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

Soon after this, on Monday before St. Bartholomew’s day, 1469, John Mowbray, duke of Norfolk, laid pretensions to it; and sent sir John Heveningham, a cousin of sir John FastolfFs, to require John Paston, esq. governor of it, being a castle well fortified, in the absence of his eldest brother sir John Paston, to deliver it up to him; maintaining that the said duke had purchased the said castle of William Yelverton (that cursed Norfolk justice, as Worcester styles him), whereas sir John had ordered it not to be sold, but to be a college for priests, and an hospital for poor men. The said John Paston refusing to surrender it, the duke came before it with 3000 armed men, and with guns, culverines, and other artillery, and laid siege to it immediately. The siege continued five weeks and three days.

, an English Jesuit, was born in 1554, at Foston in Leicestershire, and entered a student in Merton college, in 1568, under the tuition of John Potts, whom Wood calls a noted philosopher. In 1570, Potts, who was a concealed papist, being detected, conducted his young pupil, whose parents were of that persuasion, to the Jesuits’ college at Louvain. In this seminary he continued till he had taken a bachelor of arts degree, and then went to Paris. From thence he travelled to Munich in Bavaria, where duke William allowed him a handsome salary to prosecute his studies, and Ivhere he took the degree of M. A. In 1575 he proceeded to Rome, and became a member of the English Jesuits’ college, of which he was soon after appointed divinityreader. He was much distinguished and favoured by several princes, and particularly by pope Gregory XIII. who, as a token of his affection and confidence, gave him a seal which empowered him to grant a pass to any of his countrymen travelling through the catholic dominions. In 1581 he was appointed president of the Jesuits’ college at Posna in Poland, in which country he spent the remainder of his life. He died at Ulna, in the province of Lithuania, Feb. 18, 1591, much regretted by his fraternity, amongst whom he had the character of a prudent, learned, and ^pious divine. His works are: 1. “.De Christi in terris ecclesia,” Posna, 1584, 4to. 2. “Contra Antonium Sadeelem Calv:­nistam, libri III.” 3. “Theses de variis fidei eontroversiis,” Posna, 1584, 1590. 4. “Doctrina catholica de Sanctorum Invocatione, &c.” ibid. 1584, 8vo. 5. “Apologia Libri sui de Invocatione, &c. contra Danielem Tossanum,” Colon. 1589, 8vo. 6. “Coenae Lutherana? et Calvinistee oppu<rnatio,” Posna, 1586, 4to. 7. “Apologia Thesium de CcBUtt Lutherana, &o.” ibid. 1590, 4to. 8. “Oratio de causis Haeresis, &c.” 9. “Tractatus de Controversiis inter ordinem Eccles. et Secularem in Polonia,” 1592, 4to.

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

, a French lady, daughter of Aymar de la Vergne, marechal-de-camp, and governor of Havre-deGrace, bat more distinguished by her wit and literary productions than by her family, was married to the count de Fayette in 1655, and died in lt'i.93. She cultivated letters and the fine arts; and her hotel uas the rendezvous of all who were most distinguished for literary taste. The duke de la Rochefuucault, Huetius, Mennge, La Fontaine, Segrais, were those she saw most frequently. The last, when obliged to quit the house of Mad. de Montpensier, found an honourable retreat with her. The author of “The Memoirs of madame de Maintenon,” has not spoken favourably of this lady, nor represented her manners to be such as from her connections we should suppose. But madame de Sevigne, who had better opportunities of knowing her, and is more to be relied on than the author of the memoirs, has painted her very differently. This lady says, in a letter to her daughter, “Mad. la Fayette is a very amiable and a very estimable woman; and whom yon will love when you shall have time to be with her, and to enjoy the benefit of her sense and wit; the better you luiow her, the more you will like her.”

His chief works are, 1. “Entretiens sur les Vies et sur les Ouvrages des plus excellens Peintres anciens et modernes:” 1666 1688, 5 vols. 4to. 2. “Les Principes de l'Architecture, de la Sculpture, et de la Peinture, avec un dictionaire des termes propres de ces artes,” 1676, and 1691, 4to. 3. “De l'origi.ne de la Peinture, avec plusieurs pieces detachers,” 1660. 4. “Several Descriptions, as that of Versailles, of Entertainments given by the king, and of several Pictures,” collected into one vol. in 12mo., 5 “The Conferences of the royal academy of painting,” in one vol. 4to. 6. “The Description of the Abbey de la Trappe,” in 12mo. He also left some translations: viz. “An Account of what passed in Spain, when the count duke of Olivares fell under the king’s displeasure,” translated out of Italian “The Castle of the Soul,” written by St. Teresa, translated from the Spanish “The Life of pope Pius V.” translated from the Italian.

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

, the son of the preceding, was born at Leipsic, Dec. 26, 1673, and imbibed a similar taste with his father for the belles lettres, bibliography, and general literature. In 1688 he received his degree of doctor in philosophy, and two years after set out on what may be called his literary travels. He remained some time with Kirchmaier at Wittemberg, and with Bayer at Fribourg, whose library he carefully inspected. Going thence to Zwickau, the senate of that city appointed him to make a catalogue of the library of Daumius, which had come into their possession by the death of that scholar. Feller was very agreeably employed on this task, when the news of the death of his father obliged him to pay a visit to Leipsic, but as soon as he had settled his family affairs, he returned to Zwickau, and completed the catalogue. He then went again to Leipsic, and studied law, but in 1696 set out a second time on his travels, and at Wolfenbuttel, became acquainted with Leibnitz, who conceiving a friendship for him, detained him here for three years, and assisted him in all his literary undertakings, especially his history of the house of Brunswick, for which Feller was enabled to collect a number of very curious documents of the middle ages. At Francfort, we find him assisting Ludolf in his historical works, but Ludolf is thought to have availed himself too little of this assistance. After extending his acquaintance among learned men in various parts, in 1706 the duke of Weimar appointed him his secretary, and he appears to have died in his service Feb. 15, 1726. His principal works were, 1. “Monumenta varia inedita, variisque linguis conscripta, nunc singulis trimestribus prodeuntia; e museo Joach. F. Felleri secretarii Wimariensis,” Jena, 1714, 1715, 4to. This literary journal, for such it is, is divided into twelve parts. 2. A Genealogical history of the house of Brunswick and Lunenburgh, in German, Leipsic, 1717, 8vo. 3. c< Otium Hanoveranum, sive Miscellanea ex ore et schedis G. G. Leibnitii quondam notata et descripta," ibid. 1718, 8vo. He also enlarged and corrected, in 1713, an edition of Birken’s History of the Saxon heroes.

, a learned divine, was born Feb. 3, 1679, in the parish of St. Martin’s-in-the-fields, Westminster, and was educated first at Cheneys in Buckinghamshire, then at Westminster school under Dr. Busby, and lastly at the Charter-house under Dr. Walker, to whom he was a private pupil. At a proper age he was admitted of Edmund hall, Oxford, of which Dr. Mill, the celebrated critic, was at that time principal, and his tutor was Mr. Thomas Mills, afterwards bishop of Waterford in Ireland. In June 1702, he took his master’s degree, and in December following was ordained deacon, in the royal chapel at Whitehall, by Dr. Lloyd, bishop of Worcester. In June 1704 he was admitted to priest’s orders by Dr. Compton, bishop of London. In 1705-6, he first appeared as an author, in a piece entitled “Remarks on the Colebrook Letter/' a subject the nature of which we have not been able to discover. In 1708 he had the care of the English church at Amsterdam, but did not long continue in that situation, returning to England in 1709. Soon after his return he was appointed domestic chaplain to the duke of Rutland, at Belvoir castle, and sustained that relation to three successive dukes, for which noble house he always preserved the warmest gratitude and affection. In the same year (July 11, 1709) Mr. Felton was admitted to the degree of B. D. being then a member of Queen’s college. Having been employed as tutor to John lord Roos, afterwards third duke of Rutland, he wrote for that young nobleman’s use, his” Dissertation on reading the Classics, and forming a just style," 1711, 12mo. A fourth edition of this was published in 1730, but the best is that of 1757. It was the most popular, and best known of all Dr. Felton’s works, although in the present improved state of criticism, it may appear with less advantage.

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

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

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

Fenelon passed the last years of his life in his diocese, in a manner worthy of a good archbishop, a man of letters, and a Christian philosopher. The amiableness of his manners and character obtained for him a respect, which was paid even by the enemies of his country; for in the last war with Louis XIV. the duke of Marlborough expressly ordered the lands of Fenelon to be spared. He died in January 1715, at the age of sixty-three.

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

, a learned Spaniard, considered as a prodigy in the fifteenth century, may be termed the Crichton of Spain, whom he resembled in the marvellous and universal knowledge attributed to him. He was well skilled in languages and the sciences; understood the Bible, the works of Nicholas Lyranus, St. Thomas, St. Bonaventura, Alexander Ales, and Scotus; with those of Aristotle, Hippocrates, Galen, Avicenna, and several law authors. He was also a brave soldier, played on several instruments, was admired for his singing and dancing, and equalled any artist of Paris in painting. It is said that he foretold the death of Charles the Rash, duke of Burgundy, and in 1445, was the admiration of all the learned at Paris. Commentaries on Ptolemy’s Almagest, and on the Apocalypse, are ascribed to him, and a treatise “De Artificio omnis scibilis,” and other works.

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

His character, as we have already intimated, has been differently represented, bishop Godwin asserting that his ruin was owing to his own rigid, rough behaviour; but Fox seems clearly of opinion that the first prosecution against him was unnecessary and malicious, and that the second was commenced because he was a protestant. It is certain that many of the fifty-six articles which he was put to answer in the reign of Edward VI. were to the last degree frivolous, and showed themselves to be the offspring of a revengeful mind; such as riding a Scotch pad, with a bridle with white studs and snaffle, white Scotch stirrups, and white spurs wearing a hat instead of a cap whistling to his child laying the blame of the scarcity of herrings to the covetousness of fishers, who in time of plenty, took so many that they destroyed the breeders; and lastly wishing, that at the alteration of the coin, whatever metal it was made of, the penny should be in weight worth a penny of the same metal. It is also to be noticed that the fall of the duke of Somerset, then lord protector, to whom he was chaplain, seems to have exposed him to the resentment of his enemies.

Afterwards he became the king’s menial servant, whom he attended in war as well as in peace, and served both with his pen and his sword, and rose so much in favour with Henry, as to receive from that monarch a very considerable grant in his native county, out of the king’s private estate. This was in 1535, yet he managed so ill, that some years after, when member of parliament for Plymouth, which he was elected in 1542, he had the misfortune, during the session, to be taken in execution by a sheriff’s officer, and carried to the compter. This, however, being represented to the house of commons, occasioned such a disturbance there, as not only produced his discharge, but a settled rule with respect to privilege. Yet Mr. Hatsell, in his “Collection of cases of Privileges of Parliament,” seems to be of opinion that the measures which were adopted, and the doctrine which was then first laid down with respect to the extent of the privileges of the house of commons, were more owing to Ferrars’s being a servant of the king, than that he was a member of the house of commons. He continued afterwards in high favour with Henry all his reign, who fully approved what the house of commons had done; and Ferrars seems to have stood upon good terms with the protector Somerset, in that of king Edward; since he attended him as a commis^ sioner of the carriage of the army into Scotland, in 1548. Edward also had a singular kindness for him, as appeared afterwards at a very critical juncture; for when the unfortunate duke of Somerset lay under sentence of death, the people murmuring on the one hand, and the king uneasy and melancholy on the other, it was thought expedient to do something to quiet and amuse the people, and if possible to entertain and divert the sovereign. In order to this, at the entrance of Christmas holidays, George Ferrars, esq. was proclaimed Lord Of Misrule, that is, a prince of sports and pastimes. This office, which required no common talents, he discharged for twelve days together at Greenwich, with great magnificence and address, and entirely to the king’s satisfaction. In this character, attended by the politest part of the court, he made an excursion to London, where he was very honourably received by officers created for that purpose, splendidly entertained by the lord mayor, and when he took leave, had a handsome present made him in token of respect.

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

, a skilful painter, was descended of a good family, and born at Rome in 1634, where, being in. easy circumstances, he pursued his inclination and taste for painting. He was a faithful imitator of Peter da Cortona, whose favourite disciple he was, and to whom he came so near in his ideas, his invention, and his manner of painting, that his cielings particularly are often mistaken, for Cortona’s. Generally, however, Mr. Fuseli says, Ferri has less grace of design, less ease in his actions and draperies, and less compass of mind; but he has more solidity and carefulness of finish than his master. Though he set great prices on his works, he was in continual employ. Pope Alexander VII. had a great esteem for him; and his three successors were no less favourable to him. The great duke sent for him to Florence, and assigned him a large pension to finish the works which Cortona had left imperfect. He entered so well into the spirit of them, and acquitted himself so worthily, that the whole work seems to be of the same hand. The great duke nominated him chief of the school of Florence, in which rank he continued for a long time. Ferri returned to Rome, where he appeared a great architect as well as a good painter. Several palaces and grand altars, as St. John of the Florentines, and that of the Chiesa Nuova, were raised from his designs. He diverted himself more with drawing than painting. He was much importuned for devices, figures for breviaries, and titles of books: several of which have been engraved by Spierre and Bloemart. The pope employed him in making cartoons for the Vatican; and few men have worked in more different ways. The cupola of St. Agnes, in the palace of Navona, was his last work. The chagrin he felt in seeing the angels of Bacici, a Genoese painter, which were directly under it, the force of whose colouring made his appear too weak, is said to have been the cause of his death. One day he told Lazaro Baldi, his companion, that his cupola appeared very different on the scaffold from what it did from below, and that the angels of Bacici gave him great pain; and, falling sick soon after, he died in 1689, at the age of fifty-five.

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

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

The great encouragement which the life of Wolsey obtained, prompted Fiddes to undertake the lives of sir Thomas More and bishop Fisher: but when he had gone through a great part of this work, he lost his manuscript. He published, 6. “A general treatise of Morality, formed upon the principles of Natural Reason only; with a preface in answer to two essays lately published in the Fable of the Bees, and some incidental remarks upon an Inquiry concerning Virtue, by the right honourable Anthony earl of Shaftesbury,” 1724, 8vo. In his preface, he defends some, opinions of Shaftesbury against the author of the “Search into the Nature of Society;” and afterwards vindicates Dr. Kadcliffe from the aspersions of the same author, on account of his benefactions to the university of Oxford. 7. “A Preparative to the Lord’s Supper.” 8. “A Letter in answer to one from a Freethinker, occasioned by the late duke of Buckingham’s epitaph: wherein certain passages in it that have been thought exceptionable are vindicated, and the doctrine of the soul’s immortality asserted. To which is prefixed, a version of the epitaph, agreeably to the explication given of it in the Answer;” in 1721, 8vo. The epitaph and version, which are here subjoined, will satisfy the reader that Fiddes misunderstood it, without being at the trouble to read his pamphlet:

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

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

, was half brother, as abovementioned, to Henry Fielding, and his successor in the office of justice for Westminster, in which, though blind from his youth, he acted with great sagacity and activity for many years. He received the honour of knighthood for his services in October, 1761, and died at Brompton in September 1780. He published at various times, the following works: 1. “An account of the Origin and Effects of a Police, set on foot by his grace the duke of Newcastle, in the year 1753, upon a Plan presented to his grace by the late Henry Fielding, esq. To which is added, a Plan for preserving those deserted Girls in this Town who become Prostitutes from Necessity. 1768.” This was a small tract in 8vo. 2. “Extracts from such of the Penal Laws as particularly relate to the Peace and good Order of the Metropolis,” 1761, 8vo; a larger publication. 3. “The Universal Mentor; containing, Essays on the most important Subjects in Life; composed of Observations, Sentiments, and Examples of Virtue, selected from the approved Ethic Writers, Biographers, and Historians, both ancient and modern,” 1762, 12mo. This appears to have been the discharge of his common-place book. 4. “A Charge to the Grand Jury of Westminster,” 1763, 4to, stated to have been published at the unanimous request of the magistrates and jury, when he was chairman o_f the quarter sessions. 5. “Another Charge to the Grand Jury on a similar occasion,” 1766, 4to. 6. “A brief Description of the Cities of London and Westminster, &c. To which are added, some Cautions against the Tricks of Sharpers,” &c. 1777, 12tno. Nothing in this appears to have proceeded from sir John, except the “Cautions,” and the use of his name was perhaps a bookseller’s trick. It is most to the honour of sir John Fielding’s memory, that he was a distinguished promoter of the Magdalen hospital, the Asylum, and the Marine Society.

, a physician of eminence, was born at Antwerp, March 28, 1567. His father, who was a physician at Antwerp, and who died at Dort in 1585, was the author of a treatise entitled “Commentarius de flatibus humanum corpus infestantibus,” Antwerp, 1582. His son, Thomas, studied medicine at Leyden, and afterwards at Bologna, which he visited in 1590. On his return to his native country his talents were soon made known, and in 1593 he was invited to Louvaine, in order to fill one of the vacant professorships of medicine in that university, in which he took the degree of doctor about the end of that year. After seven years of residence, he was appointed physician to Maximilian, duke and afterwards elector of Bavaria; but this he resigned at the end of one year, and returned to Louvaine, where the archduke Albert immediately increased his salary to a thousand ducats, in order to secure his services, and here he remained until his death, March 15, 1631, at the college of Breughel, of which he had been for a long time president. Besides being an able Greek and mathematical scholar, he was regarded as an intelligent and able physician; and had fewequals among his contemporaries in natural history and surgery. His works, which contributed greatly to advance his reputation, were, 1. “De Cauteriis libri quinque,” Louvaine, 1598. 2. “Libri Chirurgici XII., de praecipuis Artis Chirurgicre controversiis,” Francfort, 1602, which passed through many editions. 3. “De viribus Imaginationis Tractatus,” Louvaine, 1608. 4. “De Cometa anni 1618,” Antwerp, 1619, against opinions of Copernicus respecting the motion of the earth. 5. “De vi formatrice foetus liber, in quo ostenditur animam rationalem infundi tertia die,” ibid. 1620. This work was attacked with considerable success, by Louis du Gardin, a professor of Douay, and Fienus replied in, 6. “De formatrice foetus adversus Ludovicum du Gardin, &c.” Louvaine, 1624. His opinion was also impugned by Santa Cruz, the physician of Philip IV. which produced, 7. “Pro sua de anijnatione fcetds tertia die opinione Apologia, adversus Antonium Ponce Santa Cruz, Regis Hispaniarmn Medicum Cubicularem, &c.” Louvaine, 1629. 8. “Semiotice, sive de signis medicis Tractatus,” Leyden, 1664.

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

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.

, 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.

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.

, 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.

, 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.

, 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.

, 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 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.

, 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.

, 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.

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.

, 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.

, 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."

, 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.”

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.

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.

, 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

, 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.

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.

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.

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

, nephew of the former, and also the son of a goldsmith, was born at Paris in 1658. He became lord of Aubigny by purchasing the lands to which that title was attached. He was successively secretary to the marquis de Crequi, and the duke d'Aumont. When the former of these noblemen was slain at the battle of Luzara, La Fosse was employed to carry his heart to Paris, and celebrated the death of the young hero in verses which are still extant. He was so much a master of Italian as to write skilfully in that language both in prose and verse, but his chief fame as a poet was atchieved in his own language, in which he wrote several tragedies, and many other poems. His ft Polixene, Manlius, and Theseus,“published in his” Theatre,“2 vols. 12mo, maintained their station in the French theatre till the revolution; and all his dramas are said to abound with passages which would not disgrace the finest tragic writers of France. His versification was highly finished, and he said that the expression cost him more than the thoughts. His” Manlius," the best of his pieces, has been pronounced in many respects worthy of Corneille; yet even in France, we are told, he is less known than he deserves. He was intimate with the poet J. Baptiste Rousseau, and lived the life of a philosopher, preferring letters to fortune, and friendship to every thing. He died Nov. 2, 1708, at the age of fifty. His modesty was equal to his genius; and when any of his pieces were less successful than others, he professed constantly that he never appealed from the judgment of the public.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

in Ireland, where the duke of Shrew*. 1 am quite ignorant where he designs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

, a celebrated Lutheran divine, was born in 1518, at Werdeti, near Nuremberg. He adopted the doctrine of Osiander, whose daughter he married, and particularly became a strenuous advocate for Osiander 1 s opinions on the subject of justification. He was a minister in Prussia, and wrote a “Chronology,” from Adam to 1560, published at separate times, but completely at Wittemberg, 1570, fol. with various other tracts. At length being convicted of giving Albert, duke of Prussia, to whom he was chaplain, advice disadvantageous to Poland, he was condemned, with some others, as a disturber of the public peace, and beheaded at Konigsberg, October 28, 1566. He is said to have composed the following distich a little before his execution

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

, an eminent musical writer, a native of Lodi, born Jan. 14, 1451, of obscure parents, was first intended for priest’s orders, but after studying music for two years under John Goodenach, a carmelite, he manifested so much genius for that science, that it was thought expedient to make it his profession. After learning the rudiments of music at Lodi, he went to Mantua, where he was patronized by the marquis Lodovico Gonzago; and where, during two years, he pursued his studies with unwearied assiduity night and day, and acquired great reputation, both in the speculative and practical part of his profession. From this city he went to Verona, where he read public lectures on music for two years more, and published several works; after which he removed to Genoa, whither he was invited by the doge Prospero; there he entered into priest’s orders. From Genoa he was invited to Milan by the duke and duchess Galeazzo, but they being soon after expelled that city, he returned to Naples, where Philip of Bologna, professor- royal, received him as his colleague; and he became so eminent in the theory of music, that he was thought superior to many celebrated and learned musicians, his contemporaries, with whom he now conversed and disputed. He there published his profound <“Treatise on the Theory of Harmony,” 1480 which was afterwards enlarged and re- published at Milan, 1492; but the plague raging in Naples, and that kingdom being likewise much incommoded by a war with the Turks, he retreated to Otranto, whence, after a short residence, he returned to Lodi, where he was protected and favoured by Pallavicino, the bishop, and opened a public school, in which, during three years, he formed many excellent scholars. He was offered great encouragement at Bergamo, if he would settle there; but the war being over, and the duke of Milan, his old patron, restored, he preferred the residence of that city to any others It was here that he composed and polished most of his works; that he was caressed by the first persons of his time for rank and learning; and that he read lectures by public authority to crowded audiences, for which he had a faculty granted him by the archbishop and chief magistrates of the city in 1483, which exalted him far above all his contemporaries; and how much he improved the science by his instructions, his lectures, and his writings, was testified by the approbation of the whole city; to which may be added the many disciples he formed, and the almost infinite number of volumes he wrote, among which several will live as long as music and the Latin tongue are understood. He likewise first collected, revised, commented, and translated into Latin the ancient Greek writers on music, Bacchius senior, Aristides, Quintilianus, Ptolemy’s Harmonics, and Manuel Briennius. The works which he published are, 1. “Theoricum Opus Harmonicae Disciplinse,” mentioned above, Neapolis, 1480, Milan, 1492. This was the first book on the subject of music that issued from the press after the invention of printing, if we except the “ Deftnitiones Term. Musicae,” of John Tinctor. 2. “Practica Musicse utriusque Cantus,” Milan, 1496; Brescia, 1497, 1502; and Venice, 1512. 3. “Angelicum ac Divinum Opus Musicae Materna Lingua Scrip.” Milan, 1508. 4. “De Harmonica Musicor. Instrumentorum,” Milan, 1518. This work, we are told by Pantaleoue Melegulo, his countryman and biographer, was written when Gaffurius was forty years of age; and though the subject is dark and difficult, it was absolutely necessary for understanding the ancient authors. With these abilities, however, Gaft'urius did not escape the superstitions of his time. He was not only addicted to astrology, but taught that art at Padua, in 1522. He was then seventy-one years of age, and is supposed to have died soon after, although Dr. Burney fixes his death two years before.

