs of the plates, the criterion is, there should be no drapery on the woman’s thigh who is speaking to the devil of Papefiguiere; nor any branch of a tree on the young man in the “Cas de Conscienca.” 2. “Fables,” of which a very elegant edition was published, 1757, with short notes by M. Coste there are editions with plates in 5 and in 2 vols. 12mo; but nothing equals the magnificent one of 1755, 4 vols. fol. It is 'a masterpiece of typography, and the borders are in a new style of engraving in wood. A moderate edition has since appeared, the whole of it engraved, the subject and the figures, 6 vols. 8vo. 3. “CEuvres diverses,” reprinted at Paris, 1758, 4 vols. 12mo. All La Fontaine’s works were collected, 1726, 3 vols. 4to; an elegant edition, bordered. The principal of them, besides the Fables and Tales, are, “Les Amours de Pysche et de Cupidon,” in verse and in prose; “L'Eunuque,” a comedy; the poem “Du Quinquina,” and other poetical pieces.

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

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

Besides the periodical works mentioned above, he was the author of many others; many of them critical, some historical, and some translations from English writers, chiefly from Pope, Swift, &c. The abbe“de la Porte published in 1757,” L‘Esprit de i’Abbe des Fontaines," 4 vols. 12mo; at the head of which is the life of Fontaines, a catalogue of his works, amounting to forty-seven articles, and another catalogue of writings against him, amounting to thirty-three. He translated Virgil also, and some other classics.

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

, a learned archbishop of Ancyra, was born in 1666, in the duchy of Friouli; and died at Rome in 1736. He was a man greatly distinguished, and held a correspondence with all the learned. There are many works of his; the principal of which are, 1. “Biblioteca della Eloquenza Italiana,” often primed; but the best edition is that of Venice, 1753, in 2 vols. 4to, with the remarks of Apostolo Zeno. 2. “A Literary History of Aquileia, in Latin,” Rome, 1742, 4to, a posthu­Hjous work, but full of good criticism and of learning, sacred and profane, &c. 3. “A collection of Bulls of Canonization from John XV. to Benedict XIII.”

, is the assumed name of a celebrated Venetian lady, whose real name was Modesta Pozzo, and who was born at Venice in 1555, and lost her father and mother the first year of her life. In her younger days, she was put into the monastery of the nuns of Martha of Venice; but afterwards quitted it, and was married. She lived twenty years with her husband in great union, and then died in childbed in 1592. She learned poetry and the Latin tongue with the utmost ease; and is said to have had so prodigious a memory, that, having heard a sermon but once, she could repeat it word for word. She was the author of a poem entitled “11 Kloridoro,” and of another on the “Passion and Resurrection of Jesus Christ.” Besides these and other poems, she published a prose work “Dei Meriti delle Donne,” in which she maintains, that the female sex is not inferior in understanding and merit to the male. This was printed immediately after her death. Father Ribera has made an eulogium of this learned heroine, in his “Theatre of Learned Women” and Doglioni wrote her life in Italian, in 1593.

, a French Jesuit, was born at Paris in 1683, and entered on his noviciate in the order whcn he was fifteen years of age. Having completed his initiatory studies, he was employed some time to furnish extracts and remarks on books relating to religion and ecclesiastical history in the “Journal de Trevoux.” He was engaged for some years in collecting materials for writing a history of the popes, in which, however, he made but small progress; and what he left was too imperfect for publication. Having a turn for polite literature, he published various small poems in the collections of the day. His talents and learning pointed him out as a fit person for rector of the Jesuits’ college at Orleans, win-re he continued till 1735, when he was recalled to Paris, and appointed to continue Longueval’s “History of the Gallican church,” of which he wrote the 9th, 10th, and part of the 11th volumes. He was then interrupted by a paralytic stroke, and died at the college La Fleche, in 1742, in the fifty-sixth year of his age.

, the son of Frangois le Bovier de Fonienelle, advocate in the parliament of Rouen, and of Martha Corneiile, sister to the great dramatic poet Corneille, was born at Rouen Feb. 11, 1657, and lived to the age of an hundred, though so weak at his birth, that his life was not expected. Voltaire declares him to have been the most universal genius the age of Louis the Fourteenth produced; and compares him to lands situated in so happy a climate as to produce all sorts of fruits. Before he was twenty, he had written a great part of Bellerophon,“a tragic opera; and some time after his opera of” Thetis and Peleus“appeared, in which he had closely imitated Quinault, and met with great success. That of” yneas and Lavinia“did not succeed so well. He tried his genius in writing tragedy; and assisted mademoiselle Bernard in some of her dramatic pieces. Two he wrote himself, one of which was acted in 1680, but never printed. He was too long and too unjustly censured on account of this piece; for he had the merit to discover, that though his genius was unconfined, yet he did not possess those talents which so greatly distinguished his uncle, Peter Corneille, in the tragic drama. He wrote several smaller compositions, in which that delicacy of wit and profoundness of thought, which promise greater efforts, might already be discovered. In his poetical performances, and” Dialogues of the Dead,“the spirit of Voiture was displayed, though more extended and more philosophical. His” Plurality of Worlds“is a work singular in its kind; his design in it was to present that part of philosophy to view in a gay and pleasing dress; for which purpose he has introduced a lady, and drawn up the whole in a most agreeable as well as instructing dialogue. In the same manner he made an entertaining book from” Van Dale’s Oracles." The controversial matters treated of in this work (for he went upon Van Dale’s scheme of exploding the Oracles as human impostures) raised him secret enemies, whose malice he had the good fortune to disappoint. He found, says Voltaire, how dangerous it is for a man, though in the right, to differ in opinion from those whose judgment receives a sanction from authority.