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

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

While he was professor at Padua, in 1609, visiting Ve>­nice, then famous for the nrt of making glass, he heard of the invention of the telescope by James Metius, in Holland. This notice was sufficient for Galileo; his curiosity was raised; and the result of his inquiry was a telescope of his own, produced from this hint, without having seen the Dutch glass. All the discoveries he made in astronomy were the easy and natural consequences of this invention, which opening a way, till then unknown, into the heavens, gave that science an entirely new face. Galileo, in one of his works, ridicules the unwillingness of the Aristotelians to allow of any discoveries not known to their master, by introducing a speaker who attributes the telescope to him, on account of what he says of seeing the stars from the bottom of a deep well. “The well,” says he, “is the tube of the telescope, the intervening vapours answer to the glasses.” He began by observing the moon, and calculating the height of her mountains. He then discovered four of Jupiter’s satellites, which he called the Medicean stars or planets, in honour of Cosmo II. grand duke of Tuscany, who was of that noble family. Cosmo now recalled him from Padua, re-established him at Pisa, with a very handsome stipend, in 1610; and the same year, having lately invited him to Florence, gave him the post and title of his principal philosopher and mathematician.

, an able artist, although little known, was born in 1619, and instructed by Vandyck; and his works are a sufficient proof of the signal improvement he received from the precepts and example of that great master. The cause of his being so totally unknown was, his being brought into Ireland by the old duke of Ormond, and retained in his service. And as Ireland was at that time in a very unsettled condition, the merit and the memory of this master would have been entirely unnoticed, if some of his performances, which still subsist, had not preserved him from oblivion. There are at this time in Ireland many portraits, painted by him, of noblemen and persons of fortune, which are very little inferior to Vandyck, either for expression, colouring, or dignity; and several of his’copies after Vandyck, which were in the Ormond collection at Kilkenny, were sold for original paintings of Vandyck. Mr. Gandy died in 1689.

But his views were far from being confined to the university. He had some time before been taken into the family of the duke of Norfolk, and thence into that of Cardinal Wolsey, who made him his secretary. This post he now held, and it proved the foundation of his rise at court. The cardinal having projected the treaty of alliance with Francis I. in 1525, employed his secretary to draw up the plan, and the king coming to his house at Morepark, in Hertfordshire, found Gardiner busy at this work. He looked at it, liked the performance extremely well, the performer’s conversation better, and his fertility in the invention of expedients best of all; and from this time Gardiner was admitted into the secret of affairs, and entirely confided in, both by the king and his first minister. He received a public mark of that confidence in 1527, when he was sent to Rome, in order to negociate the arduous business of Henry’s divorce from queen Katharine. Edward Fox, provost of King’s-college, in Cambridge, went with him on this embassy; but Gardiner was the chief, being esteemed the best civilian in England at this time; and having been admitted into the king’s cabinet-­council for this affair, he is styled in the cardinal’s credential letters to the pope, “primary secretary of the most secret counsels.” He was now in such favour with the cardinal, that, in these very letters, he called Gardiner the half of himself, “Dimidium sui,” than whom none was dearer to him. He wrote that Gardiner should unlock his [the cardinal’s] breast to the pope; who, in hearing him speak, he might think he heard the cardinal himself. The successful issue of this embassy in obtaining a new commission, directed to the cardinals Wolsey and Campejus, as well as Gardiner’s address in the negociation, may be seen in the general histories of England. We shall only notice one particular not mentioned there, which is his success in disposing Campejus to make a tour to England. This requiring some extraordinary management, Gardiner took it upon himself; and having put every thing requisite to set the affair in a proper light at home, into the hands of his colleague Fox, dispatched him to carry the account to the king, who joined with Anne Boleyn in applauding the ingenuity, intrepidity, and industry of the new minister. But the loudest in his praises was the cardinal, in whose private business Gardiner had reconciled the pope to the endowment of his two colleges at Oxford and Ipswich, out of the revenues of the dissolved lesser monasteries. This added to the rest, made such an impression upon the cardinal’s mind, that crying out, “O inestimable treasure and jewel of this realm!” he desired Fox to remark those words, and insert them in his letter. There was still another instance of Gardiner’s abilities and attachment to Wolsey, which had its share in exciting this burst of admiration. During the course of this embassy, the pope falling dangerously ill, the cardinal set all his engines to work, to secure the keys provisionally to himself, in case of a new election, and the suffrages of one-third part of the cardinals were procured for him. He dispatched orders immediately to provide that those cardinals should be withdrawn to a place of safety, and should there declare him pope, though the majority should appear against him; assuring his own party, that they should be vigorously sustained by king Henry and his allies. This scheme, however, was rendered abortive by the recovery of Clement VII. but the pains taken in it by the cardinal’s agents, among whom Gardiner had at least an equal share, could not fail to be highly pleasing to him. In the event, indeed, the king had most reason to be satisfied with his minister, who gave his opinion that all solicitations at Rome would be lost time; the pope, in his judgment, being immoveable in the resolution to do nothing himself; though he might not improbably be brought to confirm such a sentence as his majesty could draw from the legates Henry, fully persuaded in the issue of the sincerity and judgment of this advice, recalled Gardiner, resolving to make use of his abilities in managing the legantine court .

After his discharge he went to his diocese;and,- though he opposed, as much as possible, the uew establishment in its first proposal, yet now it was settled by act of parliament, he knew how to conform; which he not 'only did himself, but took care that others should do the same. Yet he no sooner returned to town than he received an order, which brought him again before the council; where, after some rough treatment, he was directed not to stir from his house till he went to give satisfaction in a sermon, to be preached before the king and court in zt public audience; for the matter of which he was directed both what, he should, and what he should not say, by sir William Cecil. He did not refuse to preach, which was done on St. Peter’s day but so contrarily to the purpose required , that he was sent to the Tower the next clay, June 3O, 1548, where he was kept close prisoner for a year. But his affairs soon after put on a more pleasing countenance. When the protector’s fall was projected, Gardiner was deemed a necessary implement for the purpose; his head and hand were both employed for bringing it about, and the original draught of the articles was made by him. Upon this change in the council he had such assurances of his liberty, aid entertained so great hopes of it, that it is said he provided a new suit of clothes in order to keep that festival; but in all this he was disappointed: his first application for a discharge was treated with contempt by the council, who laughing said, “the bishop had a pleasant head;” for reward of which, they gave him leave to remain five or six weeks longer in prison, without any notice taken to him of his message. Nor did the lords shew any regard to his next address: and he had been almost two years in the Tower, when the protector, restored to that high office, went with others by virtue of an order of council, June 9, 1550, to confer with him in that place. In this conference they proposed to release him upon his submission for what was past, and promise of obedience for the future, if he would also subscribe the new settlement in religion, with the king’s complete power and supremacy, though under age; and the abrogation of the six articles. He consented to, and actually subscribed, all the conditions except the first, which he refused, insisting on his innocence. The lords used him with great kindness, and encouraged him to hope his troubles should be quickly ended, and upon this, seeing also the protector among them, he flattered himself with the hopes of being released in two days, and in that confidence actually made his farewell feast But the contempt he had at first shewn to the council, being still avowed by his refusing to make a submission. now, was not so readily overlooked. On the contrary, this first visit was followed by several others of the like tenor; which meeting with the same refusal, at length the lords Herbert, Petre, and bishop Ridley, brought him new articles, in which the required acknowledgement, being made more general, runs thus: “That he had been suspected of not approving the king’s proceedings, and being appointed to preach, had not done it as he ought to have done, and so deserved the king’s displeasure, for which he was sorry;” and the other articles being enlarged were, “besides the king’s supremacy, the suppression of abbies and chanteries, pilgrimages, masses, and images, adoring the sacrament, communion in both kinds, abolishing the old books, and bringing in the new book of service, with that for ordaining priests and bishops, the completeness of the scripture, and the use of it in the vulgar tongue, the lawfulness of clergymen’s marriage, and for Erasmus’s Paraphrase, that it had been on good considerations ordered to be set up in churches.” These being read, foe insisted first co be released from his imprisonment, and said that he would then freely give his answer, such as he would stand by, and suffer if he did amiss; but he vvoukl trouble himself with no more articles while he was detained in prison, since he desired not to be delivered out of his imprisonment in the way of mercy, but of justice. On July ly, he was brought before the council, who having told him that they sat by a special commission to judge him, asked whether he would subscribe these last articles or no? which he answering in the negative, his bishopric was sequestered, and he required to conform in three months on pain of deprivation. Upon this the liberty he had before of walking in some open galleries, when the duke of Norfolk was not in them, was taken from him, and he was again shut up in his chamber. At the expiration of the limited time, the bishop still keeping his resolution, was deprived for disobedience and contempt, by a court of delegates, in which Cranmer presided, after a trial which lasted from Dec. 15 to Feb. 14 following, in twenty-four sessions. He appealed from the delegates to the king; but no notice was taken of it, the court being known to be final and unappealable.

In the course of the proceedings, Gardiner always behaved himself contemptuously toward the judges, and particularly called them sacramentarians and heretics; on which account he was ordered to be removed to a meaner lodging in the Tower; to be attended by one servant only, of the lieutenant’s appointment to have his books and papers taken from him to be denied pen, ink, or paper; and nobody suffered to visit him. However, as he continued a close prisoner here during the rest of Edward’s reign, the severity of this order was afterwards mitigated; as appears from various pieces written by him in this confinement. He is said to have kept up his spirits and resolution, and it is not improbable, that he foresaw the great alteration in affairs which was speedily to take place. The first dawning of this began to appear on the demise of king Edward, when Mary was publicly proclaimed queen July 19, 1553. On Aug. 3 she made her solemn entry into the Tower, when Gardiner, in the name of himself and his fellow-prisoners, the duke of Norfolk, duchess of Somerset, lord Courtney, and others of high rank, made a congratulatory speech to her majesty, who gave them all their liberty. The spokesman took his seat in council the same day, and on the 8th performed the obsequies for the late king in the queen’s presence. On the 9th he went to Winchester-house in Southwark, after a confinement of somewhat more than five years; and was declared chancellor of England on the 23d. He had the honour of crowning the queen Oct. I, and on the 5th opened the lirst parliament in her reign. By these hasty steps Gardiner rose to the prime ministry; and was possessed at this time of more power, civil and ecclesiastical, than any English minister ever enjoyed, except his old master cardinal Wolsey. He was also re-chosen chancellor of Cambridge, and restored to the mastership of Trinity-hall there, of which, among his other preferments, he had been deprived in the former reign.

In 1763, he undertook a journey into Italy, and set out for Dover, in his way to Calais, Sept. 17. His historian assigns several causes of this excursion, and among the chief, the prevalence of Covent-garden theatre under the management of Mr. Beard, the singer; but the real cause probably was, the indifferent health of himself and Mrs. Garrick, to the latter of whom the baths of Padua were afterwards of service, During his trayels, he gave frequent proofs of his theatrical talents; and he readily complied with requests of that kind, because indeed nothing was more easy to him. He could, without the least preparation, transform himself into any character, tragic or comic, and seize instantaneously upon any passion of the human mind. He exhibited before the duke of Parma, by reciting a soliloquy of Macbeth; and had friendly contests with the celebrated mademoiselle Clairon at Paris. He saw this actress when he paid his first visit to Paris in 1752; and though mademoiselle Dumesnil was then the, favourite actress of the French theatre, he ventured to pronounce that Clairon would excel all competitors; which prediction was fulfilled.

In politics, Dr. Garth was prompted not more by good sense than by good disposition, to make his muse subservient to his interest, only by proceeding uniformly in the same road, without any malignant deviations. Thus, as he had enjoyed the sunshine of the court during lord Godolphin’s administration in queen Anne’s reign, that minister had the pleasure to find him among the first of those who paid the muse’s tribute on the reverse of his fortune in 1710; and in the same unchangeable spirit, when both the sense and poetry of this address were attacked by Prior with all the outrage of party virulence, he took no notice of it; but had the satisfaction to see an unanswerable defence made for him, by Addison. The task, indeed, was easy, and that elegant writer in the conclusion of it observes, that the same person who has endeavoured to prove that he who wrote the “Dispensary” was no poet, will very suddenly undertake to shew that he who gained the battle of Blenheim, was no general. There was, indeed, no need of a prophetic spirit to inspire the prediction. It was written in Sept. 1710; and the following year, in December, the duke of Marlborough was removed from all his places, and having obtained leave to go abroad, embarked at Dover for Ostend, Nov. 30, 1712. Dr. Garth had lived in the particular favour and esteem of this great man while in power, and when he was out of power he lamented in elegant verse, his disgrace and voluntary exile.

In the mean time, with the same feelings, he had written a dedication for an intended edition of Lucretius, in 1711, to his late majesty king George I. then elector of Brunswick; and on the accession of that prince to the throne, had the honour of being knighted with the duke of Marlborough’s sword, was appointed king’s physician in ordinary, and physician general to the army. These were no more than just rewards even of his medical merit. He had gone through the office of censor of the college in 1702, and had practised always with great reputation, and a strict regard to the honour and interest of the faculty; never stooping to prostitute the dignity of his profession, through mean and sordid views of self-interest, by courting even the most popular and wealthy apothecaries. In a steady adherence to this noble principle, he concurred with the much celebrated Dr. Radcliflfe, with whom he was also often joined in physical consultations.

Garth had a very extensive practice, but was extremely moderate in his views of advancing his own fortune; hi humanity and good-nature inclining him more to make use of the great interest he had with persons in power, for the support and encouragement of other men of letters. He chose to live with the great in that degree of independency and freedom, which became a man possessed of a superior genius, of which he was daily giving fresh proofs to the public. One of these was addressed to the late duke or Newcastle, in 1715, entitled “Claremont;” being written on the occasion of giving that name to a villa belonging to that nobleman, who was then only earl of Clare, which he had adorned with a beautiful and sumptuous structure. Among the Latin writers, Ovid appears to have been the doctor’s favourite; and it has been thought that there was some resemblance in their dispositions, manners, and poetry. One of his last performances, was an edition of Ovid’s Metamorphoses, translated by various hands, in which he rendered the whole 14th book, and the story of Cippus in the 15th. It was published in 1717, and he prefixed a preface, wherein he not only gives an idea of the work, and points out its principal beauties, but shews the uses of the poem, and how it may be read to most advantage.

, chief justice of the king’s bench in the reign of Henry IV. was descended of a noble family, originally from Normandy, and born at Gawthorp in Yorkshire, about 1350. Being designed for the law, he became a student either at Gray’s-inn or the Inner Temple; and growing eminent in his profession, was made one of the king’s Serjeants at law, Sept. 1398. In October following, he was appointed one of the attornies to Henry IV. then duke of Hereford, on his going into banishment: and upon the accession of that prince to the throne, in 1399, sat as judge in the court of common-pleas. In Nov. 1401, he was made chief justice of the king’s bench; and how much he distinguished himself in that office, appears from the several abstracts of his opinions, arguments, distinctions, and decisions, which occur in our old hooks of law-reports.

, one of the revivers of literature, and an able grammarian, took his name from the village of Barzizza, near Bergamo, where he was born in 1370. It is thought that he studied at Bergamo, and kept a private school there. He afterwards became professor of the belles lettres at Pavia, Venice, Padua, and Milan. He was in this last mentioned city in 1418, when pope Martin V. passed through in his return from the council of Constance. Barzizza was on this occasion appointed to pay him the compliments of the city, and the two universities of Pavia and Padua having sent orators to the pope, he was also' employed in preparing their intended speeches. He was during the rest of his life patronized by the duke Philip-Maria-Visconti, and enjoyed the esteem due to his learning and talents until his death at Milan about the end of 1430.

His Latin works, consisting of treatises on grammar and rhetoric, orations, letters, &c. do not form the only title he has to be considered among the revivers of learning and elegant Latinity. He merited this honour also, like Aurispa and Guarino, for his ability in explaining the ancient classics, and in decyphering the manuscript copies which at that time engaged the curious researches of the learned world. His “Epistles” form an epoch in the history of French printing. When two doctors of the Sorbonne, William Fichet, and John de la Pierre, had engaged from Germany three printers, Gering, Crantz, and Friburger, to come to Paris, in 1459, a printing-press was set up in the house of the Sorbonne, and Gasparino’s “Epistles” were the first typographical production in France. The title was “Gasp. Pergamensis (Bergomensis) Epistolre,” 4to, without date, but printed in 1470. All Gasparino’s works were collected and printed by cardinal Furietti at Rome, 1725, 4to, with those of his son Guiniforte. This son was born at Pavia in 1406. He had not the same reputation for eloquence and elegance as his father; but his works shew that he had studied the ancients with equal assiduity. He lectured at Novara on Cicero’s Offices, and Terence’s comedies, when a lucky circumstance introduced him to Alphonso king of Arragon. Being admitted to address him at Barcelona, in 1432, the king was so struck with his eloquence, as immediately to appoint him one of his council, and Guiniforte in consequence had the honour to accompany him in his expedition to the coast of Africa. Falling sick, however, in Sicily, he obtained leave to return to Milan, but without any loss of the king’s respect and friendship for him. Here the duke Philip of Milan gave him the title of his vicar-general. With this he held the office of professor of moral philosophy, the duties of which were frequently interrupted by his being employed in diplomatic affairs to the courts of Arragon and Rome. After the death of Philip, his successor appointed Guiniforte to be ducal secretary, and he passed the rest of his life in that office. It is thought he died about the end of 1459.

But he did not sit down content here; thinking his services deserved something more. He had already published his “Anti'-sacrilegus,” or, “A Defensative against the plausible or gilded poison of that nameless paper, supposed to be the plot of Cornelius Surges and his partners, which tempts the king’s majesty by the offer of 500,000l. to make good by an act of parliament, to the purchasers of Bishops’ Lands, &c. their illegal bargain for 99 years, 1660,” 4to: As also, his “Analysis, against the covenant in defence of the Hierarchy” and his '< Anti-Baal-Berith, or, the binding of the covenant and all the covenanters to their good behaviour, &c. With an answer to that monstrous paradox of no sacrilege, no sin, to alienate church lands, without, alid against all laws of God and man.“These were all printed before his promotion to the see of Exeter. His zeal continued to glow with equal ardour the two following years; in his” Life of Hooker,“prefixed to an edition of Hooker’s works, published by him in 1661; and, again, in his” Pillar of Gratitude, humbly dedicated to the glory of God, the honour of his majesty, &c. for restoring Episcopacy,“in 1662. But, above all, he particularly pleaded his merit in respect to the” Euuav BcwjXixw.“He applied to the earl of Clarendon, in a letter dated Dec. 28, 1661, with a petition to the king; in which having declared the advantages which had accrued to the crown by this service, he adds, that what was done like a king, should have a king-like retribution. In another letter to the duke of York, dated Jan. 17, the same year, he strongly urges the great service he had done, and importunately begs his royal highness to intercede for him with the king. Chancellor Hyde thought he had carried his merit too far, with regard to the king’s book: and, in a letter to him, dated March 13, 1661, writes thus:” The particular you mention, has indeed been imparted to me as a secret: I am sorry I e-'er knew it; and when it ceases to be a secret, it will please none but Mr. Milton."

This easy travelling, with some decent appointments, was one of the highest relished pleasures of Gay’s life, and never failed of calling forth his muse. Soon after his return froni France, he introduced to the stage “The Three Hours after Marriage.” His friends Pope and Arbuthnot had both a hand in this performance, and the two principal characters were acted by two of the best comedians at that time, Johnson and Mrs. Oldfield; yet, with all these helps and advantages, it was very ill received, if not condemned the first night. Gay stood the brunt with an unusual degree of magnanimity, which seems to have been inspired by a hearty regard for his partners; especially Pope, who was greatly affected with it. In 1718 he accompanied Pope to lord Harcourt’s seat in Oxfordshire, where they united in consecrating to posterity the death of two rustic lovers, unfortunately killed in the neighbouring fields by a stroke of lightning. In 1720 he again recruited his finances by a handsome subscription to his poems, which he collected and printed in 2 vols. 4to; but falling into the general infatuation of that remarkable year, he lost all his fortune in the South-sea scheme, and consequently all his spirits. Secretary Craggs had made him, a present of some S. S. stock, and he was worth at one time 20,000l. but neglecting to sell out, lost the whole. This stroke had almost proved fatal to him; he was seized with a violent colic; and after languishing some time, removed in 1722 to Hampstead, for the benefit of the air and waters; but, by the assistance of Dr. Arbuthnot, who constantly attended him, at length he recovered. He then began to write his tragedy called “The Captives;” which, when finished, he had the honour of reading in manuscript to the princess of Wales, in 1724. Her royal highness also promised him further marks of her favour, if he would write some fables in verse for the use of the duke of Cumberland; which task he accordingly undertook, and published them in 1726, with a dedication to that prince. All this was done against the advice of Pope, the duke being then only an infant; and the result was, as that friend presaged, very disagreeable to him. Swift says that in these fables “he was thought to be something too bold with the court.”

Upon the accession of George II. to the throne, he was offered the place of gentleman-usher to the then youngest princess Louisa; a post which he thought beneath his acceptance: and, resenting the offer as an affront, in that ill-humour with the court, he wrote the “Beggar’s Opera;” which, being brought upon the stage Nov. 1727, was received with greater applause than had ever been known on 4iiy occasion. For, besides being acted in London 63 dpys without interruption, and renewed the next season with success, it spread into all the great towns of England, was played in many places to the 30th and 40th time; at Bath and Bristol 50, &c. It made its progress into Wales, Scotland, and Ireland, where it was performed 24 days successively; and lastly, was acted in Minorca. The ladies carried about with them the favourite songs of it in fans, and houses were furnished with it in screens. The fame of it was not confined to the author only: Miss Lavinia Beswick, who acted Polly, till then obscure, became at once the favourite of the town; her pictures were engraved, and sold in great numbers; her life written; books of letters and verses to her published, and pamphlets made of her sayings and jests; and, to crown all, after being the mother of several antenuptial children, she obtained the title and rank of a duchess by her marriage with Charles third duke of Bolton. There is scarcely to be found in history an example, where a private subject, undistinguished either by birth or fortune, had it in his power to least his resentment so richly at the expence of his sovereign. But this was not all; Gay went on in the same humour, and cast a second part in a similar mould; which, being excluded from the stage by the lord chamberlain, he was encouraged to print with the title of “Polly,” by subscription; and this too, considering the powers employed against it, was incredibly large; and in tact he got nearly 1 200l. by it, while the Beggar’s Opera did not yield more than 400l. Neither yet did it end here. The duke and duchess of Queensberry took part in resenting the indignity put upon him by this last act of power; resigned their respective places at court; took the author into their house and family; and treated him with all the endearing kindness of an intimate and much-beloved friend.

These noble additions to his fame, his fortune, and his friendships, inspired him with fresh vigour, raised him to a degree of confidence and assurance, and he was even prompted to think that “The Wife of Bath,” despised and rejected as it had been in 1714, when first acted, might, with some improvements which he could now give it, be made to taste the sweets of this happy change in his fortune. In this temper he revised and altered it, and brought it again upon the stage in 1729, but had the mortification to see all his sanguine hopes of its success blasted; it met with the same fate in the play-house as formerly. This rebuff happened in March 1729-30; and as he was easily depressed, produced a degree of melancholy, which, with the return of his constitutional distemper the colic, gave a new edge to the sense of his disappointments at court, with respect to the “Beggar’s Opera.” By that satire, he had flattered himself with the hopes of awing the court into a disposition to take him into favour, in order to keep so powerful a pen in good humour. But this last refinement upon his misery, added to former indignities, threw him into a dejection, which he in vain endeavoured to remove, by another tour into Somersetshire, in 1731. The state both of his body and mind cantiot be so forcibly described, as it is in his own account of it to Pope. “My melancholy,” says he, “increases, and every hour threatens me with some return of my distemper. Nay, I think I may rather say, I have it on me. Not the divine looks, the kind favours and expressions of the divine duchess, who hereafter shall be in place of a queen to me, nay, she shall be my queen, nor the inexpressible goodness of the duke, can in the least chear me. The drawing: room no more receives light from these two stars. There is now (what Milton says in hell) darkness visible. O that I had never known what a court was! Dear Pope, what a barren soil (to me so) have I been striving to produce something out of! Why did not I take your advice before my writing fables for the duke, not to write them, or rather to write them for some young nobleman? It is my hard fate, I must get nothing, write for them or against them.” In this disposition, it is no great wonder that we find him rejecting a proposal, made to him by this last-mentioned friend in 1732, of trying his muse upon the hermitage, then lately built by queen Caroline in Richmond-gardens; to which he answers with a fixed despondency, that “he knew himself unworthy of royal patronage.”

With what else you may think proper." This dying request was accordingly executed; and the whole epitaph inscribed on a very handsome marble monument, erected to his memory by the duke and duchess of Queensberry, who took care to have his body interred with a suitable funeral solemnity. The corpse was brought from his grace’s house to Exeter-change in the Strand; where, after lying in state, it was removed to Westminster-abbey, and interred in the South-cross-isle, against the tomb of Chaucer, near the place where stands his monument.

The opera of “Achilles” was brought upon the stage soop after his death, and met with a very good reception, which was greatly promoted by the duke of Queensberry, who was uncommonly assiduous in patronizing it; and who, as Pope observes, acted in this, and every thing else, more than the part of a brother to his deceased friend. It was also through the influence of his example, that the profits of the representation were given by the managers of the play-house to our author’s two widow sisters, Katharine and Joanna, relicts of Mr. Ballet and Mr. Fortescue, who, as heirs at law, shared his fortune (about 3000l.) equally between them; which disposition was agreeable to his own desire, and therefore he made no will. He left several Mss. behind him, some of which came into the hands of -Pope, who took care no doubt (as he promised Swift) to suppress such as he judged unworthy of him. A few years after his death, there was published under his name a comedy, called “The Distressed Wife,” the second edition of which was printed in 1750; and in 1754-, a humorous piece, with the title of “The Rehearsal a't Gotham.”

The character of Gay may be fairly estimated from the preceding facts. He wanted firmness and consistency; and knew not, when it was in his power, to support the independence which he affected. Pope said “he was quite a natural man, wholly without art or design, and spoke just what he thought, and as he thought it.” From the same authority we learn that his affectionate friend, the duke of Queensberry, finding what a wretched manager he was, took his money into his keeping, beginning with what he got by the “Beggar’s Opera” and “Polly,” and let him have only what was necessary, which, as he lived with the duke, could never be much. It is this only that can account for his dying worth 3000l. Pope also informs us that “he was remarkable for an unwillingness to offend the great by any of his writings. He had an uncommon timidity in relation to any thing of that sort; and yet you see what ill luck he had in that way, after all his care not to offend.” Gay’s character seems in many respects to have resembled that of Goldsmith.

, an ingenious though unsuccessful artist, who was a goldsmith in Edinburgh, deserves to be recorded for his attempt to introduce an improvement in the art of printing. The invention, first practised by Ged in 1725, was simply this. From any types of Greek or Roman, or any other character, he formed a plate for every page, or sheet, of a book, from which he printed, instead of using a type for every letter, as is done in the common way. This was first practised on blocks of wood, by the Chinese and Japanese, and pursued in the first essays of Coster, the European inventor of the present art. “This improvement,” says James Ged, the inventor’s son, “is principally considerable in three most important articles, viz. expence, correctness, beauty, and uniformity.” In July 1729, William Ged entered into partnership with William Fenner, a London stationer, who was to have half the profits, in consideration of his vancing all the money requisite. To supply this, Mr. John James, then an architect at Greenwich (who built sir Gregory Page’s house, Bloomsbury church, &c.) was taken into the scheme, and afterwards his brother, Mr. Thomas James, a letter-founder, and James Ged, the inventor’s son. In 1730, these partners applied to the university of Cambridge for printing bibles and common-prayer books by block instead of single types, and, in consequence, a lease was sealed to them April 23, 1731. In their attempt they sunk a large sum of money, and finished only two prayer-books, so that it was forced to be relinquished, and the lease was given up in 1738. Ged imputed his disappointment to the villainy of the press-men, and the illtreatment of his partners (which he specifies at large), particularly Fenner, whom John James and he were advised to prosecute, but declined it. He returned to Scotland in 1733, and had no redress. He there, however, had friends who were anxious to see a specimen of his performance; which he gave them in 1744, by an edition of Sallust. Fenner died insolvent in or before 1735, and his widow married Mr. Waugh, an apothecary, whom she survived. Her effects were sold in 1768. James Ged, the son, wearied with disappointments, engaged in the rebellion of 1745, as a captain in Perth’s regiment; and being taken at Carlisle, was condemned, but on his father’s account (by Dr. Smith’s interest with the duke of Newcastle) was pardoned, and released in 1748. He afterwards worked for some time as a journeyman, with Mr. Bettenham, and then commenced master; but being unsuccessful, he went privately to Jamaica, where his younger brother William was settled as a reputable printer. His tools, &c. he left to be shipped by a false friend, who most ungenerously detained them to try his skill himself. James died the year after he left England; as did his brother in 1767. In the above pursuit Mr. Thomas James, who died in 1738, expended much of his fortune, and suffered in his proper business; “for the printers,” says Mr. Mores, “would not employ him, because the block-printing, had it succeeded, would have been prejudicial to theirs.” Mr. William Ged died, in very indifferent circumstances, October 19, 1749, after his utensils were sent for Leith to be shipped for London, to have joined with his son James as a printer there. Thus ended his life and project, which has lately been revived both in France and England, under the name of stereotype, although its application to the printing of books has hitherto been partial, and indeed chiefly confined to such as are supposed not to admit of changes or improvements, such as Bibles, and some school-books.

In 1764 he returned to Scotland, and was ordered to Dundee to officiate as priest among the catholics in the county of Angus, but was scarcely settled when he received, an invitation to become a resident in the family of the earl of Traquaire, in what capacity, unless as a friend, does not appear. He accepted, however, an offer so favourable to the pursuit of his studies; and here,. as well as at Paris, he regulated his inquiries so as to be preparatory to the plan he had long conceived, of giving a new translation of the Bible. His residence here was unfortunately interrupted by an attachment he formed for a female relative of the earl of Traquaire’s, and which was reciprocal; but regarding his vow of celibacy as sacred, and his passion, otherwise invincible, he left the family, and went again to Paris, where he continued about eight or nine months, and returned to Scotland in the spring of 1769. He now accepted the charge of a catholic congregation at Auchinhalrig in the county of Bamff, where he engaged the affections of his flock by many pastoral offices, reconciling differences, administering to the poor, and rebuilding their ruinous chapel. All this, however, seems to have involved him in pecuniary difficulties, from which he was extricated by the late duke of Norfolk, the last catholic peer of that illustrious family. To prevent similar embarrassments, Mr. Geddes now took a small farm, which again involved him in debts, which he endeavoured to discharge by an application to the muses. “Some daemon,” he says, “whispered him' that he had a turn for poetry,” which produced in 1779, “Select Satires of Horace,' translated into English verse, and for the most part adapted to the present times and manners,” 4to. The impression of this work extended only to 750 copies, yet he reaped a profit of 100l. which he received with exultation, and applied to the liquidation of his arrears. This success determined him also to relinquish his retirement, and -try what his abilities might obtain for him in London, and his removal was probably accelerated by his having incurred the displeasure of the bishop of his diocese, Dr. Hay, on account of his attending trie ministry of a presbyterian friend. The bishop had before warned him to desist, and finding him refractory, deposed him from his office, and prohibited him from preaching within the extent of his diocese. He left his charge accordingly, and previous to his leaving Scotland, received the degree of LL. D. from one of the colleges of Aberdeen. His reputation for learning, indeed, was very considerable in Scotland, and he was one of the literati who took a very active part in the institution of a society of antiquaries at Edinburgh. In their volume for 1792 he wrote “A dissertation on the Seoto-Saxon Dialect,” and “The first Eklog of Virgil,” and “The first Idyllion of Theocritus, translatitt into Scottis vers,” in the former of which the Edinburgh dialect is chiefty imitated, and in the latter the Buchan. He also composed a “Caruien Seculare” for the society’s anniversary of 1788.

He arrived in London in the beginning of 1780, and was soon invited to officiate as priest in the Imperial ambassador’s chapel, and preached occasionally at the chapel in Duke-street, Lincoln’s Inn Fields, until the Easter holidays, 1782, after which he voluntarily withdrew from every stated ministerial function, and seldom officiated in any chapel whatever. The principal reason was, that on his arrival in London he was introduced to men of literature of every class, obtained easy access to public libraries, and in his design of translating the Bible, obtained the patronage of lord Petre. This nobleman engaged to allow him a salary of 200l. and took upon himself the entire expence of whatever private library Dr. Geddes might judge requisite to collect in the prosecution of his favourite object. With such munificent encouragement, he published in 1780 his “Idea of a New Version of the Holy Bible, for the use of the English Catholics.” This was an imperfect sketch, as he had not settled what versions to follow. Among his encouragers, who then thought favourably of him, were Dr. Kennicott, and bishop Lowth. To the latter he presented, in 1785, his “Prospectus,” who returned it with a polite note, in which he recommended him to publish it, not only as an introduction to his work, bifC > as a useful and edifying treatise for young students in divinity. He accordingly published it at Glasgow, and it was very favourably received by biblical scholars in general. Being thus encouraged, he first published “A Letter to the right rev. the bishop of London, containing queries, doubts, and difficulties, relative to a vernacular version of the Holy Scriptures.” This was designed as an appendix to his Prospectus, and was accompanied with a success equal to that of his former publication. After this he published several pamphlets on temporary topics, of wliich it will be sufficient to give the titles in our list of his works. In 1788 appeared his “Proposals for printing by subscription, a New Translation of the Bible, from corrected texts of the original; with various readings, explanatory notes, and critical observations.” In this he solicited the opinion, hints, &c. of literary characters, and received so many that, in July 1790, he thought proper to publish “Dr. Geddes’ general Answer to the queries, counsels, and criticisms that have been communicated to him since the publication of his Proposals for printing a New Translation of the Bible.” In this pamphlet, while he resists the generality of counsels and criticisms communicated to him, from motives which he very candidly assigns, he yields to several, and liberally expresses his obligations to the correspondents who proposed them. It appears, however, that his brethren of the catholic persuasion were already suspicious, and that he lost whatever share of popularity he formerly had 'within the pale of his own church. He acknowledges that he received more encouragement from, the established church and the protestant dissenters. His subscribers amounted to 343, among which were very few Roman catholics. In 1792 the first volume of the translation appeared, under the title of “The Holy Bible, or the books accounted sacred by Jews and Christians; otherwise called the Books of the Old and New Covenants, faithfully translated from corrected texts of the originals, with various readings, explanatory notes, and critical remarks: Tr and a second volume appeared in 1797. The manner in which Dr. Geddes executed his translation, brought upon him attacks from various quarters, but especially fromhis catholic brethren. The opposition and difficulties he had, on this account, to encounter, were stated by him m a An Address to the Public.” Indeed, his orthodoxy having been questioned before his volume appeared, he wassummoned by those whom he admitted to be the organs of legitimate authority. His three judges, however, were either satisfied or silenced, much to the doctor’s satisfaction. Shortly after the first volume of his translation was published, an ecclesiastical interdict, under the title of “A Pastoral Letter,” signed by Walmsley, Gibson, and Douglas, as apostolic vicars of the western, northern, and London districts, was published, in which Geddes’s work was prohibited to the faithful. Against this prohibition (whjch bishop Thomas Talbot refused to subscribe) the doctor, first giving bishop Douglas notice, published a remonstrance in a letter addressed to him; but notwithstanding this, he was suspended from all ecclesiastical functions. In 1800 he published the first, and only volume he lived to finish, of “Critical Remarks on the Hebrew Scriptures; corresponding with a New Translation of the Bible,” 4to. How far Dr. Geddes merited the cen>­sures bestowed upon him both by Roman catholics and protestants, in his translation and Critical Remarks, the reader may judge, when he is told that in this volume he attacks the credit of Moses in every part of his character, as an historian, a legislator, and a moralist. He even doubts whether he was the author of the Pentateuch; but the writer, whoever he might be, is one, he tells us, who upon all occasions gives into the marvellous, adorns hisnarration with fictions of the interference of the Deity, when every thing happened in a natural way; and, at other times, dresses up fable in the garb of true history. The history of the creation is, according to him, a fabulous cosmogony. The story of the fall a mythos, in which nothing but the mere imagination of the commentators, possessing more piety than judgment, could have discovered either a seducing devil, or the promise of a Saviour. It is a fable, he asserts, intended for the purpose of persuading the vulgar, that knowledge is the root of all evil, and the desire of it a crime. Moses was, it seems, a man of great talents, as Numa and Lycurgus were. But like them, he was a false pretender to personal intercourse with the Deity, with whom he had no immediate communication. He had the art to take the advantage of rare, but natural occurrences, to persuade the Israelites that the immediate power of God was exerted to accomplish his projects. When a violent wind happened to lay dry the head of the Guiph of Suez, he persuaded them that God had made a passage for them through the sea; and the narrative of their march is embellished with circumstances of mere fiction. In the delivery of the ten commandments, he took advantage of a thunder-storm to persuade the people that Jehovah had descended upon mount Sinai; and he counterfeited the voice of God, by a person^ in the height of the storm, speaking through a trumpet, &c. &c. Without proceeding farther in accumulating the proofs of arrogance, ignorance, and impiety, with which this “Translation 11 and” Critical Remarks“abound, we shall only add, that even Dr. Priestley seemed to doubt” if such a man as Geddes, who believed so little, and who conceded so much, could be a Christian."

, an eminent Italian writer, and a man of extraordinary qualities, was born of mean parents at Florence in 1498, and was brought up a taylor. Such, however, was his industry and capacity, that he acquired a knowledge of languages, and made uncommon progress in the belles lettres. Thuanus says, that he did not understand Latin, but this must be a mistake, as he translated, from Latin into Italian, “The Life of Alphonsus duke of Ferrara,” by Paul Jovius, and a treatise of iion Porzio, “De<OolQribus Oculorum,” at the request of those writers. His knowledge of Greek, however, was probably limited, as he translated the “Hecuba” of Euripides into Italian, from the Latin version. His principal excellence was in his native tongue, and he acquired the highest reputation, by the works he published in it. He was acquainted with all the wits and learned men of Florence; and his merit was universally known. He was chosen a member of the academy there,; and the city made him one of their burgesses. Yet he continued the exercise of his trade as a taylor, to the end of his life; and he tells us, in a letter lo F. Melchior, March 3, 1558, that he devoted workingdays to the careof his body, and Sundays and festivals to the culture of his understanding. The same letter shews his modesty, as hereproaches his friend for giving him honourable titles, which did not agree with the lowness of his condition. He died in 1563.

, sometimes called Gemma Frisius, from his country, was a Dutch physician, a native of Dockum in Friseland, who practised physic at Louvain. He was born in 1508, and died in 1555. Besides his medical skill, he was esteemed one of the best astronomers of his age; and wrote several works on that science, and other branches of mathematics, among which the principal are, “Methodus Arithmetics” “Demonstrationes Geometries? de usu radii astronomici” “De Astrolobio catholico liber,” &c. His son, Cornelius Gemma, became royal professor of medicine in his native place in 1569, through the appointment of the duke of Alba, at which time he took the degree of doctor, but a few years afterwards died of the plague, which raged at Louvain, Oct. 12, 1577. His writings are not numerous, ad relate to mathematical and philosophical subjects as well as to medicine. There was a third, John Baptist Gemma, a native of Venice, and a physician of considerable repute about the end of the fifteenth century, who was physician to Sigismund III. king of Poland. He wrote a treatise, containing a history of pestilential epidemics, with a detail of the effects of contagion, &c. printed in 1584.

, a celebrated doctor of physic of the faculty at Montpellier, physician in ordinary to Monsieur brother of Louis XIV. and to the duke of Orleans, regent of France, descended from a respectable family in Beaure, and was born in 1663. By a skill, peculiar to himself, he restored great numbers of persons to health whose cases appeared hopeless, and gained great reputation, particularly in the cure of cancers, and disorders of the eyes. Having acquired a handsome fortune, he went to reside at Auteuil, near Paris, in a house which formerly belonged to his friend, the celebrated Boileau, but had been his own near thirty years, where noblemen, ministers, ambassadors, chief magistrates, the learned, and numerous persons of both sexes, went frequently to visit, or to consult him. In this retreat he acquired a high character for integrity, being scrupulously just, and abhorring every species of dissimulation, or flattery. He died September 3, 1750. He left all his Mss. by will to his nephew, who was also a doctor of physic, of the faculty at Montpcllier. The principal are entitled, “Recherches sur POrigine, le Devellopement, et la Reproduction dc tous les Etres vivans,” which is said to be an excellent work; and “Recherches sur la nature et la guerison du Cancer,” Paris, 1601.

, a French poet of some celebrity, was born at Paris in 1636. Having lost his father early in life, he hoped to make his fortune in the Indies; but the ship he embarked in being taken by the English, for some time he taught French in London, and being enabled to return to France, he was made preceptor to mademoiselle de Blois, afterwards duchess of Orleans, He also became abbot of St. Vilmer, almoner to the duchess of Orleans, secretary to the duke of Maine, and member of the French academy. He died November 19, 1719. His principal work is in French verse, entitled “Principes de la Philosophic,” 12mo; he also wrote four tragedies, one of whicb, called “Penelope,” was much admired; and his “Joseph,” still more so, when performed in private at the duchess of Maine’s, at Clugni; but sunk under the more impartial taste of the French theatre. The two others are, “Zenolide Princess de Sparte,” and “Polymnestre.” In the collection of “Vers Choisis,” by Bouhours, is a very elegant, though not very argumentative epistle from the abbé Genest, to M. de la Bastide, persuading him to abjure the protestant religion. He had also a great share in the collection entitled “Lcs Divertissemens de Sceaux,” 2 vols. 12mo.