He now applied himself to geometry and natural philosophy; nor was he less successful in the study of these sciences, than he had been in that of polite literature. Having been appointed perpetual secretary to the academy of sciences, he discharged that trust for more than forty years. so as to meet with universal applause. His “History of the Academy of Sciences” often throws great light upon their memoirs, where they are obscure. He was the first that introduced elegance into the sciences. If he should sometimes be thought to have interwoven more beauties than the nature of the subject would properly admit, we must regard his composition as on a plentiful crop, where flowers grow naturally among the corn. His “History of the Academy” would be no less useful, than it is well performed, had it given us an account of truths discovered: but he was obligod to explain opinions raised to overthrow one another, most of which are now thought erroneous.

The “Eloges,” which he spoke on the deceased members of the academy, have this peculiar merit, that they excite a respect for the sciences, as well as for the author. In vain did Des Fontaines, and other censorious writers, endeavour to blemish his reputation. In his more advanced years he published “Comedies,” which, though they shewed the elegance of Fontenelle, were little fit for the stage; and “An Apology for Des Cartes’ s Vortices.” Voltaire says, we must excuse his comedies, in consideration of his great age and his Cartesian opinions, as they were those of his youth, which were at that time almost universally received in Europe. Upon the whole, he was regarded as the great master of a new art; that of treating abstruse sciences in a manner which made the study of them at once easy and agreeable; nor are any of his works of other kinds void of merit. His natural talents were assisted by a knowledge of the languages and history; and he certainly surpasses all men of learning who have not had the gift of invention. This account of Fontenelle, which is critical as well as historical, is taken chiefly from Voltaire’s “Age of Louis XIV.”

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

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

, of Florence, son of John Peter Fontius, born in 1445, was a historian, an orator, and a grammarian, and in high esteem with Picus Mirandula, Marsilius Ficinus, Jerome Donatus, and all the literati of his age and country. He had the care of collecting books for the library of Matthew Corvinus, king of Hungary at Buda. He wrote a commentary on Persius, printed at Venice in 1491, and some orations, which were republishecl together at Frankfort, in 1621, 8vo; and died in 1513.

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

This performance at first, met with some little opposition from the Westminster justices; but the author beirag warmly patronized, their opposition was over-ruled, and, by only altering the title of his piece to “Mr. Foote’s giving Tea to his Friends,” he proceeded without farther molestation, and represented it for upwards of forty mornings to crowded and splendid audiences. The ensuing season he produced another piece of the same kind, called, “An Auction of Pictures;” in which he introduced several new characters, all, howerer, popular, anct extremely well known particularly sir Thomas de Veil, then the leading justice of peace for Westminster Mr. Cock, the celebrated auctioneer and the no less celebrated orator Henley. This piece had also a very great run, nor were any pains spared to procure this success, for it is to be noted, that he himself represented all the principal characters of each piece, where his great mimic powers were necessary, shifting from one to another with all the dexterity of a Proteus.

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

Foote was now in much prosperity he acquired a great deal of money; and he seems to have set mankind at defiance for he cared not whom he offended, and seldom considered whether they were subjects proper for ridicule. In 1776, he drew a character for the late duchess of Kingston, who was at that time the subject of much conversation; whose influence, however, prevailed so far as to prevent the representation of his play. In the course of this conflict, certain imputations were thrown out against him, which ripened at length into a legal charge. He was accused of unnatural practices, and though the accusation was supposed to have originated from malice, and he was acquitted, agreeably to the sentiments of the judge who tried him, yet the shock he received from this disgracing situation is believed to have had a fatal effect upon him. A few months afterwards he was struck, while on the stage, with a paralytic fit; from which he recovered sufficiently to spend the summer at Brighthelmstone. On the approach of winter, he was advised to remove to France; and arrived at Dover, Oct. 20, 1777; intending immediately to proceed to Calais; but, being seized with a shivering fit the next morning, he died in a few hours, and was buried in Westminster-abbey.

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