, an Italian painter, whose family name was Lomi, which he exchanged for that of his maternal uncle, Gentileschi, was born at Pisa in 1563. After having made himself famous at Florence, Rome, Genoa, and in other parts of Italy, he removed to Savoy; whence he went to France, and at last, upon the invitation of Charles I. came over to England. He was well received by that king, who appointed him lodgings in his court, together with a considerable salary; and employed him in his palace at Greenwich, and other public places. The most remarkable of his performances in England, were the cielings of Greenwich and York-house. He painted a Madona, a Magdalen, and Lot with his two Daughters, for king Charles; all which he performed admirably well. After the death of the king, when his collection of paintings were exposed to sale, nine pictures of Gentileschi were sold for 600l. and are now said to be the ornaments of the hall in Marlborough-house. His most esteemed work abroad was the portico of cardinal Bentivoglio’s palace at Rome, and a “David standing over Goliah,” painted with a vigour and vivacity of tints that make' him start from the canvass, and give the idea of a style yet unknown. This is in the house Cambiasi, at Genoa. He made several attempts in portrait- painting, but with little success his talent lying altogether in histories, with figures as large as the life. He was much in favour with the duke of Buckingham, and many others of the nobility. After twelve years continuance in England, he died here in 1647, and was buried in the queen’s chapel at Somersethouse. His head is among the prints taken from Vandyke, by whom he had been painted.

, an eminent German Lutheran divine, was born at Quedlinburgh, in Saxony, Oct. 17, 1582, where he was partly educated, but in 1599, was sent to Wittemberg, and studied philosophy and divinity under the ablest masters. In 1601, by the advice of Rauchbach, a counsellor and vice-chancellor of Saxony (for his father died in 1598) he went through a course of medical studies, but about two years after, recollecting a vow he had made during a fit of sickness, he returned again to divinity, the study of which he farther prosecuted at Jena, to which he first went as tutor to his friend llauchbach’s son. In 1603 he took his master’s degree here, and in 1604 removing with his pupil to Marpurg, he continued his theological studies, and learned Hebrew. In 1605 he returned to Jena, took his degree in philosophy, and having been ordained, was appointed by John Casimir, duke of Saxony, to a church in Franconia, and at the same time to be professor of divinity in the Casimirian college of Cobourg. In 1616. by consent of his liberal patron, he accepted the professorship of divinity at Jena, and continued in that office during the remainder of his life. He was four times chosen rector of the university, and encreased his reputation by a vast variety of publications which made him known to all the literati of Europe, many of whom, both protestants and catholics, bore testimony to his extensive learning, piety, and usefulness, both as a divine and teacher. He died of a fever, Aug. 17, 1637. His works, which are written in Latin and German, consist of treatises on various theological subjects, critical and polemical; commentaries on various books of the Old and New Testament common-places, &c. &c. One only of these, his “Meditations,” is well known in this country, having gone through many editions, and having also been translated into most European languages and into Greek. He left a numerous family, some of whom became distinguished as divines, particularly his eldest son, John Ernest, who was born at Jena in 1621, and studied at Altdorf. He was appointed professor of philosophy at Wittemberg in 1616, and in 1652 was nominated professor of history at Jena. Like his father he devoted mucli of his time to biblical and theological learning. He died in 1688. Among his works are, “Harmonia Linguarnm Orientalium;” “Dispurationum theologicarum Fasciculus;” De F.cclesiae Copticæ Ortu, Progressu, et Doctrina." There is a very minute and curious history of this family in the work from which these particulars have been taken, with much collateral information respecting the theological writers and controversies during the life of the elder Gerhard.

, by some called Charlier, an illustrious Frenchman, and usually styled “Doctor Christianissimus,” was born in 1363 at Gerson in France. He was educated at Paris, after which he studied divinity for ten years under Peter D'Ailly and Giles Deschamps, and received the degree of doctor in 1392. Three years after he became canon and chancellor of the church of Paris and, when John Petit had the baseness to justify the murder of Louis duke of Orleans, which was committed in 1408 by order of the duke of Burgundy, Gerson caused the doctrine of this tyrannicide to be censured by the doctors and bishops of Paris. His zeal shone forth no less illustriously at the council of Constance, at which he assisted as ambassador from France, and where he distinguished himself by many speeches, and by one, particularly, in which he enforced the superiority of the council over the pope. He caused also the doctrine of the above John Petit to be condemned at this council. Not venturing to return to Paris, where the duke of Burgundy would have persecuted him, he retired into Germany, and afterwards got into a convent at Lyons, of which his brother was prior; and here he died in 1429. A collection of his writings have been published several times; but the best edition is that of 1706, under the care of Du Pin, in five vols. folio. In this edition there is a “Gersoniana,” which is represented as being curious. Thuanus has spoken highly of Gerson in the first book of his history. Hoffman, in his Lexicon, calls him, “ssBculi sui oraculum;” and Cave, in his “Historia Literaria,” says, that no man can be very conversant in his works, sine insigni fructu, “without very great benefit.” Some have attributed to him the famous book of “the Imitation of Christ” but for this there seems no sufficient foundation. It is not in any edition of Gerson’s works; but its being attributed to Gerson, says Dr. Clarke, has led the friends of Thomas a Kemp is to doubt whether such a man as Gerson ever existed. The Gerson, however, to whom that work was attributed, is not the above John Gerson, but another, the abbot of Verceil, who lived in the twelfth century.

, a learned historian and lawyer of the sixteenth century, was born in Franconia, but the dates of his birth and death are unknown, and even his works, although of great merit, have been for many years so scarce as to have escaped the knowledge of the foreign librarians and collectors. Maximilian, duke and afterwards elector of Bavaria, enrolled him in the number of his aulic counsellors, and made him at the same time keeper of the archives, a situation which enabled Gewold to bring to light many important historical documents, and to publish the following volumes: 1. “Genealogia serenissimorum Bojariae ducum, etquorundam genuinas effigies a Wolfgango Kiliano seri eleganter incisae,” Antwerp, 1605, fol. reprinted at Augsburgh, 1620, and again in German, in 1623. 2. “Chronicon monasterii Reicherspergensis in Bojoaria, ante annos CD congestum,” &c. Munich, 1611, 4to. This is uncommonly rare, but has been reprinted in Ludewig’s “Scriptores rerum Germanicarum.” 3. “Antithesis ad clariss. viri Marquardi Freheri assertionem de Palatino electoratu,” Munich, 1612, 4to. There were other pamphlets between Freher and Gewold on the same subject. 4. “Orationes Alberti Hungeri,” Ingolstadt, 1616, 8vo. 5. “Henrici monachi in Rebdorf annales,” ibid. 1618, 4to. 6. “Delineatio Norici veteris ejusque confinium,” ibid. 1619, 4to. 7. “Wigulaei Hunds metropolis Salisburgensis,” a reprint at Munich, 1620, 3 vols. fol. by Gewold, with a continuation and notes. 8. “Defensio Ludovici IV. imperatoris ratione electionis contra Abr. Bzovium,” Ingolstadt, 1618, 4to. 9. “Commentarius de septemviratu Romani imperii,” ibid. 1621, 4to.

His designs were, however, now interrupted by a visit to the continent, which, according to custom, his father thought necessary to complete the education of an English gentleman. Previous to his departure he obtained recommendatory letters from lady Hervey, Horace Walpole (the late lord Orford), Mallet, and the duke de Nivernois, to various persons of distinction in France. In acknowledging the duke’s services, he notes a circumstance which in some degree unfolds his own character, and exhibits that superiority of pretensions from which he never departed. “The duke received me civilly, but (perhaps through Maty’s fault) treated me more as a man of letters than as a man of fashion.” Congreve and Gray were weak enough to be offended on a similar account, but that Mr. Gibbon, whose sole ambition was to rise to literary fame, should have for a moment preferred the equivocal character of a man of fashion, is as unaccountable as it is wonderful that, at an advanced period of life, he should have recorded the incident.

Gibbons made a magnificent tomb for Baptist Noel viscount Camden, in the church of Exton, in Rutlandshire; it cost 1000l. is twenty-two feet high, and fourteen wide. There are two figures of him and his lady, and bas-reliefs of their children. The same workman performed the wooden throne at Canterbury, which cost 70l. and was the donation of archbishop Tenison. The foliage in the choir of St. Paul’s is of his hand. At Burleigh is a noble profusion of his carving, in picture frames, chimney-pieces, and door-cases, and the last supper in alto-relievo, finely executed. At Chatsworth, where a like taste collected ornaments, by the most living eminent masters, are many by Gibbons, particularly in the chapel; in the great antichamber are several dead fowl over the chimney, finely executed, and over a closet-door, a pen not distinguishable from real feather. When Gibbons had finished his works in that palace, he presented the duke with a point cravat, a woodcock, and a medal with his own head, all preserved in a glass case in the gallery. In lord Orford’s collection is another point cravat by him, the art of which arrives even to deception, and Herodias with St. John’s head, alto-relievo, in ivory. In Thoresby’s collection was Elijah under the juniper-tree, supported by an angel, six inches long and four wide. At Houghton, two chimneys are adorned with his foliage. At Mr. Norton’s, at Southwich, in Hampshire, was a whole gallery embroidered in pannels by his hand but the most superb monument of his skill is a large chamber at Petworth, enriched frpm the ceiling, between the pictures, with festoons of flowers and dead game, &c. all in the highest perfection and preservation. Appendant to one is an antique vase, with a basrelief of the purest taste, and worthy the Grecian age of cameos. At the earl of Halifax’s, at Stanstead, is a chimney-piece, adorned with flowers, and two beautiful vases. The font in St. James’ church in white marble, was also the work of Gibbons. It is supported by the tree of life; fche serpent is offering the fruit to our first parents, who stand beneath; on one side, of the font is engraven the Baptist baptising our Saviour: on another, St. Philip baptising the Eunuch: and on the third, Noah’s ark, with the dove bringing the olive-branch, the type of peace, to mankind. The chancel, above the altar, is enriched with some beautiful foliage in wood, by the same great artist.

Thus furnished, Mr. Gibbs went from Holland to Italy, and there applied himself assiduously to the study of architecture, under the best masters. About 1710 he came to England; where he found his noble patron in the ministry, and highly in favour with the queen. Lord Mar introduced him to his friends as a gentleman of great knowledge in his profession; and an act of parliament having been passed about this time for building fifty new churches, Mr. Gibbs was employed by the trustees named in the act, and gave a specimen of his abilities, in planning and executing St. Martin’s church in the fields, St. Mary’s in the Strand, and several others. Being now entered on business, he soon became distinguished; and although his generous patron had the misfortune to be exiled from his native country, Mr. Gibbs’s merit supported him among persons of all denominations, and he was employed by persons of the best taste and greatest eminence. The liadcliffe library at Oxford, begun June 16, 1737, and finished in 1747; the King’s college, Royal library, and Senatehouse, at Cambridge; and the sumptuous and elegant monument for John Holies, duke of Newcastle, done by order and at the expence of his grace’s only child, the countess of Oxford and Mortimer, are lasting evidences of his abilities as an architect. Some years before his death, he sent to the magistrates of Aberdeen, as a testimony of his regard for the place of his nativity, a plan of St. Nicholas church, which was followed in the re-building of it, and which was probably among the last of his performances.

He died Jan. 12, 1723-4. His literary character is given in Boyer’s Political State, vol. XXVII. p. 102, as “a person of great literature, but a mean genius; who, having attempted several kinds of writing, never gained much reputation in any. Among other treatises he wrote the ‘ English Art of Poetry,’ which he had practised himself very unsuccessfully in his dramatic performances. He also wrote an English grammar; but what he seemed to build his chief hopes of fame upon was his Critical Commentary On the duke of Buckingham’s * Essay on Poetry,' which last piece was perused and highly approved by his grace.”

, a late artist, and a descendant of the Apostle of the North, was born at Carlisle in 1733, from whence, after having acquired some relish for the art from his father, who was a captain in the army, he came to London, and was articled to a ship-painter. His first interesting works were composed of some market groups which struck his eye from his window. Soon after he went to Newmarket, being encouraged by the late William, duke of Cumberland, where he executed many compositions which might have vied with Hogarth in point of character. In the duke’s stud he acquired that knowledge of the horse, which he afterwards displayed with such superior spirit and beauty; and when we see with what felicity he applied it to the higher departments of the art, to historic compositions in the triuiph of Camillas, the election of Darius, the story of Phaeton, we must lament that such talents should have been drawn aside to the meaner employment of horse-portrait painting, which occupied too much of his valuable life.

, an Italian poet, of the same family with the preceding, was born at Ferrara in 1504. His father, being a man of letters, took great care of his education; and placed him under Cselio Calcagnini, to study the languages and philosophy. He made an uncommon progress, and then applied himself to the study of physic; in which faculty he was afterwards a doctor. At 21 years of age, he was employed to read public lectures at Ferrara upon physic and polite literature. In 1542, the duke of Ferrara made him his secretary; which office he held till the death of that prince in 1558. He was continued in it by his successor: but envy having done him some ill offices with his master, he was obliged to quit the court. He left the city at the same time, and removed with his family to Mondovi in Piedmont; where he taught the belles lettres publicly for three years. He then went to Turin but the air there not agreeing with his constitution, he accepted the professorship of rhetoric at Pavia which the senate of Milan, hearing of his being about to remove, and apprized of his great merit, freely offered him. This post he filled with great repute; and afterwards obtained a place in the academy of that town. It was here he got the name of Cintio, which he retained ever after, and put in the title-page of his books. The gout, which was hereditary in his family, beginning to attacR him severely, he returned to Ferrara; thinking that his native air might afford him relief. But he was hardly settled there, when he grew extremely ill; and, after languishing about three months, died in 1573.

His works are all written in Italian, except some orations, spoken upon extraordinary occasions, in Latin. They consist chiefly of tragedies: a collection of which was published at Venice 1583, in 8vo, by his son Celso Giraldi; who, in his dedication to the duke of Ferrara, takes occasion to observe, that he was the youngest of five sons, and the only one who survived his father. There are also some prose works of Giraldi: one particularly upon comedy, tragedy, and other kinds of poetry, which was printed at Venice by himself in 1554, 4to. Some make no scruple to rank him among the best tragic writers that Italy has produced; but perhaps the work by which he now is best known is his “Hecatommiti,” an hundred novels in the manner of Boccaccio, which have been frequently printed. There is a scarce volume of his poems printed at Ferrara in 1537, at the close of which is a treatise of Cielio Calcagnini, “De Imitatione,” addressed to Giraldi.

In 1744, he was offered employment of a very different kind, being nominated in the will of the duchess of Marlborough, to write the duke’s life, in conjunction with Mallet. Her grace bequeathed 500l. to each on this condition, but Glover immediately renounced his share, while Mallet, who had no scruples of any kind where his interest was concerned, accepted the legacy, and continued to receive money from the late duke of Maryborough on the same account, although after twenty years of talk and boast, he left nothing behind him that could shew he had ever seriously begun the work. Glover’s rejection of this legacy is the more honourable, as at this time his affairs became embarrassed; from what cause we are not told. It may be conjectured, however, that he had shared the usual fate of those who are diverted from their regular pursuits by the dreams of political patronage. From the prince he is said to have received at one time a complete set of the classics, elegantly bound, and at another time, during his distresses, a present of 500l. But it does not appear that when the friends of “Leonidas” came into power, they made any permanent provision for the author.

, earl of Godolphin, and lord high treasurer of England, descended from a very ancient family in Cornwall, was the third son of Francis Godolphin, K. B. by Dorothy, second daughter of sir Henry Berkley, of Yarlington in Somersetshire. He had great natural abilities, was liberally educated, and inheriting the unshaken loyalty of his family, entered early into the service of Charles II. who after his restoration made him one of the grooms of his bed-chamber. In 1663, when attending his majesty to the university of Oxford, he had the degree of M. A. conferred upon him. In 1678, he was twice sent envoy to Holland, upon affairs of the greatest importance; and the next year was made one of the commissioners of the treasury, which trust he discharged with integrity, and being considered as a man of great abilities, was sworn of the privy council. In 1680 he openly declared for the bill of exclusion of the duke of York; and in the debate in council, whether the duke should return to Scotland before the parliament met, he joined in the advice for his going away; and though the rest of the council were of the contrary opinion, yet the king acquiesced in his and lord Sunderland’s reasons. In April 1664 he was appointed one of the secretaries of state, which he soon resigned for the office of first commissioner of the treasury, and was created baron Godolphin of Rialton in Cornwall. He had hitherto sat in the house of commons as representative for Helston and for St. Mawe’s.

, a laborious writer in civil law and history, was born at Bischoffsel in Switzerland, in 1576, and was a protestant of the confes-^ sion of Geneva. He studied the civil law at Altorf under Conrade Rittershusius, with whom he boarded; and returned in 1598 to Bischoffsel, where for some time he had no other subsistence but what he acquired by writing books, of which, at the time of publication he used to send copies to the magistrates and people of rank, from whom he received something more than the real value; and some of his friends imagined they did him service in promoting this miserable traffic. In 1599 he lived at St. Gal, in the house of a Mr. Schobinger, who declared himself his patron; but the same year he went to Geneva, and lived at the house of professor Lectius, with the sons of Vassan, whose preceptor he was. In 1602 he went to Lausanne, from a notion that he could live cheaper there than at Geneva. His patron Schobinger, while he advised him to this step, cautioned him at the same time from such frequent removals as made him suspected of an unsettled temper. But, notwithstanding Schobinger’s caution, he returned soon after to Geneva; and, upon the recommendation of Lectius, was appointed secretary to the duke of Bouillon, which place he quitted with his usual precipitation, and was at Francfort in 1603, and had a settlement at Forsteg in 1604. In 1605 he lived at Bischoffsel; where he complained of not being safe on the score of his religion, which rendered him odious even to his relations. He was at Francfort in 1606, where he married, and continued till 1610, in very bad circumstances. Little more is known of his history, unless that he lost his wife in 1630, and died himself Aug. 11, 1635. He appears to have been a man of capricious temper, and some have attributed to him a want of integrity. The greatest part of the writings published by Goldast are compilations arranged in form, or published from Mss. in libraries; and by their number he may be pronounced a man of indefatigable labour. Conringius says he has deserved so well of his country by publishing the ancient monuments of Germany, that undoubtedly the Athenians would have maintained him in the Prytaneum, if he had lived in those times; and adds, that he neither had, nor perhaps ever will have, an equal in illustrating the affairs of Germany, and the public law of the empire. The following are the most considerable among his various works: A collection of different tracts on civil and ecclesiastical jurisdiction, entitled “Monarcbia Sancti Romani Imperii*” &c. 1611, 1613, and 1614, 3 vols. fol. “Alamaniae Scriptores,” 1730, 5 vols. fol.; “Scriptores aliquot rerum Suevlearum,” 1605, 4to; “Commentarius de Bohemise regno,” 4to “Informatio de statu Bohemia3 quoad jus,” 4to “Sybilla Francica,” 4to which is a collection of pieces relating to the Maid of Orleans “Paraeneticorum veterum pars prima,” 1604, 4to. A curious collection of letters was published in 1688, under the title “Virorum clarissimorum ad Melchior Goldastum Epistolae,” 4to, Francfort.

, an eminent modern Italian dramatist, was born at Venice in 1707. In his infancy the drama was his darling amusement, and all his time was devoted to the perusing comic writers, among whom was Cicognini, a Florentine, little known in the dramatic commonwealth. After having well studied these, he ventured to sketch out the plan of a comedy, even before he went to school. When he had finished his grammatical studies at Venice, and his rhetorical studies at the Jesuits’ college in Perugia, he was sent to a boarding-school at Rimini, to study philosophy, but he paid far more attention to the theatres, entered into a familiar acquaintance with the actors, and when they were to remove to Chiozza, made his escape in their company. This was the first fault he committed, which, according to his own confession, drew a great many others after it. His father had intended him to be a physician, like himself: the young man, however, was wholly averse to the study. He proposed afterwards to make him an advocate, and sent him to be a practitioner in Modena; but a horrid ceremony of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, at which he was present, inspired him with a melancholy turn, and he determined to become a Capuchin. Of this, however, he was cured by a visit to Venice, where he indulged in all the fashionable dissipation of the place. He was afterwards prevailed upon by his mother, after the death of his father, to exercise the profession of a lawyer in Venice, but by a sudden reverse of fortune he was compelled to quit at once both the bar and Venice. He then went to Milan, where he was employed by the resident of Venice in the capacity of secretary, and becoming acquainted with the manager of the theatre, he wrote a farce entitled “II Gondoliere Veneziano,” the Venetian Gondolier; which was the first comic production of his that was performed and printed. Some time after, Goldoni quitted the Venetian resident, and removed to Verona, where he got introduced to the manager of the theatre, for which he composed several pieces. Having removed along with the players to Genoa, he was for the first time seized with an ardent passion for a lady, who soon afterwards became his wife. He then returned with the company to Venice, where he displayed, for the first time, the powers of his genius, and executed his plan of reforming the Italian stage. He wrote the “Momolo,” “Courtisan,” the “Squanderer,” and other pieces, which obtained universal admiration. Feeling a strong inclination to reside some time in Tuscany, he repaired to Florence and Pisa, where he wrote “The Footman of two Masters,” and “The Son of Harlequin lost and found again.” He returned to Venice, and set about executing more and more his favourite scheme of reform. He was now attached to the theatre of S. Angelo, and employed himself in writing both for the company, and for his own purposes. The constant toils he underwent in these engagements impaired his health. He wrote, in the course of twelve months, sixteen new comedies, besides forty-two pieces for the theatre; among these many are considered as the best of his productions. The first edition of his works was published in 1753, in 10 vols. 8vo. As he wrote afterwards a great number of new pieces for the theatre of S. Luca, a separate edition of these was published, under the title of “The New Comic Theatre:” among these was the “Terence,” called by the author his favourite, and judged to be the master-piece of his works. He made another journey to Parma, on the invitation of duke Philip, and from thence he passed t Rome. He had composed 59 other pieces so late as 1761, five of which were designed for the particular use of Marque Albergati Capacelli, and consequently adapted to the theatre of a private company. Here ends the literary life of Goldoni in Italy, after which he accepted of an engagement of two years in Paris, where he found a select and numerous company of excellent performers in the Italian theatre. They were, however, chargeable with the same faults which he had corrected in Italy; and the French supported, and even applauded in the Italians, what they would have reprobated on their own stage. Goldoni wished to extend, even to that country, his plan of reformation, without considering the extreme difficulty of the undertaking. His first attempt was the piece called “The Father for Love;” and its bad success was a sufficient warning to him to desist from his undertaking. He continued, during the remainder of his engagement, to produce pieces agreeable to the general taste, and published twenty-four comedies; among which “The Love of Zelinda and Lindor” is reputed the best. The term of two years being expired, Goldoni was preparing to return to Italy, when a lady, reader to the dauphiness, mother to the late king, introduced him at court, in the capacity of Italian master to the princesses, aunts to the king. He did not live in the court, but resorted there, at each summons, in a post-chaise, sent to him for the purpose. These journeys were the cause of a disorder in the eyes, which afflicted him the rest of his life; for being accustomed to read while in the chaise, he lost his sight on a sudden, and in spite of the most potent remedies, could never afterwards recover it entirely. For about six months lodgings were provided him in the chateau of Versailles. The death, however, of the dauphin, changed the face of affairs. Goldoni lost his lodgings, and only, at the end of three years, received a bounty of 100 Louis in a gold box, and the grant of a pension of four thousand livres a year. This settlement would not have been sufficient for him, if he had not gained, by other means, farther sums. He wrote now and then comedies for the theatres of Italy and Portugal; and, during these occupations, was desirous to shew to the French that he merited a high rank among their dramatic writers. For this purpose, he neglected nothing which could be of use to render himself master of the French language. He heard, spoke, and conversed so much in it, that, in his 62d year, he ventured to write a comedy in French, and to have it. represented in the court theatre, on the occasion of the marriage of the king. This piece was the “Bourru Bienfaisant;” and it met with so great success, that the author received a bounty 'of 150 Louis from the king, another gratification from the performers, and considerable sums from the booksellers who published it. He published soon after, another comedy in French, called “L'Avare Fastueux.” After the death of Lewis XV. Goldoni was appointed Italian teacher to the princess Clotilde, and after her marriage, he attended the late unfortunate princess Elizabeth in the same capacity. His last work was the “Volponi,” written after he had retired from court. It was nis misfortune to live to see his pension taken away by the revolution, and, like thousands in a similar situation, he was obliged to pass his old age in poverty and distress. He died in the beginning of 1793. As a comic poet, Goldoni is reckoned among the best of the age in which he flourished. His works were printed at Leghorn in 1788—91, in 31 vols. 8vo. He has been reckoned the Moliere of Italy, and he is styled by Voltaire “The Painter of Nature.” Dr. Burney says that he is, perhaps, the only author of comic operas in Italy who has given them a little common sense, by a natural plot, and natural characters; and his celebrated comic opera of the “Buona Figliuola,” set by Piccini, and first performed in London Dec. 9th, 1766, rendered both the poet and composer, whose names had scarcely penetrated into this country before, dear to every lover of the Italian language and music, in the nation.

, a divine and poet of the seventeenth century, was born at London in 1600, whence, he was sent by his father in 1614 to Christ church, Oxford, where, soon after his being entered, he was elected a student on the royal foundation. At about seven years standing, he here took his degrees of bachelor and master of arts, and before he left the university, which was in 1627, he had the degree of bachelor of divinity conferred on him. Being now in orders, he distinguished himself as a, preacher at the university. For some time, during the plague at Oxford, he resided at Flower in Northamptonshire, and was afterwards vicar of Thorncornbe in Devonshire, where it is probable that he resided till his death, which was in 1646. He was accounted a good preacher, and printed a volume of “Sermons,” Lond. 1634, which were well esteemed. As a devotee to the Muses, be published several poems; particularly a sort of heroic attempt, called the “Levite’s Revenge,” being meditations, in verse, on the 19th and 20th chapters of Judges, and a tragedy called “Lodowick Sforza, duke of Milan,” 1632, 12mo. "Both were reprinted with a few occasional verses in 1633, 12mo, reprinted in 1638.

, a lady of the sixteenth century, remarkable for her wit and high birth, is chiefly known, and that very imperfectly, from a collection of her letters, printed at Venice in 1552. By these she appears to have been learned, and somewhat of a criticin Aristotle and yEschylus. All the wits of her time are full of their encomiums on her: and Hortensio Landi, besides singing her praises most zealously, dedicated to her a piece, “Upon moderating the passions of the soul,” written in Italian. If, however, it be true that this Horatio Landi wrote the whole of the letters attributed to Lucretia, it is difficult to know what to believe of the history of the latter. Her marriage at the age of fourteen with John Paul Manfroni was unhappy, He engaged in a conspiracy against the duke of Ferrara; was detected and imprisoned by him; but, though condemned, not put to death. Lucretia, in this emergency, applied to all the powers in Europe to intercede for him; and even solicited the grand signior to make himself master of the castle, where her husband was kept. During this time, although she was not permitted to visit him, they could write to each other. But all her endeavours were vain; for he died in prison in 1552, having shewn such an impatience under his misfortunes as made it imagined he lost his senses. She never would listen afterwards to any proposals of marriage, though several were made her. Of four children, which she had, there were but two daughters left, whom she placed in nunneries. All that came from her pen was so much esteemed, that a collection was made e^-en of the notes she wrote to her servants: several of which are to be met witli in the above-mentioned edition of her letters. She died at Mantua in 1576.

, a learned antiquary of Florence, was born in 1691, and died Jan. 21, 17,57, in that city. He was the author of an account of the grand duke’s cabinet, entitled “Museum Florentinum,” Florent. 1731, continued to 11 vols. fol. “Musaeum Etruscum,” 1737, 3 vols, fol. “Musceum Cortonense,” Roma;, 1750, fol. He also published the ancient Inscriptions which are found in the cities of Tuscany; Florence, 1727, 3 vols. fol. and other books on Tuscan antiquities. His “Musaeum Florentinum” contains in vol. I. “Gemma?,' 7 dedicated to Gaston, 100 plates; vol. II. 1732,” Gemmae,“100 plates; vol. III. 1734,” Statuce,“dedicated to Gaston, 100 plates; vols. IV. V. and VI. 1740,” Numismata," dedicated to Francis III. 115 plates. It is divided into three parts one consisting of figures, two of dissertations; sometimes bound in 2 vols. and sometimes in three. In 1748, 50 portraits of the eminent professors of painting were engraved, with no farther explanation than their names, the year in which they were born and died; but this part is frequently wanting, because these portraits may be found in the History of the Painters, 4 vols. with their lives, by Francis Moucke. Vol. VII. is the first volume of the painters, 1752, 55 portraits. Vol. VIII. the second volume of the painters, 1754, 55 portraits. Vol. IX. the third volume of the painters, 1756, 55 portraits. Vol. X. the fourth volume of the painters, 1762, 55 portraits. Vol. XI. contains 100 portraits of painters, which may be found in the abbe Pozzi, and their lives by the abbe Orazis Marrini, Florence, 1764, 2 torn, each, divided into two parts; the whole bound in 1 vol.

, an Italian poet and miscellaneous writer, was born at Rome in 1525, where he pursued his studies in the house of the cardinal de Santa Fiora, but in his seventeenth year was taken into the service of Ferdinand Gonzaga, then viceroy of Sicily, and governor of Milan, to which city he accompanied that nobleman in 1546, and became his secretary. He was afterwards taken to the court of Spain, where he obtained the esteem and favour of Philip II. Under the duke of Albuquerque he was imprisoned on a charge of conspiracy against the life of John Baptist Monti, but vindicated his own cause, and was not only released, but admitted to public employment under the succeeding governors of Milan. He died Feb. 12, 1587, leaving behind him several works, that obtained for him high reputation; of these the principal are, “The Life of Ferdinand Gonzaga,” 1579, 4to. “Three Conspiracies,” &c. 1588, 8vo. “Rime,” or a collection of poems, several times reprinted. “Discourses.” “Letters,” &c. and he translated into Italian a French work entitled “A true account of things that have happened in the Netherlands, since the arrival of Don Juan of Austria.”

, a French politician, was born at Rochefoucauld in 1625, and was taken by the celebrated duke of that name into his service as valet de chambre, from which situation he rose to be his confidential friend. He was also equally honoured by the great Conde, and was employed by the superintendant Fouquet, in public business, and was involved in his disgrace. But such was the value put upon his political talents and integrity, that he was at one time proposed to the king as successor to. Colbert in the ministry. He died in 1705, leaving “Memoirs of his Life from 1642 to 1698,” 2 vols. 12mo, written with frankness and simplicity and containing very lively characters of the ministers and principal persons of his time, of which, it is said, Voltaire made much use in his “Siecle de Louis XIV.”

He appears, however, to have studied law, and was a member of the society of the Middle Temple, where it is supposed he met with, and acquired the friendship of Chaucer. The similarity of their studies, and their taste for poetry, were not the only bonds of union. Their political bias was nearly the same. Chaucer attached himself to John of Gaunt, duke of Lancaster, and Gower to Thomas of Woodstock, duke of Gloucester, both uncles to king Richard II. The tendency of the “Confessio Amantis,” in censuring the vices of the clergy, coincides with Chaucer’s sentiments, and although we have no direct proof of those mutual arguings and disputes between them, which Leland speaks of, there can be no doubt that their friendship was at one time interrupted. Chaucer concludes his Troilus and Cressida with recommending it to the corrections of moral Gower,“and” philosophical Strode;“and Gower, in the Confessio Amantis, introduces Venus praising Chaucer” as her disciple and poete.“Such was their mutual respect; its decline is less intelligible. Mr. Tyrwhit says,” If the reflection (in the prologue to the Man of Lawes Tale, ver. 4497) upon those who relate such stones as that of Canace, or of Apollonius Tyrius, was levelled at Gower, as I very much suspect, it will be difficult to reconcile such an attack to our notions of the strict friendship which is generally supposed to have subsisted between the two bards. The attack too at this time must appear the more extraordinary on the part of our bard, as he is just going to put into the mouth of his Man of Lawe a tale, of which almost every circumstance is borrowed from Gower. The fact is, that the story of Canace is related by Gower in his Confessio A mantis, B. III. and the story of Apollonius (or Apollynus, as he is there called) in the Vlllth book of the same work: so that, if Chaucer really did not mean to reflect upon his old friend, his choice of these two instances was rather unlucky."

, a French lady of literary reputation, was the daughter of a military officer, and born about the year 1694. She was married, or rather sacrificed to Francis Hugot de Grafigny, chamberlain to the duke of Lorraine, a man of violent passions, from which she was often in danger of her life; but after some years of patient suffering, she was at length relieved by a legal separation, and her husband finished his days in confinement, which his improper conduct rendered necessary. Madame de Grafigny now came to Paris, where her merit was soon acknowledged, although her first performance, a Spanish novel, did not pass without some unpleasant criticisms, to which, says our authority, she gave the best of all possible answers, by writing a better, which was her “Lettres d'une Peruvienne,” 2 vols. 12mo. This had great success, being written with spirit, and abounding in those delicate sentiments which are so much admired in the French school, yet an air of metaphysical speculation has been justly objected, as throwing a chill on her descriptions of love. She also wrote some dramatic pieces, of which the comedies of “Cenie” & “La Fille d'Aristide” were most applauded. Having resided for some time at the court of Lorraine, she became known to the emperor, who had read her “Peruvian Letters” with much pleasure, and engaged her to write some dramatic pieces proper to be performed before the empress and the younger branches of the royal family at court. This she complied with, and sent five or six such pieces to Vienna, and in return received a pension of 1500 livres, but with the express condition that she was not to print these dramas, nor give copies to any other theatre. She long retained the esteem and patronage of the court of Vienna, and was chosen an associate of the academy at Florence. She died, much esteemed by all classes, at Paris in 1758. A complete edition of her works was published at Paris in 1738, 4 vols. 12mo; and her “Letters of a Peruvian Princess,” were published in English, by F. Ashworth, 1782, 2 vols. 8vo.

, son of Antony duke of Gramont, served as a volunteer under the prince of Conde, and Turenne, and came into England about two years after the restoration. He was under a necessity of leaving France for having the temerity to pay his addresses to a lady to whom Lewis XIV. was known to have a tender attachment. He possessed in a high degree every qualification that could render him agreeable to the licentious court of Charles II. He was gay, gallant, and perfectly well-bred, had an inexhaustible fund of ready wit, and told a story with extraordinary humour and effect. His vivacity infused life wherever he came, and was generally inoffensive. He had also another qualification very well suited to the company he kept. He had great skiil and success in play; and seems to have been chiefly indebted to it for support. Several of the ladies engaged his attention upon his first coming over; but miss Elizabeth Hamilton, whom he afterwards married, seems to have been his favourite, though some say he endeavoured to break off the connection. She was the daughter of sir George Hamilton, fourth son of James first earl of Abercorn. His “Memoirs” were written from his own information, and probably in much the same language in which they are related, by his brother-in-law, Anthony, who, following the fortunes of James II. entered the French service, and died at St. Germain’s, April 21, 1720. He was generally called Count Hamilton. Count Gramont died Jan. 10, 1707. There have lately been several editions of the “Memoirs” printefd here, both in French and English, and in a splendid form, illustrated with portraits. They contain many curious particulars respecting the intrigues and amusements of the court of Charles II. but present upon the whole a disgusting picture of depraved manners.

, a French historical writer, was born Feb. 6, 1653, at St. Lo, in Normandy. After studying philosophy at Caen, he entered into the congregation of the oratory in 1671, where he applied to the belles lettres and theology, but quitted it in 1676, and went to Paris, where he engaged in the education of two young men of rank, the marquis de Vins, and the duke cTEstrees, and at the same time applied himself to the study of history under the direction of father Le Cointe, who formed a very high opinion of him. He first appeared as a writer in 1688, in “A History of the Divorce of Henry VIII. and Catharine of Arragon,” in three vols. 12mo. The main object of this work is to refute certain facts and arguments contained in the first two books of Burnet’s History of the Reformation. In 1685, when Burnet was at Paris, he had an interview with Le Grand in the presence of Messrs. Thevenot and Auzout, in which the latter proposed his doubts, and the former answered them, both preserving a tone of elegance and mutual respect. The publication of the above work, however, produced a controversy, in the course of which, in 1691, Le Grand addressed three letters to the bishop, to which he replied. How long the controversy might have continued is uncertain, as Le Grand was necessarily diverted from it in 1692, when he received the appointment of secretary to the abbe d'Estrees, in his embassy to Portugal. In this situation he continued till 1697. The leisure which his diplomatic functions allowed was employed in translations of voyages and travels from the Portuguese. In 1702 he accompanied the same minister in Spain, where he remained about two years as secretary. Soon after this, the marquis de Torci, minister of state, took him into his service, and employed his pen in drawing up several memorials concerning the Spanish monarchy, and other political topics, in which he acquitted himself with great ability, but most of them were printed without his name. He employed much of his time in writing a life of Louis XL; but, although this was quite finished in 1728, it still remains in manuscript. In that year, however, hepublished his translation of Lobo’s History of Abyssinia, with many additions; and about the same time his treatise “De la succession a la Couroune de France.” He died of an apoplectic stroke, April 30, 1733. He had been possessed of church preferment, and had held, for a time, the office of censor royal of books.

, a philosopher and mathematician, was born Oct. 1, 1671, at Cremona, where his father, a branch of a decayed family, carried on the business of ai> embroiderer. His mother, a woman of considerable talents, taught him Latin, and gave him some taste for poetry. Being disposed to a studious life, he cliose the profession of theology, that he might freely indulge his inclination. He entered into the religious order of Camaldolitesj at Raverrna, in 1687, where he was distinguished for his proficiency in the different branches of literature and science, but was much dissatisfied with the Peripatetic philosophy of the schools. He had not been here long before he established an academy of students of his own age, which he called the Certanti, in opposition to another juvenile society called the Concordi. To his philosophical studies he added those of the belles lettres, music, and history. It appears to have been his early ambition to introduce a new system in education, and with that view he obtained the professorship of philosophy at Florence, by the influence of father Caramelli, although not without some opposition from the adherents to the old opinions. He now applied himself to the introduction of the Cartesian philosophy, while, at the same time, he became zealously attached to mathematical studies. The works of the great Torricelli, of our countryman Wallis, and of other celebrated mathematicians, were his favourite companions, and the objects of his familiar intercourse. His first publication was a treatise to resolve the problems of Viviani on the construction of arcs, entitled “Geometrica Demonstnuio Vivianeorum problematum,” Florence, 1609, 4to. He dedicated this work to the grand duke. Cosmo Til. who appointed the author professor of philosophy in the university of Pisa. From this time Grandius pursued the higher branches of mathematics with the stmost ardour, and had the honour of ranking the ablest mathematicians among his friends and correspondents. Of the number may be named the illustrious Newton, Leibnitz, and Bernoulli. His next publications were, “Geometrica dernonslratio theorematum Hugenianorum circa logisticam, seu Logarithmicam lineatn,” 1701, 4to, and “Quadratura circuii et hyperbola3 per infinitas hyperbolas et parabolas geometrice exhibita,” Pisa, 1703, 8vo. He then published “Sejani et Rufini dialogus de Laderchiana historia S. Petri Damiani,” Paris, 1705, awd “Dissertationes Camaldu lenses,” embracing inquiries into the history of the Camaldolites, both which gave so much offence to the community, that he was deposed from the dignity of abbot of St. Michael at Pisa; but the grand duke immediately appointed him his professor of mathematics in the university. He now resolved some curious and difficult problems for the improvement of acoustics, which had been presented to the royal society in Dublin, and having accomplished his objecvt, he transmitted the solutions, by means of the British minister at the court of Florence, to the Royal Society at London. This was published under the title of “Disquisitio geometrica in systema sonorum D. Narcissi (Marsh) archiepiscopi Armachani,” in 1709, when he was chosen a fellow of the royal society. This was followed by his principal work, “De infinitis infinitorum, et infinite parvorum ordinibus disquisitio geometrica,” Pisa, 1710, 4to, and by many other works enumerated by his biographer, few of which appear in the catalogues of the public libraries in this country. Among other subjects he defended Galileo’s doctrine respecting the earth’s motion, and obtained a complete victory over those who opposed it. He was deeply versed in subjects of political economy; and various disputes were referred to his decision respecting the rights of fishery, &c. He was appointed commissioner from the grand duke and the court of Rome jointly, to settle some differences between the inhabitants of Ferrara and Bologna, concerning the works necessary to preserve their territories from the ravages of inundation. For these and other important public services, he was liberally rewarded by his employers. He died at the age of sevejity-two, in July 1742.

, a French satirist and dramatic poet, was born 1676, in Perigord. He wrote a little comedy in three acts, when but nine years old, which was performed several days successively in the college of Bourdeaux, where he was a scholar; and at sixteen, produced his tragedy of “Jugurtha;” but the work which has made him most known, is a satire against the duke of Orleans, then regent, entitled, “The Philippicks,” in which he accused that nobleman of the most atrocious crimes. To avoid the punishment this work deserved, he fled to Avignon, in which city was a French officer, who had taken refuge there in consequence of having committed a murder, and received a promise of pardon if he could entice the author of the “Philippicks” into the French dominions. His attempt succeeded, and La Grange was conducted to the isle of St. Margaret; but 6nding means to make friends of his keepers, escaped in a boat to Villa Franca, notwithstanding a violent storm. The king of Sardinia gave him a considerable sum of money, and he went from thence into Spain; afterwards into Holland, where he remained till the duke of Orleans was dead. He was then permitted to end his days in France,­where he died in 1758, at the castle of Antoniat, his family seat. His works have been collected in 5 vols. small 12mo, and his tragedies have been as much admired, as his lyric efforts have been depreciated.

In the first stage of his life, he seems rather to have made his Muse subservient to his ambition and thirst after military glory, in which there appeared such a force of genius as raised the admiration of Mr. Waller. But his ambition shewed itself most active on the duke of Monmouth’s rebellion and he requested his father to let him arm in defence of his sovereign but being then only eighteen years of age, he was thought too young for such an enterprize. It was not without extreme reluctance that he submitted to the tenderness of paternal restraint; which was the more mortifying, as his uncle the earl of Bath had on this occasion raised a regiment of foot for the king’s service; with the behaviour and discipline of which his majesty was so well pleased, that, on reviewing them at Hounslow, as a public mark of his approbation he conferred the honour of knighthood upon our author’s elder brother Bevil, who was a captain, at the head of the regiment. Thus, forbidden to handle his pike on this important occasion, he took up his pen after the rebellion was crushed, and addressed some congratulatory lines to the king.

Upon the accession of queen Anne, he stood as fair in the general esteem as any man of his years, now about thirty-five. He had always entertained the greatest veneration for the queen, and he made his court to her in the politest manner in Urganda’s prophecy, spoken by way of epilogue at the first representation of the “British Enchanters,” where he introduced a scene representing the queen, and the several triumphs of her reign. He entered heartily into the measures for carrying on the war against France; and, with a view to excite a proper spirit in the nation, he translated the second “Olynthian” of Demosthenes, in 1702. This new specimen of his, learning gained him many friends, and added highly to his reputation; and, when the design upon Cadiz was projected the same year, he presented to Mr. Harley, afterwards earl of Oxford, an authentic journal of Mr. Wimbledon’s expedition thither, in 1625; in order that, by avoiding the errors committed in a former attempt upon that place, a more successful plan might be formed. But, little attention being given to it, the same mistakes were committed, and the same disappointment ensued: with this difference only, that the duke of Ormond had an opportunity to take his revenge at Vigo, and to return with glory, which was not Wimbledon’s fate.

His lordship still continued steady to his former connections, and in that spirit entered his protest with them against the bills for attainting lord Bolingbroke and the duke of Ormond, in 1715. He even entered deeply into the scheme for raising an insurrection in the West of England, and was at the head of it, if we may believe lord Bolingbroke, who represents him possessed now with the same political fire and frenzy for the*Pretender as he had shewn in his youth for the father. In consequence, however, of being suspected, he was apprehended September 26, 1715, and committed prisoner to the Tower of London, where he continued until February 8, 1716-17, when he was released without any form of trial or acquittal. However sensible he might be at this time of the mistake in his conduct, which had deprived him of his liberty, yet he was far from running into the other extreme. He seems, indeed, to be one of those tories, who are said to have been driven by the violent persecutions against that party into jacobitism, and who returned to their former principles as soon as that violence ceased. Hence we find him, in 1719, as warm as ever in defence of those principles, the first time of his speaking in the house of lords, in the debates about repealing the act against occasional conformity.

His lordship continued steady in the same sentiments, which were so opposite to those of the court, and inconsistent with the measures taken by the administration, that he must needs be sensible a watchful eye was kept ever upon him. Accordingly, when the flame broke out against his friends, on account of what is sometimes called Atterbury’s plot, in 1722, his lordship, as some say, to avoid a second imprisonment in the Tower, withdrew to France, but others attribute his going thither to a degree of profusion which had embarrassed his circumstances. He had been at Paris but a little while, when the first volume of Burnet’s “History of his oun Times” was published. Great expectations had been raised of this work, which accordingly he perused with attention; and finding the characters of the duke of Albemarle and the earl of Bath treated in a manner he thought they did not deserve, he formed the design of doing them justice. This led him to consider what had been said by other historians concerning his family; and, as Clarendon and Echard had treated his uncle sir Richard Granvilie more roughly, his lordship, being possessed of memoirs from which his conduct might be set in a fairer light, resolved to follow the dictates of duty and inclination, by publishing his sentiments upon these heads. These pieces are printed in his works, under the title of “A Vindication of General Monk,” &c. and “A Vindication of Sir Richard Greenville, General of the West to King Charles I.” &c. They were answered by Oldmixon, in a piece entitled “Reflections historical and politic,” c. 1732, 4to, and by judge Burnet, in “Remarks,” &c. a pamphlet. His lordship replied, in “A Letter to the author of the Reflections,” &c. 1732, 4to, and the spring following, there came out a very rough answer in defence of Echard, by Dr. Colbatch, entitled “An Examination of Echard’s Account of the Marriage Treaty,” &c.

, a learned lawyer, was born at Delft in 1600. He wrote various works upon legal and political subjects, by which he acquired a considerable reputation. Among these are “Libertas Veneta, seu Venetorurn in se et suos imperandi Jus.” This was published in 1634, and in 1644 he defended the republic of Venice, in a dispute with the duke of Savoy concerning precedence; for which service, that republic created him a knight of St. Mark. He had also before this, attempted to confute Buchanan’s treatise “De Jure Majestatis,” in a work dedicated to Christina, queen of Sweden, who was known to be a great assertor of regal privileges. Grasswinkel defended the liberty of the seas against Selden, and Burgus, a native of Genoa, in his work “Maris Liberi Vindiciae,” and with so much judgment, in their opinion, that the States of Holland gave him a pension of 500 florins, with the title of Advocate-general of the marine, until an opportunity offered of rewarding his merit with a more honourable employment; which was afterwards that of advocate of the exchequer, and register and secretary of the chambre-mi-partie. He was author, likewise, of a treatise in two volumes, 4to, “On the Sovereignty of the States of Holland.” He died of an apoplexy at Mechlin, Oct. 12, 1666.

, a learned bishop of Amelia, was born in 1536 in the little city called Borgodi-san-Sepulcro in Tuscany. He was educated by cardinal Commendo, who trusted him with the most important affairs, and gave him a rich abbey. After this cardinal’s death, Gratiaiii was secretary to pope Sixtus V. then to cardinal Montalto and Clement VIII. who was partly indebted to him for his elevation to the papal chair, made him bishop of Amelia, sent him to Venice as nuncio, and would have even created him cardinal, but was dissuaded from it by cardinal Aldobraudino, because Gratiani was the duke of Florence’s subject. The air of Venice not agreeing with his health, he retired to Amelia, devoted himself to the duties of a holy bishop, and died there, 1611. He left “Synodal Ordinances;” “The Life of Cardinal Commendo,” 4to, which has been translated into French by M. Flechier; “De Bello Cyprio,” 4to; “De Casibus adversis illustrium virorum sui oevi,” 4to, translated into French by le Pelletier. In 1745, a posthumous work was published at Florence, “De Scriptis invita Minerva ad Aloysium fratrem libri viginti,” 4to.

In July 1757 he took his “Odes” to London for publication, but they were first printed at the Strawberry-hill press. It seems agreed that they did not succeed with the public, although they have since deservedly entitled him to rank among the greatest of our lyric poets. In the same year, on the death of Gibber, the office of poetluurt>at was offered to him by the duke of Devonshire, then lord chamberlain, which he politely declined. In 1758 he composed for his own amusement the little book which he calls “A Catalogue of the Antiquities, Houses, &c. in England and Wales,” which after his death was printed for private distribution by Mr. Mason, and in 1787 for sale. About this time the study of architecture seems to have employed much of his time, and some very acute observations by him on this subject appeared afterwards in Bentham’s “History of Ely,” a work which was in a great measure the fruit of “voluntary contributions.” In January 1759, the British Museum was opened to the publick; and Gray went to London to read and transcribe the manuscripts of the Harleian and Cottonian collections. A folio volume of his transcripts was in Mr. Mason’s hands, out of which one paper alone, the speech of sir Thomas Wyat, was published in the second number of lord Orford’s “Miscellaneous Antiquities.” In 1762 the professorship of modern history at Cambridge, a place worth 400l. a year, became vacant, and Gray, by the advice of his friends, applied to lord Bute for it, which was however given to Mr. Brocket, the tutor of sir James Lowther.

In 1768, the professorship of modern history again became vacant by the accidental death of Mr. Brocket, and the duke of Grafton, then in power, bestowed it upon Mr. Gray without the smallest solicitation, although the contrary was at that time reported; and in the following year, when his noble patron was installed as chancellor of the university, Gray wrote the Ode that was set to music on that occasion. When this ceremony was past, he went on a tour to the lakes of Cumberland and Westmoreland, of which he has given an account in his correspondence. “He that reads his epistolary narrative,” says Dr. Johnson, “wishes, that to travel, and to tell his travels, had been more of his employment: but it is by staying at home that we must obtain the ability 06 travelling with intelligence and improvement.” In April 1770, he complains much of a -tepr^ssioti of spirits, talks of an intended tour into Wales in the summer, and of meeting his friend Dr. Wharton at, Mr. Mason’s. In July, however, he was still at Cambridge, and wrote to Dr. Beattie, complaining of illness and pain in his head; and in this letter, he sent him some criticisms on the first book of the “Minstrel,” which have since been published. His tour took place in the autumn, but he does not appear to have written any journal of it. In May. 1771 he wrote to Dr. Wharton, just sketching the outlines of his tour in Wales and some of the adjacent counties. This is the last letter that remains in Mr. Mason’s collection. He there complains of an incurable cough, of spirits habitually low, and of the uneasiness which the thought of the duties of his professorship gave him, which, Mr. Mason says, he had now a determined resolution to resign. He had held this office nearly three years, and had not begun to execute the duties of it, which consist of two parts, one, the teaching of modern languages; the other, the reading of lectures on Modern History. The former he was allowed to execute by deputies, but the latter he was to commence in person, by reading a public lecture in the schools, once at least in every term. He was at liberty to chuse his language, and chose the Latin, which Mr. Mason thought somewhat injudicious; and although we do not find that he proceeded farther than to draw up a part of his introductory lecture, he projected a plan of very great extent, of much greater indeed than from his inactivity, whether the effect of illness or indolence, he would probably have been able to execute. His death, however, prevented the trial. A few days alter writing the letter just mentioned, he removed to London, where his health more and more declined. His physician, Dr. Gisborne, advised freer air, and he went to Kentittgton. There he in some degree revived, and returned to Cambridge, intending to go from that place to Old Park, near Durham, the residence of his friend Dr. Wharton. On the 24th of July, however, while at dinner in the collegehall, he was seized with an attack of the gout in his stomach, of which he died in the evening of the 30th, 1771, in the fifty-fifth year of his age, sensible almost to the last; aware of his danger, and expressing no visible concern at the thought of his approaching death. He was interred by the side of his mother, in the church-yard of StoVe.

, an Italian scholar and poet of considerable eminence, was born at Florence March 22, 1503, of a noble family, which can be traced as far as the thirteenth century, but was now decayed, as we find that Grazzini in his youth was brought up as an apothecary. He had, however, studied philosophy and the belles lettres, and from the timetliathe acquired some reputation in the literary world, gave up his medical business. In 1540 he became one of the founders of the academy of Florence, which was first called the academy of the Humides, and each member distinguishing himself by some appellation relative to the water, Grazzini adopting that of Lasca, which signifies a roach. From the first establishment of this academy, he was appointed chancellor, and when, some months after, the grand duke changed its name to that of the academy of Florence, he was chosen overseer, or superintendant, an office which he afterwards filled three times. As the number of members, however, increased, the juniors began to make new regulations without consulting the founders, and a schism broke out, attended with so many unpleasant circumstances, that Grazzini withdrew, and became the founder of a new academy, known still by the name of La Crusca. The object of this society was to polish the Italian language, to fix a standard for it, to point out such authors as might be always models for those who chose to improve their style, to oppose the progress of false taste; and to sift the flour from the bran of literature, crusca signifying bran. Grazzini was well qualified to assist an academy instituted for these purposes. He hail enriched the language with several choice phrases and new modes of expression, and the academicians have very justly ranked him among those authors to whom they have been obliged for examples, in correcting their great vocabulary. In the mean time his growing fame induced his friend Leonard Salviati to endeavour his re-introduction into the academy of Florence, which was successfully accomplished in 1566, twenty years after he had left it; in return for which he procured admission for Salviati among the Cruscanti. Grazzini died at Florence in February 1583. He was a man of unquestionable genius, spirit, and humour, and wrote with great elegance, and although there are some indelicate passages in his poems, which was the vice of the times, he was a man of strict morals, and even, says his biographer, very religious. Many of his works are lost, and among these some prose tales, and many pieces of poetry. There remain, however, twentyone tales, six comedies, a great number of capitoli, or satirical chapters, and various poems, of which the best edition is that of Florence, 1741, 2 vols. 8vo. His Tales or Novels were printed at Paris, 1756, 8vo, from which some copies have been printed in 4to, under the title of London. An excellent French translation of them appeared in 1775, 2 vols. 8vo, in which nine histories wanting in the third evening are said to be inserted from an old French translation in ms. He wrote also “La guerra di Mostri, Poema giocoso,” Florence, 1584, 4to. Grazzini published the 2d book of Berni, Florence, 1555, 8vo; and “Tutti i trionfi, carri, mascherate o canti carnasciaj^schi dal tempo di Lorenzo de Medici a questoanno 1559,” 8vo; 100 pages are frequently wanting in this work, page 297 being pasted upon page 398. These pages contained 51 canzoni, by John Baptist dell Ottomaio, which had been inserted without his consent, and which his brother, by authority from the magistrates, had cancelled. They were printed separately by the author, in a similar size, the year following, and must be added to the mutilated copies; but though they consist of 55 songs instead of 51, those found in the original collection are preferred, as the others have been altered. This collection was reprinted in 1750, 2 vols. 8vo, Cosmopoli; but this impression is not valued.

From Leghorn he proceeded to Florence, where he was received with particular marks of esteem by the grand duke of Tuscany, Ferdinand II. to whom he had inscribed a Latin poem from Alexandria, in which he exhorted that prince to clear those seas of pirates, with whom they were extremely infested. He obtained, likewise, admittance into the Medicean library, which had been denied to him as a stranger when he was here in his former tour. ' From Florence he went to Rome, and took most exact measurements of all the ancient remains of that city and neighbourhood; after which he returned to Leghorn, where taking his passage in a vessel called the Golden Fleece, at the end of March, he arrived at London before Midsummer 1640, with a curious collection of Arabic, Persic, anci Greek Mss. together with a great number of gems, coins, and other valuable antiquities, having spent full three years in this agreeable tour.

, an English prelate, was born about 1706, at Beverly, in Yorkshire, and received the rudiments of his education at a private school. From this he was admitted a sizar in St. John’s college, Cambridge; and after taking his degrees in arts, with great credit as a classical scholar, engaged himself as usher to a school at Lichfield, before Dr. Johnson and Mr. Garrick had left that city, with both of whom he was of course acquainted, but he continued here only one year. In 1730 he was elected fellow of St. John’s, and soon after the bishop of Ely procured him the vicarage of Hingeston from Jesus college, which was tenable with a fellowship of St. John’s, but could not be held by any fellow of Jesus. In 1744, Charles duke of Somerset, chancellor of the university, appointed Mr. Green (then B. D.) his domestic chaplain. In January 1747, Green was presented by his noble patron to the rectory of Borough-green, near New-market, which he held with his fellowship. He then returned to college, and was appointed bursar. In December 1748, on the death of Dr. Whalley, he was elected regius professor of divinity, with which office he held the living of Barrow in Suffolk, and sodn after was appointed one of his majesty’s chaplains. In June 170, on the death of dean Castle, master of Bene't college, a majority of the fellows (after the headship had been declined by their president, Mr. Scottowe) agreed to apply to archbishop Herring for his recommendation; and his grace, at the particular request of the duke of Newcastle, recommended professor Green, who was immediately elected. Among the writers on the subject of the new regulations proposed by the chancellor, and established by the senate, Dr. Green took an active part, in a pamphlet published in the following winter, 1750, without his name, entitled “The Academic, or a disputation on the state of the university of Cambridge.” On March 22, 1751, whenhis friend Dr. Keene, master of St. Peter’s college, was promoted to the bishopric of Chester, Dr. Green preached the consecration -sermon in Elyhouse chapel, which, by order of the archbishop of York, was soon after published. In October 1756, on the death of Dr. George, he was preferred to the deanery of Lincoln, and resigned his professorship. Being then eligible to the office of vice-chancellor, he was chosen in November following. In June 1761, the dean exerted his polemical talents in two letters (published without his name) “on the principles and practices of the Methodists,” the first addressed to Mr. Berridge, and the second to Mr. Whitfield. On the translation of bishop Thomas to the bishopric of Salisbury, Green was promoted to the see of Lincoln, the last mark of favour which the duke of Newcastle had it in his power to shew him. In 1762, archbishop Seeker (who had always a just esteem for his talents and abilities) being indisposed, the bishop of Lincoln visited as his proxy the diocese of Canterbury. In 1763 he preached the 30th of January sermon before the house of lords, which was printed.

The following anecdotes are given from indisputable authority: Mr. Sylvanus Bevan, a quaker and a friend of Mr. Green, was mentioning, at Batson’s coffee-house, thaty while he was bathing in the river, a waterman saluted him with the usual insult of the lower class of people, by calling out, “A quaker, a quaker, quirl” He at the same expressed his wonder, how his profession could be known while he was without his cloaths. Green immediately replied, that the waterman might discover him by his swimming against the stream. The department in the customhouse to which Mr. Green belonged was under the controul of the duke of Manchester, who used to treat those immediately under him once a year. After one of these entertainments, Mr. Green, seeing a range of servants in the hall, said to the first of them, “Pray, sir, do you give tickets at your turnpike” In a reform which took place in the custom-house, amongst other articles, a few pence, paid weekly for providing the cats with milk, were ordered to be struck off. On this occasion, Mr. Green wrote a humourous petition as from the cats, which prevented the regulation in that particular from taking place. Mr. Green’s conversation was as novel as his writings, which occasioned one of the commissioners of the customs, a very dull man, to observe, that he did not know how it was, but Green always expressed himself in a different manner from other people.

Greene had the honour, early in life, to teach the duchess of Newcastle, which, joined to his professional merit, and the propriety of his conduct, was the foundation of his favour with the prime minister and the nobility. In 1730, when the duke of Newcastle was installed chancellor of the university of Cambridge, he was appointed to set the ode, and then not only obtained his doctor’s degree, but, on the death of Dr. Tudway, he was honoured with the title of professor of music in that university. As an exercise for his degree, he set Pope’s ode for St. Cecilia’s day; having first had interest sufficient to prevail on the author to make new arrangements in the poem to render it more fit for music, and even to add an entire new stanza, between the second and third, which had never appeared in any of the printed editions.

The business of his employ gave him a great deal of trouble and much uneasiness. The usual method in which the business of taking up money of the merchants at Antwerp for the king’s use, had been managed, was greatly to the prejudice of the crown of England, as well by giving a very large interest for the money borrowed, as other inconveniences, when the principal was not paid within the time of the contract. And as the money which was now taken up in Mr. Gresham’s agency, was not paid at the time agreed on, this gave him great uneasiness, his business being then to get it prolonged, which was not to be done without the consideration of the king’s purchasing jewels or some other commodities to a large amount, as a consideration for prolonging the debt, besides continuing the interest. But this way of proceeding he neither thought for his majesty’s honour nor his own credit, as his agent, and therefore projected the following scheme to bring the king wholly out of debt in two years Provided the king and council would assign him 1200l. or 1300l. a week, to be secretly received at one man’s hands, that so it might be kept secret, he would so use that matter in Antwerp, that every day he would be seen to take up in his own name 200l. sterling by exchange, which would amount in one year to 73,000l. and so doing; it should not be perceived nor give occasion to make the exchange fall. He proposed farther, that the king should take all the lead into his own hands, and making a staple of it, should put out a proclamation or shut up the custom-house, that no lead should be conveyed out of the kingdom for five years; by which the king might cause it to rise, and feed them at Antwerp from time to time, as they should have need. By which means he might keep his money within the realm, and bring himself out of the debts which his father and the Jate duke of Somerset had brought upon him. This scheme being put into execution, had the proposed effect in discharging his majesty’s debts, which were very considerable, as well as in raising his majesty’s credit so high abroad, that he might have borrowed what sums he pleased; and, by the advantageous turn which by this means was given to the exchange in favour of England, not only the price of all foreign commodities was greatly sunk and abated; but likewise gold and silver, which before had been exported in large quantities, were most plentifully brought back again.

In the mean time he had scarcely entered upon the execution of this noble design, when in 1566, he was sent over to Antwerp to take up the sum of 14,667l. Flemish money, for her majesty, and prolong the time of payment for 34,3S5l. more; and in December of the same year, there was another debt of the queen’s prolonged of S532l. Flemish. Sir Thomas, however, perceiving the disadvantage of borrowing money from foreigners, at an exorbitant interest, advised her majesty to take up what money she wanted of her own merchants; which advice, however, was not immediately adopted, but in 1569 an opportunity occurred which rendered his advice necessary. The quarrel which at this time took place between queen Elizabeth and the king of Spain, obliged the English merchants to send their effects to Hamburgh, on which the duke of Alva, governor of the Netherlands, prohibited all commerce with England. Upon this, secretary Cecil, who was then at the head of the exchequer, had nis tears lot the merchants would not have money enough to carry on their trade, and the queen lest the falling off in the duties on cloth might prevent her paying her debts abroad. Sir Thomas, however, when consulted, told the secretary that in his opinion the queen needed be at no difficulty to pay her creditors, if she saw her merchants well paid in London their first payment, which was half of her debt to them; for by the time the other half should be payable, the merchants would have plenty of money both here and at Hamburgh. He assured him, that the commodities shipped by our merchants from Hamburgh were well worth 100,000l.; and those shipped hence with our goods thither, were worth upwards of 200,000l. so that the duty upon cloths (10,000l. at least) would enable the queen to discharge her debt. As to the secretary’s fears respecting the merchants, sir Thomas observed that there was no foundation for them, considering the great vent our commodities had at Hamburgh already, and were likely to have, and therefore he advised that the first payment agreed on at Hamburgh should above all things be provided for; assuring the secretary, that he knew certainly that the duke of Alva was more troubled with the queen’s great credit, and with the vent of her commodities at Hamburgh, than he was with any thing else, and “quaked for fear;” that this xvas one of the principal hindrances to the payment of the tenth, penny, then demanded by the duke for the sale of any kind of goods in the Netherlands; which he believed would be his undoing. He then renewed his advice respecting borrowing of her own subjects in preference to foreigners, urging many reasons grounded on facts. When, however, the motion of lending money to the queen was first proposed among the merchants by sir Thomas, it met with great opposition, and was negatived in the common-hall; but upon more mature consideration afterwards several of the merchants and aldermen lent her majesty various sumg of money, to the value of 16,000l. for six months, at 6 per cent, interest for that time. She gave bonds to each of them separately for re-payment, and likewise -other accustomed bonds to discharge them of the statute of usury; and when the six months were expired, she prolonged the payment for six month? more, paying the same interest, with brokage. As her majesty was thus enabled to borrow money of her own subjects, instead of foreigners, and the commerce with Flanders, particularly Antwerp, was now prohibited, sir Thomas’s office as agent for her majesty in those parts, ceased of course. But in 1572, to shew her regard for him, she was pleased to appoint him, together with the archbishop of Canterbury, the bishop of London, and other persons of eminence, assistants to the lord mayor for the government of the city of London during her intended progress that summer. This method was afterwards continued on similar occasions, and sir Thomas Gresham was joined in the commission till 1578.

Our author was not then above twenty-two years of age, so that this post may be esteemed an honourable attestation of his merit. But the nature of it did not please him; his ambition prompted him to another course of life. He had already made some advances in the queen’s favour, had attained a competent familiarity with the modern languages, and some expertness in the martial exercises of those times; these were qualifications for a foreign employment, which was more agreeable to the activity of his temper, and promised a quicker access to some of the first posts in the state. In reality he was so eager to advance his fortune in this line, that to gratify his desire, he ventured to incur his royal mistress’s displeasure, and made several attempts in it, not only with, but even without her majesty’s consent. Out of many of these we have an account of the few following from his own pen. First, when the two mighty armies of Don John and the duke Casimire were to meet in the Low-countries, he applied and obtained her majesty’s leave under her own hand, to go thither; but after his horses with all other preparations were shipped at Dover, the queen (who always discouraged these excursions) sent her messenger, sir Edward Dyer, with her mandate to stop him. He was so much vexed at this disappointment, that afterwards, when secretary Walsingham was sent ambassador in 1578, to treat with those two princes, an opportunity of seeing an affair in which so much Christian blood and so many Christian empires were concerned, was so tempting, that he resolved not to risque a denial, and therefore stole away without leave, and went over with the secretary incog. The consequence was, that at his return the queen forbade him her presence for many months. To the same ambition may also be referred his engagement with sir Philip Sidney to accompany sir Francis Drake in his last expedition but one to the WestIndies in 1515, in which they were both frustrated by the same authority. Again, when the earl of Leicester was sent general of her majesty’s forces the same year, and had given Mr. Greville the command of one hundred horse, “Then I,” to use his own words, “giving my humour over to good order, yet found that neither the intercession of this grandee, seconded with my own humble suit, and many other honourable friends of mine, could prevail against the constant course of this excellent lady (the queen) with her servants, so as I was forced to tarry behind, and for this importunity of mine to change my course, and seem to press nothing before my service about her; this princess of government as well as kingdoms made me live in her court a spectacle of disfavour too long as I conceived.”

During his excursions abroad, his royal mistress granted him the reversion of two of the best offices in the court of the marches of Wales, one of which falling to him in 1580, he met with some difficulties about the profits. In this contest he experienced the friendship of sir Philip Sidney, who by a letter written to his father’s secretary, Mr. Molyneux, April 10, 1581, prevailed on him not to oppose his cousin Greville' s title in any part or construction of his patents; and a letter of sir Francis Walsingham to the president, the next day, April 11, put an end to the opposition that had been made from another quarter. This office appears to be clerk of the signet to the council of Wales, which is said to have brought him in yearly above 2000l. arising chiefly from the processes which went out of that court, all of which are made out by that officer. He was also constituted secretary for South and North Wales by the queen’s letters patent, bearing date April 25, 1583. In the midst of these civil employments he made a conspicuous figure when the French ambassadors, accompanied by great numbers of their nobility, were in England a second time to treat of the queen’s marriage with the duke of Anjou, in 1581. Tilts and tournaments were the courtly entertainments in those days; and they were performed in the most magnificent manner on this occasion by two noblemen, beside sir Philip Sidney and Fulk Greville, who with the rest behaved so bravely as to win the reputation of a most gallant knight. In 1586 these two friends were separated by the unfortunate death of the former, who be* queathed to his dear friend one moiety of his books.

If lady Jane received this letter in the country, it is probable she did not stay there long after, since some changes happened in the family which must have brought her to town; for, her maternal uncles, Henry and Charles Brandon, both dying at Buckden, the bishop of Lincoln’s palace, of the sweating sickness, her father was created duke of Suffolk, October 1551. Dudley earl of Warwick was also created duke of Northumberland the same day, and in November the duke of Somerset was imprisoned for a conspiracy against him as privy-counsellor. During this interval came the queen-dowager of Scotland from France, who, being magnificently entertained by king Edward, was also, among other ladies of the blood royal, complimented as her grandmother, by lady Jane, who was now at court, and much in the king’s favour. In the summer of 1552 the king made a great progress through some parts of England, during which, lady Jane went to pay her duty to his majesty’s sister, the lady Mary, at Newhall, in Essex; and in this visit her piety and zeal against popery prompted her to reprove the lady Anne Wharton for making a curtesy to the host, which, being carried by some officious person to the ear of the princess, was retained in her heart, so that she never loved lady Jane afterwards; and, indeed, the events of the following year were not likely to work a reconciliation.

The dukes of Suffolk and Northumberland, who were now, upon the fall of Somerset, grown to the height of their wishes in power, upon the decline of the king’s health in 1553, began to think how to prevent thui reverse of fortune which, as things then stood, they foresaw must happen upon his death. To obtain this end, no other remedy was judged sufficient but a ciiange in the succession of the crown, 'and transferring it into their own families. What other steps were taken, preparatory to this bolU attempt, may be seen in the general history, and is foreign to the plan of this memoir, which is concerned only in relating the part that was destined for lady Jane to act in the intended revolution: but this was the principal part; in reality the whole centered in her. Those excellent and amiable qualities, which had rendered her dear to all who had the happiness to know her, joined to her near affinity to the king, subjected her to become the chief tool of an ambition, notoriously not her own. Upon this very account she was married to the lord Guilford Dudley, fourth, son to the duke of Northumberland, without being acquainted with the real design of the match, which was ceJebrated with great pomp in the latter end of May, so much to the king’s satisfaction, that he contributed bounteously to the expence of it from the royal wardrobe. In the mean, time, though the populace were very far from being pleased with the exorbitant greatness of the duke of Northumberland, yet they could not help admiring the beauty and innocence which appeared in lord Guilford and his bride.

These previous steps being taken, and the tower and city of London secured, the council quitted Greenwich and came to London; and July 10, in the forenoon, the two last mentioned dukes repaired to Durham-house, where the lady Jane resided with her husband, as part of Northumberland’s family. There the duke of Suffolk with much solemnity explained to his daughter the disposition the late king had made of his crown by letters patent; the clear sense the privy-council had of her right; the consent of the magistrates and citizens of London; and, in conclusion, himself and Northumberland fell on their knees, and paid their homage to her as queen of England, The poor lady, somewhat astonished at their discourse, but not at all moved by their reasons, or in the least elevated by such unexpected honours, returned them an answer to this effect: “That the laws of the kingdom and natural right standing for the king’s sisters, she would beware of burdening her weak conscience with a yoke which did belong to them that she understood the infamy of those who had permitted the violation of right to gain a sceptre that it were to mock God and deride justice, to scruple at the stealing of a shilling, and not at the usurpation of a crown. Besides,” said she, “I am not so young, nor so little read in the guiles of fortune, to suffer myself to be taken bjr them. If she enrich any, it is but to make them the subject of her spoil; if she raise others, it is but to pleasure herself with their ruins what she adored but yesterday is to-day her pastime and, if I now permit her to adorn and crown me, 1 must to-morrow suffer her to crush and tear me to pieces. Nay, with what crown does she present me! a crown which hath been violently and shamefully wrested from Catharine of Arragon, made more unfortunate by the punishment of Anne Boleyn, and others that wore it after her: and why then would you have me add my blood to theirs, and be the third victim, from whom this fatal crown may be ravished with the head that wears it But in case it should not prove fatal unto me, and that all its venom were consumed, if fortune should give me warranties of her constancy, should I be well advised to take upon me these thorns, which would dilacerate, though not kill me outright; to burden myself with a yoke, which would not fail to torment me, though I were assured not to be strangled with it My liberty is better than the chain you proffer me, with what precious stones soever it be adorned, or of what gold soever framed. I will not exchange my peace for honourable and precious jealousies, for magnificent and glorious fetters. And, if you love me sincerely and in good earnest, you will rather wish me a secure and quiet fortune, though mean, than an exalted condition, exposed to the wind, and followed by some dismal fall.”

However, she was at length prevailed upon, by the exhortations ofher father, the intercession of her mother, the artful persuasions of Northumberland, and above all, the earnest desires of her husband, whom she tenderly loved, to yield her assent to what had been and was to be done. And thus, with a heavy heart, she suffered herself to be conveyed by water to the Tower, where she entered with all the state of a queen, attended by the principal nobility, and, which is very extraordinary, her train supported by the duchess of Suffolk, her mother, in whom, if in any of this line, the right of succession remained. About six in the afternoon she was proclaimed with all due solemnities in the city; the same day she also assumed the regal, and proceeded afterwards to exercise many acts of sovereignty; but, passing over the transactions of her short reign, which are the subject of general history, it is more immediately our business to conclude this article with her behaviour on her fall. Queen Mary was no sooner proclaimed, than the duke of Suffolk, who then resided with his daughter in the Tower, went to her apartment, and, in the softest terms he could, acquainted her with the situation of their affairs, and that, laying aside the state and dignity of a queen, she must again return to that of a private person to which, with a settled and serene countenance, she made this answer “I better brook this message than my former advancement to royalty out of obedience to you and my mother, I have grievously sinned, and offered violence to myself. Now I do willingly, and as obeying the motions of my soul, relinquish the crown, and endeavour to salve those faults committed by others (if at least so great a fault can be salved) by a willing relinquishment and ingenuous acknowledgement of them.”

Thus ended her reign, but not her misfortunes. She "saw the father of her husband, with all his family, and many of the nobility and gentry, brought prisoners to the tower for supporting her claim to the crown; and this grief must have met with some accession from his being soon after brought to the block. Before the end of the month, she had the mortification of seeing her own father, the duke of Suffolk, in the same circumstances with herself; but her mother, the duchess, not only remained exempt from all punishment, but had such an interest with the queen as 10 procure the duke his liberty on the last day of the month. Lady Jane and her husband, being stiil in confinement, were Nove'mber 3, 1553, carried from the Tower to Guildhall with Cranmer and others, arraigned and convicted of high treason before judge Morgan, who pronounced on them sentence of death, die remembrance of which afterwards affected him so far, that he died ravingHowever, the strictness of their confinement was mitigated in December, by a permission to take the air in the queen’s garden, and other little indulgences. This might give some gleams of hope; and there are reasons to believe the queen would have spared her life, if Wyat’s rebellion had not happened; but her father’s being engaged in that rebellion gave the ministers an opportunity of persuading the queen, that she could not be safe herself, while lady Jane and her husband were alive: yet Mary was not brought without much difficulty to take them off. The news made no great impression upon lady Jane the bitterness of death was passed she bad expected it long, and was so well prepared to meet her fate, that she was very little discomposed.

, a lady once of some note a a writer of novels and plays, whose maiden name was Griffith, was of Welch descent, and early in life married Richard Griffith, a gentleman of a good family, but reduced fortune, in Ireland. The first performance by which she became known was entitled “The Letters of Henry and Frances,” which are said to contain the genuine correspondence between her and her husband before their marriage, and for some years after. They were published at the particular request of Margaret countess of Cork, who was one of her friends, and privy to her connexion with Mr. Griffith, which was at first kept secret. From these letters, a few particulars of the private history of the parties may be collected. Mr. Griffith appears to have received no regular education, although in his youth he had evinced some talents for poetry; he introduced himself, however, by degrees into “the genteelest and most reputable company;” but tired of a city life, passed several years with a relation in the country of Ireland, where he read, learned French, and “studied husbandry philosophically.” He then engaged in a farm and the linen manufacture; and about 1760 appears to have received a place from the duke of Bedford, at that time lord lieutenant of Ireland. His acquaintance with Mrs. Griffith was accidental, and commenced on his parr, to use his own phrase, “as an act of gallantry” but rinding “no probability of success,” a strange declaration and being enafrioured with her writings, conversation, and character, became, at last, a real and honourable lover, but declined matrimony for several years, as she had no fortune, and his expectations from his father were much larger than they were likely to turn out. At length, however, they married, about the year 1752; and their first publication was this correspondence, published by subscription, and not very successful with any class of readers, not even the sentimentalists, for whom it was chiefly calculated. Some of the letters, however, are of a superior cast, and contain many sensible remarks on books, men, and manners. Their next publication, which was also written in conjunction, was “Two Novels, in Letters, 4 vols. the first and second, entitled Delicate Distress, by Frances the third and fourth, entitled the Gordian Knot, by Henry,” 1769, 12mo. Both these are of a strict moral tendency; but, like the correspondence of the authors, too much tinged with the pedantry of quotation and philosophizing, instead of natural description and feeling. Previously to this, Mr. Griffith had published in 1764, “The Triumvirate; or the authentic Memoirs of A. B. and C.” 2 vols. 12mo, a novel of so Joose a kind, that even his wife could not venture to recommend it to the fair sex, and yet adds her opinion that “every gentleman will read it with pleasure, and I trust without any injury to his morals.” Of Mr. Griffith’s performances we hear no more, nor have been able to ascertain the time of his death. Mrs. Griffith’s other novels were “Lady Barton,” and “Juliana HarJey.” She also wrote some dramas which had various success, but none of them have preserved their station on the stage. One of her most agreeable publications svas “The Morality of Shakspeare’s Drama illustrated,” 1775, 8vo. She published also some translations, “The Adventures of Pierre Viaud,” and the “Letters of Ninon de L'Enclos,” c. She died Jan. 3, 1793, at Millecenr, in the county of Kildare. She was unquestionably a woman of considerable literary talents, but does not appear to have found in her lover and husband the judgment which could give them a proper direction. Nor did he contribute much to bar happiness in his latter days. He had long accustomed himself to the cant of sentiment, which is too frequently mistaken for genuine moral feeling. When in his grand climacteric, he seduced a girl of fortune and consequence, with whom he lived the reminder of his days. The libehine notions in his “ Triumvirate” appear to have been more predominant sense he affected to entertain of pure morals in his “Letters.”

He had apparently other views at that time, for having experienced many advantages to his literary pursuits by his visit to England, he resolved to see France. In his tour thither, he passed through the cities of Brabant and Flanders; and arriving at Paris, was received with all the respect due to his father’s reputation and his own merit, which presently brought him into the acquaintance of Chaplain, d'Herbelot, Thevenot, and several other persons of distinguished learning. This satisfaction was somewhat damped by the news of his father’s death in 1672 soon after which he left Paris to attend Mr. Paats, ambassador extraordinary from the States-general to the court of Spain. They set out in the spring of 1672; and our author went thence into Italy, where, visiting Tuscany, he was entertained with extraordinary politeness by the great duke, who, among other marks of esteem, gave him a very considerable stipend, and the professor’s place of Pisa, vacant by the death of Chimentel. This nomination was the more honourable, both as he had the famous Henry Norris, afterwards a cardinal, for his colleague; and as he obtained it by the recommendation of Magliabecchi, whom he frequently visited at Florence, where he had an opportunity of consulting the Mss. in the Medicean library.

Having spent two years in Tuscany, he quitted his professorship; and visiting Venice and Padua, he passed through Germany to Leyden, whence he went to take possession of an estate left him by his mother’s brother, at Deventej. Here he sat down closely to his studies, and was employed in preparing an edition of Livy in 1679, when he was nominated to a professor’s place at Ley den, which he accepted; and by his inaugural speech obtained an augmentation to the salary of 400 florins a year, which was continued to his death. He was particularly pleased with the honour shewn to his merit; and Leyden being the city preferred by him, as the place of his education and his father’s residence, he resolved never to leave it for the sake of any other preferment. In this view he refused the chair of the celebrated Octavio Ferrari at Padua, and declined the invitation of Frederic duke of Sleswick to accept u considerable stipend for a lecture at Kell, in Holstein. This post was offered him in 1696, and two years afterwards the Venetian ambassador at the Hague made him larger offers to engage him to settle at Padua; but he withstood all attempts to draw him from Leyden, as his father had done before him and, to engage him firmer to them, in 1702, the curators of that university gave him the lecture of geography, with the same augmentation to the stipend as had been given to his predecessor Philip Cluverius.

But no city ventured publicly to protect him; and the States-General, thinking themselves affronted by this boldness in continuing in the country without their leave, and by the repugnance he shewed to ask them pardon, issued an ordinance, December 10, 1631, enjoining all bailiffs of the country to seize his person, and give them notice: yet such was the general sympathy of his countrymen, that no person would execute it; and, to employ himself till his fate should be determined, he resolved to follow the business of a chamber-counsel. With this view he desired his brother, in a letter dated February 16, 1632, to send him what law books he might want for that office but of these he could make no long use; for, the States-General on March 10 renewed their ordinance, upon pain to those who would not obey, of lo.sing their places, and with a promise of 2000 florins to any one who should deliver him into the hands of justice. Upon this he thought proper to seek for an asylum elsewhere; and, on March 17, he set out from Amsterdam on his way to Hamburgh, and passed the fine season at an agreeable seat called Okenhuse, near the Elbe, belonging to William Morth, a Dutchman. On the approach of winter, he went to Hamburgh, and lodged with one Van Sorgen. a merchant: but the town did not prove agreeable to him, and he passed his time but heavily till the return of his wife from Zealand in autumn 1633. She had always been his consolation in adversity, and rendered all his sufferings more tolerable, not more by her affection, than by her good sense, and resources of mind. Her business at Zealand was to collect the remains of their fortune, which she probably brought with her to HambufgnY While he continued here, some advantageous proposal? were made him from Spain, Poland, Denmark, the duke 1 of Holstein, and several other princes; but still entertaining the thought of a reconciliation with his native country, it was long before he could be prevailed upon to abandon it, to which measure the following circumstances at last contributed.

, an eminent divine and critical scholar, was born at Cobourg in 1723, where his father was aulic counsellor to the duke of Saxe-Cobourg. He was educated in his infancy at home under private tutors. In his thirteenth year he was sent to Weisenborn, and placed under the care of John Faccius, an eminent classical scholar, and after a year’s residence here went to the university of Casimir, where he enjoyed the instructions and lectures of Berger, Albrecht, and other eminent professors. In 1742 he removed to Jena, where he pursued his studies with great diligence and success, and took his degrees in philosophy, In 1764 he was invited to be professor of theology at Halle, and died there in 1778. His talents are represented to have been very various, and his diligence indefatigable. He published a new edition of “Cselius Sedulius,” with various commentaries, “An Introduction to Roman Antiquities,” “Miscellanea Sacra,” “Various critical Remarks on the Classics,” new editions of Eutropius, printed at Cobourg in 1752, and reprinted with additions, 1768, and of Velleius Paterculus, Cobourg, 1762, &c.

After taking his degree, he went to Antwerp, to his fa ther, who had returned thither as soon as the States had possessed themselves of it; but, when the city was threatened with a siege by the duke of Parma in 15S4-, was sent to France, where he resided some years, and then visited other countries. The particular route and circumstances of his travels afterwards are not known; but it appears that he read public lectures upon the Classics at Rostock, particularly on Suetonius. He was in Prussia, when Christian, duke of Saxony, offered him the chair of hi story -professor in the university of Wittemburg; which place he enjoyed but a few months: for, upon the death of that prince, his successors desiring the professors to subscribe the act of concord on pain of forfeiting their places, Gruterus chose rather to resign than subscribe a confession of faith which he could not reconcile to his conscience. He was treated with particular seventy on this occasion for, while two others who were deprived on the same account, had half a year’s salary allowed them by way of gratification, according to the custom of those countries, with regard to persons honourably discharged; yet in the case of Gruterus, they did not defray even the expences of his journey. Where he went immediately after this does not appear; but we are told, that, being at Padua at the time of Riccoboni’s death, that professor’s place was offered to him, together with liberty of conscience: the salary too was very considerable, yet he refused all these advantages. He was apprehensive that so profitable and honourable an employment would expose him to the attacks of envy, and he would not submit to the bare exercise of his religion in private. He was therefore much better pleased with an invitation to Heidelberg, where he filled the professor’s chair with great reputation for many years; and, in 1602, had the direction of that famous library, which was afterwards carried to Rome.

This employ suited his genius, and soon after he published the most useful of his works, his large collection of inscriptions, whjch is dedicated to the emperor Rodolphus II. who bestowed great encomiums upon it, and gave Gruterus the choice of his own reward. He answered that he would leave it to the emperor’s pleasure, only begged it might not be pecuniary. In the same temper, upon hearing there was a design to give him a coat of arms, in order to raise the dignity of his extraction, he declared, that, so far from deserving a new coat of arms, he was too much burthened with those which had devolved to him from his ancestors. The emperor was then desired to grant him a general licence for all the books of his own publishing, which he not only consented to, but also granted him a privilege of licensing others. His majesty also intended to create him a count of the sacred palace; and the patent was actually drawn, and brought to be ratified by his sign manual; but this monarch happening to die in the interim, it was left without the signature, which it never afterwards received. Yet Gruterus bestowed the same encomiums on the good emperor as if it had been completed; and his privilege of licensing books continued to be of great advantage to him, being one of the most voluminous writers of his age. This task he was the better enabled to execute by the help of his library, which was large and curious, having cost him no less than twelve thousand crowns in gold; but the whole was destroyed or plundered, together with the city of Heidelberg, in 1622. Oswald Smendius, his son-in-law, endeavoured in vain to save it, by writing to one of the great officers of the duke of Bavaria’s troops; but the licentiousness of the soldiers could not be restrained. Afterwards he went to Heidelberg, and having witnessed the havock that had been made at his father’s house, he tried to save at least what Gruterus’s amanuensis had lodged in the elector’s libra^, and brought the Pope’s commission to give him leave to remove them. He received for answer, that as to the Mss. the pope had ordered them all to be sought for carefully, and carried to Home; but as to the printed books, leave would be given to restore them to Gruterus, provided it was approved by Tilly under his hand: but this pretended favour prove4 of no effect, as no access could be had to Tilly,

Guarino had the misfortune to be early involved in family law-suits, and had to apply for the heritage of his grandfather and grand- uncle in opposition to francis Guahuo, his father, who has left no other character than that of a keen sportsman, and who was the only one of the family that had no taste for literature. Having lost his first wife, he married again to injure his son’s interest; hut the duke Hercules II. interposed, and assigned to our poet a proportion of the family property, which was very considerable. Battista married himself about this time Taddea Bendedei, a lady of a noble family of Ferrara.

In his thirtieth year he entered into the service of the duke Alphonso II.; but there seems some difficulty in understanding the order and nature of the business on which he was employed, and the origin of the title of knight which is usually joined to his name, and which he had engraven on the seal with which he sealed his letters. It is probable, however, that the duke bestowed this title on him as a necessary appendage to the rank of ambassador. The first office of this kind which he filled, was in 1567, when he was sent to Venice, with the congratulations of the duke Alphonso to the new doge Pier Loredano, and the address which he spoke on this occasion being printed, gave the Italian literati a very favourable idea of his talents. The duke then sent him as resident ambassador to Emmanuel Philebert, duke of Savoy, and after continuing there some years, he was sent to Rome in 1571, to compliment pope Gregory XIII. as successor to Pius V. He arrived by post in the evening, passed the night in writing his address, and delivered it next morning in a full consistory. Two years afterwards, the duke sent him to Germany to the emperor Maximilian, whence he went to Poland, to congratulate Henry of Valois on his accession to the throne, in 1571.

After his return to Ferrara, he spent his time in the service of his prince, in study, and in managing some lawsuits, from which it was his misfortune to be seldom free; but finding still more fatigue and uneasiness in attending the court, he made these law-suits a pretext for asking leave to resign, which was granted. Become now his own master, at the age of forty-five years, fifteen of which he had spent in a service by no means of any advantage to himself, he retired in 1582, with his family to la Guarina, a pleasant country-seat at Polesina de Itovigo, which duke Borso had presented to his grand-father, as a reward for his services as envoy in France. Here he determined to pass the five finest months of the year, and the rest at Padua. He had now eight children, three sons and five daughters; he was also involved in lawsuits and in debts; all his time and every effort appeared necessary to recover from such a situation, and he seems at one time to have despaired of finding any leisure to cultivate polite literature. After he had been, however, quietly settled at this country seat, he found that he could relax a little from his more serious and pressing occupations. The fame which accompanied the publication of Tasso’s “Aminta” recalled Guarino’s attention to a work which he had sketched many years before, and had occasionally touched and re-touched, but without completing it. Tasso and he, we have already observed, were friends in their youth, but when they met at the court of Ferrara, rivulship in, court gallantries and poetry had separated them. Some satirical sonnets passed between them, but here their animosity ended, and they henceforth had the liberality to do justice to each other’s talents. Tasso’s misfortunes were now begun, and Guarino, shocked at the incorrect manner in which the first editions of the “Jerusalem delivered” were printed without the knowledge of the author, took every pains to prepare it for a correct edition, and bestowed the same care on the other published works of that poqt. The only thing be would not yield toTasso was superiority, and though unable to rival him in his larger poems, he thought he could surpass him in pastoral, and his “Pastor Fido” was to be the criterion. Besides submitting the manuscript to some men of taste, he read it before the duke Ferdinand II. of Gonzaga, at Guastalla, and a large company, composed of poets, admirers of poetry, and ladies of the first rank and taste, who were unbounded in their applauses. It is said to have been first performed at Turin in 1585, where were celebrated the nuptials of Charles Emmanuel to the infanta Catherine, daughter of Philip II. of Spain. This, however, appears doubtful, although it is more clear that it was much read on this occasion, and that the fame which it required reached the ears of Guarino’s old master, duke Alphonso, who invited him most pressingly, to return to Ferrara, with the title of secretary of state.

Having accepted this offer, he was employed, as formerly, on missions to Umbria, Milan, and other places, but now his tranquillity was disturbed by a domestic affair, in which he fancied he had been improperly treated;Alexander, his eldest son, who, in 1587, had married a rich heiress, niece to cardinal Canani, being weary of living under the subjection of his father, and disgusted, whether justly or not, with the treatment he met with from him, resolved to leave his house, and live apart with his wife. Guarino was so highly offended at their departure, that he immediately seized their income, on pretence of debts due to him for money expended at their marriage. His son, deprived of his income for nine months, at last applied to the duke of Ferrara to interpose his authority, which he did, commanding the chief judge to take cognizance of the affair, who immediately decided it in favour of Alexander. This sentence exasperated the father still more; so that, looking on it as a proof that the duke had no regard for him, he addressed a letter to him in the most respectful but strongest terms, to be dismissed the service; which the duke granted, though not without intimating some displeasure at Guarino, for shewing so little regard to the favours he had conferred on him. The treatment, however, which Tasso had suffered was a recent lesson for the poets who iiad the misfortune to be patronized by Alphonso, and Guarino immediately went into the service of the duke of Savoy, where he had some reason to expect a better lot; but here he did not remain many months; and during a year of repose in the country, he resumed his labours on his favourite pastoral, which at length was published in 1590, at Venice, 4to, and the same year at Ferrara, in 12mo. The great applause which he received from this poem, was followed by a most severe loss in the death of his wile, Dec. 25, 1590, at Padua. This misfortune appears to have greatly affected him. His two eldest sons had left him two of his daughters were married three others he had placed in convents and from being surrounded by a numerous family, he was now left with one boy only often years old. In this desolate state he appears to have entertained thoughts of going to Home and becoming an ecclesiastic. He was, however, diverted from this step by an invitation received in 1592 from the duke of Mantua, who sent him to Inspruck to negociate some affairs at the archduke’s court. But he afterwards was dismissed this service, as he had been that of Ferrara, by the solicitations of duke Alphonso; who, it is said, could not bear that a subject of his, of Guarino’s merit, should serve other princes. Thus persecuted, he went to Rome apparently with the design just mentioned, but was again prevented from executing it by a reconciliation with Alphonso, which brought him back to Ferrara in 1595. This reconciliation was obtained by his son Alexander, who was very much beloved at court. However, fresh quarrels between father and son soon broke out again, which were afterwards carried to a great height; and, great changes happening upon the death of Alphonso in 1597, Guarino thought himself ill used, and left Ferrara to go to Ferdinand de Medicis, grand duke of Tuscany, who expressed a great esteem for him.

But here again an unlucky accident cut short his hopes; he carried with him to Florence Guarino Guarini, his third son, but fifteen years of age, and sent him to Pisa to complete his studies in that city. There the youth fell in love with a noble but poor widow, named Cassandra Pontaderi, and married her. Guarino no sooner heard the news, but suspecting the grand duke was privy to the marriage, and even promoted it, he left his service abruptly; and, returning to Ferrara, went thence to the prince of Urbino, but in a year’s time came back to Ferrara, in 1604. He was sent the same year by the magistrates of the city of Rome, to congratulate Paul V. on his elevation to the papal chair. This was probably his last public employ. He resided at Ferrara till 1609, going occasionally to Venice to attend his law-suits, which carried him in 1610 to Rome, where they were determined in his favour. Passing through Venice on his return home, he was seized, in his inn there, with the distemper which put a period to his life, October 7, 1612, when he was seventy-four years of age.

Gudius and Schas set out for Germany, July 1664; but their excursion was short, for they returned to the Hague in December. They went over to England, some time before they went to Germany: but no particulars of this journey are recorded. Gudius continued at the Hague till 1671, refusing to accept any thing, though two professorships were offered him; and then went to settle in his own country, yet without disuniting himself from his pupil, with whom he had lived long as an intimite friend. Heinsius tells Ezekiei Spanheim in a letter, August 1671, that Gudius was made librarian and counsellor to the duke of Holstein; and in another to Fulconieri, June 1672, that he was married. In 1674 he was sent by tbat prince to the court of Denmark and, December 1675, was informed at the Hague, that Schas was dead at Holstein, and had left his estate to Gudius, with legacies to Graevius, Gronovius, Heinsius, and other learned men: which legacies, however, were revoked in a codicil. The will was contested by the relations of Schas; but Gudius carried the estate, and, as Heinsius relates in a letter, 1676, from that time is said to have discontinued his correspondence with his learned friends in Holland, which we cannot be surprized at, if it be true, as suspected, that he had some hand in the will by which Schas left him his estate. Graevius remarks that he was not only expert at explaining old manuscripts, but also in making new ones.

In 1678, he was irretrievably disgraced with his prince, which created him much affliction, as his learning had not freed his mind from avarice and ambition. However, he was a little comforted afterwards, by being made counsellor to the king of Denmark. He died, somewhat immaturely, in 1689 Burman calls his death immature; and it is certain he could not be old. Though it was constantly expected from him, yet he never published any thing of consequence. At Jena, in 1657, came out a thesis of his, “De Clinicis, sive Grabatariis veteris Ecclesise:” and in 1661, when he was at Paris, he published “Hippolyti Martyris de Antichristo librum, Grace,” a piece never printed before. His Mss. however, with his own collations, he communicated to Gronovius, Graevius, Heinsius, and others, who all considered him as excellent in philology and criticism. “Ingenio & doctrina recondita in primis hujus saeculi conspicuus Marquardus Gudius,” are the words of Graevius, in his preface to “Florus:” and Burman, who was far from being lavish of praise, speaks of him in the highest terms, in the preface to “Phaedrus,” which he published at Amsterdam in 1698, merely for the sake of Gudius’s notes. To this edition are added four new fables, which Gudius extracted from a ms. at Dijon, Burman had published in 4to, the year before, at Utrecht, “A Collection of Epistles of Gudius and his Friends/* whence these memoirs of him are taken: and, in 1731, came out” Antiquae Inscriptiones, cum Graecae torn Latinae, olim a Marquardo Gudio collectae, nuper a Joanne Koolio digestae, hortatu consilioque Joamiis Georgii Graevii; nunc a Francisco Hesselio edit*, cum annotationibus eofum," Leuwardiae, folio. About the beginning of the last century, the duke of Wolfenbutel purchased Gudius’s manuscripts, and employed Leibnitz in making the bargain, as well as in transporting them to his library. They consisted of a vast number of early Mss. of Greek and Latin authors, many of which had never been used.

The few specimens left of Guercino’s first manner, are at Bologna and Cento; of the second, are, in general, all he painted at Rome in fresco or in oil, the Aurora in the Villa Ludovisi, the St. Petronilla now in the Louvre, and the Dido in the Spada collection, and of that style is the cupola of the dome in Piacenza; of the third manner, though it bears many traces of the second, the picture of the Circumcision, once at Bologna, now in the Louvre, is the most celebrated. Guercino was invited to Rome by Gregory XV. and after two years spent there with much success, returned home whence he could not be drawn by the most powerful allurements from either the kings of England or France. Nor could Christina, queen of Sweden, prevail with him to leave Bologna, though in her p-ssage through it she made him a visit, and would not be satisfied till she had taken him by the hand; “that hand,” said she, “which had painted 106 altar-pieces, 144 pictures for people of the first quality in Europe, and had, besides, composed ten books of designs.” He received the honour of knighthood from the duke of Mantua. He died a bachelor in 1666, very rich, notwithstanding vast sums of money, which he had expended in building chapels, founding hospitals, and other acts of charity: for, it is reported, that he was every where as much venerated for his exemplary piety and charity, as for his knowledge and skill in his profession.

, a French physician and botanist, was born at Estampes, September 22, 1715, and was admitted a doctor of the faculty of medicine of Paris in 1742. He distinguished himself in the study of botany and mineralogy, and his reputation procured for him admission into the academies of science of Paris, Stockholm, Florence, and Rochelle, as well as the situations of censor royal, and of keeper of the cabinet of natural history belonging to the duke of Orleans. He travelled much in quest of knowledge, and he published in the collection of the academy of sciences, and printed in two quarto volumes, nearly two hundred memoirs, on different parts of natural history. He likewise published some “Observations on Plants,” Paris, 1747, 2 vols. 12mo. He died Jan. 7, 1786. The Guetfarda, in botany, was so named by Linnæus in honour of him. Guettard assisted La Borde in that splendid work entitled " Voyage pitto^ resque, ou Description generale et particuliere de la France,' 1 1781 1796, 12 vols. fol.

His merit in this government recommended him, in 1521, to that of Parma, whence he drove away the French, and confirmed the Parmesans in their obedience; and this at a time when the holy see was vacant by the death of Leo, and the people he commanded full of fears, disheartened, and unarmed. He retained the same post under Adrian VI, to whom he discovered the dangerous designs of Alberto Pio da Carpi, and got him removed from the government of Reggio and Rubiera. Clement VII. on his exaltation to the pontificate, confirmed him in that government. This pope was of the house of Medici, to which Guicciardini was particularly attached; and, in return, we find him presently raised to the highest dignities in the ecclesiastical state. Having in 1523 prevented the duke of Ferrara from seizing Modena, the pope, in acknowledgement thereof, not only made him governor of that city, but constituted him president of Romagna, with unlimited authority. This was a post of great dignity and power, yet as factions then ran very high, the situation was both laborious and dangerous. However, he not only by his prudence overcame all these difficulties, but found means, in the midst of them, to improve the conveniences and delight of the inhabitants. Their towns which lay almost in rubbish, he embellished with good houses and stately buildings; a happiness, of which they were so sensible, that it rendered the name of Guicciardini dear to them, and they were overjoyed, when, after a farther promotion of Francis, they understood he was to be succeeded in his government by his brother. This happened June 6,

Guicciardini did not remain continually at Bologna, but divided his time between that city and Florence. In February this year, he sent a letter of instructions to Florence; and in April received orders from the Pope to reform the state there, and to put Alessandro in the possession of the government. Wise and prudent, however, as he was, discontents and faction at length arose. As long as Clement sat in the papal chair, the discontented murmured only in private; but upon that Pope’s death, in 1534, the disgust shewed itself openly: two noblemen in particular, Castelli and Pepoli, who till then had been fugitives, entered the city at noon-day, with a retinue of several of their friends, and some outlawed persons, well armed. The governor, looking upon this as done in contempt of his person, meditated how to revenge the affront. One evening two proscribed felons, under Pepoli’s protection, were taken up by the officers as they were walking the streets, and carried to prison: and Guicciardini, without any farther process, ordered them to be immediately executed. Pepoli, highly incensed, assembled a number of hrs friends, and was going in quest of the governor to seek his revenge, when the senate sent some their members to desire him to return home, and not to occasion a tumult, which> for fear of disobliging that body, he complied with. It was this good disposition of the senate towards him, which prevailed with Guicciardini to remain in the government after the death of Clement. He foresaw that the people would no longer submit to his commands, and therefore had resolved to quit the government; but the senate, considering that many disorders might happen, if they were left without a governor in the time of the vacant see, begged him to continue, promising that he should have all the assistance requisite. To this he at last consented; and, with true magnanimity and firmness of mind, despising the danger that threatened him, remained in the city, till he understood that a new governor was appointed, when he resolved to quit the place. Some time after his arrival in Florence, upon the death of the duke, he had influence enough in the senate to procure the election of Cosmo, son of John de Medici, to succeed in the sovereignty. But, though he had interested himself so much in the election, yet he soon quitted the court, and meddled in public affairs no farther than by giving his advice occasionally, when required. He was now past fifty, an age when business becomes disgusting to persons of a reflecting turn. His chief wish was, that he might live long enough, in a quiet recess, to finish his history. In this resolution he retired to his delightful country-seat at Emma, where he gave himself up entirely to the work; nor could he be drawn from it by all the intreaties and advantageous offers that were made him by pope Paul III. who, in the midst of his retirement, passing from Nice to Florence, earnestly solicited our historian, first in person, then by letters, and at last by the mediation of cardinal Ducci, to come to Rome. But he was proof against all solicitations, and, excusing himself in a handsome manner to his holiness, adhered closely to his great design; so that, though he enjoyed this happy tranquillity a few years only, yet in that time he brought his history to a conclusion; and had revised the whole, except the four last books , when he was seized with a fever, May 27, 1540, of which he died.

, an ingenious and judicious French historian in the seventeenth century, was a native of Macon, and advocate at Bourg-en-Brasse. He distinguished himself by his works, and was loaded with favours from the duke of Savoy for his excellent “Hist. Genealogique de la Maison Royale de Savoie,” 1660, 2 vols. fol. He died September 8, 1664, aged 57, after having embraced the Catholic religion; and left, besides the work above-mentioned, “Une Suite Chronologique des Eveques de Belley,” 4to. “Hist.de Brasse et de Bugey,” 1650, fol. much esteemed, and “Hist, de la Principaute* de Dombes,” never printed; also a collection of the most remarkable acts and titles of the Province of Brasse and Bugey, entitled “Bibliotheca Sebnsiana,” 1666, 4to.

, an Italian poet, was born at Pavia^ in Milan, 1650, and sent to Parma at sixteen years of age. His uncommon talents for poetry recommended him so powerfully at court, that he received great encouragement from the duke. He composed some pieces at that time, which, though they savoured of the bad taste thei> prevailing, yet shewed genius, and a capacity for better things. He had afterwards a desire to see Rome, and, in 1683, going thither by the permission of the duke of Parma, and being already known by his poems y found no difficulty in being introduced to persons of the first distinctiort. Among others, Christina queen of Sweden wished to see him; and was so pleased with a poem, which he composed at her request, that she had a great desire to retain him at her court. The term allowed him by the duke being expired, he returned to Parma; but the queen having signified her desire to that prince’s resident at Rome, and the duke being acquainted with it, Guidi was sent back to Rome in May 1685.

His abode in this city was highly advantageous to him; for, being received into the academy which was held at the queen of Sweden’s, he became acquainted with several of the learned who were members of it. He began then to read the poems of Dante, Petrarch, and Chiabrara; which reformed the bad taste he had contracted. The reading of these and other good authors entirely changed his manner of writing; and the pieces he wrote afterwards were of quite a different style and taste. Though the queen of Sweden was very kind to him, and obtained a good benefice for him from Innocent XI. yet he did not cease to feel the esteem of his master the duke of Parma, but received from him a pension, which was paid very punctually. The death of his royal patroness happened in 1689, but he did not leave Rome; lor the duke of Parma gave him an apartment in his palace there, and his loss was abundantly recompensed by the liberality of many persons of quality. In July 1691, he was made a member of the academy of Arcadi at Rome, under the name of Erilo Cleoneo, nine months after its foundation, and was one of its chief ornaments. Clement XI. who knew him well, and did him kind offices while he was a cardinal, continued his favours to him after he was raised to the pontificate.

, or more properly Gustavus Ericson, king of Sweden, was the son of Eric Vasa, and descended from the ancient kings of Sweden. He was born in 1490. His great passion was the love of glory, and this difficulties and dangers increased rather than diminished. He lived at a time when the greatest part of the wealth of Sweden was in the hands of the clergy, when every nobleman was, in his own territories, a sovereign, and, lastly, when Steeno was administrator of the realm. In the war which was originally prosecuted betwixt the Swedes and Christian king of Denmark, this last, having got Gustavus into his power, kept him a prisoner many years in Denmark. He at length made his escape, and through innumerable dangers got back to his native country, where, for a long period, he used every effort to rouse his countrymen to resist and repel their invaders and victorious enemies. In this, however, he was not successful; and Christian of Denmark having got possession of Stockholm and Coltnar, exercised the cruelest tyranny on all ranks, and in one day put to death ninety-four nobles, among whom was the father of Gustavus. Gustavus at length prevailed on the Dalecarlians to throw off the yoke; and, at the 4 head of a considerable body of forces, entered the provinces of Halsingia, Gestricia, and some others. After a series of desperate adventures, temporary successes, and frequent defeats; he recovered Upsal; for which disappointment Christian put to death the mother and sister of Gustavus in cruel torments. Having overcome East Gothland, and blockaded Stockholm, he convened the Staters-General, and was by them offered the title of King. This he refused, and was satisfied with the regal power, and title of administrator. A short time afterwards, a revolution took place in Denmark; Christian was driven from his dominions; and Frederic duke of Holstein, uncle of Christian, was made his successor. There was now nothing to oppose Gustavus; he therefore summoned the States to meet at Stregnez, filled up the vacancies of the senate, and was proclaimed king with the usual forms of election. He also prevailed on the States to render the crown hereditary to the male heirs; and, to make the life of Gustavus yet more remarkable in history, it was in his reign that Lutheranism was established as the natural religion of Sweden. The latter part of his life was spent in cultivating the arts of peace, and in decorating his metropolis with noble edifices. He died at Stockholm, of a gradual decay, on the 9th of September, 1560, in the seventieth year of his age, and was quietly succeeded in his throne by his eldest sou Eric.

, an eminent critic, was born of a good family at Angers, in 1575. He lost his father and mother when a child; and the small estate they left him was wasted by the imprudence of his guardians. He applied himself, however, intensely to books; and, with a view to improve himself by the conversation of learned men, he took a journey to Paris in 1599. The acquaintance he formed with the sons of Claudius du Puy proved very advantageous to him; for, the most learned persons in Paris frequently visited these brothers, and many of them met every day in the house of Thuanus, where Mess, du Puy received company. After the death of that president, they held those conferences in the same place; and Guyet constantly made one. He went to Rome in 1608, and applied himself to the Italian tongue with such success as to be able to write Italian verses. He was much esteemed by cardinal du Perron and several great personages. He returned to Paris by the way of Germany, and was taken into the house of the duke d'Epernon, to teach the abbot de Granselve, who was made cardinal de la V alette in 1621. His noble pupil, who conceived so great an esteem for him as always to entrust him with his most important affairs, took him to Rome, and procured him a good benefice; but Guyet, after his return to Paris, chose to live a private life rather than in the house of the cardinal, and resided in Burgundy college. Here he spent the remainder of his life, employed in his studies; and wrote a dissertation, in which he pretended to shew that the Latin tongue was derived from the Greek, and that all the primitive words of the latter consisted only of one syllable; but of this they found, after his death, only a vast compilation of Greek and Latin words, without any order or coherence, and without any preface to explain his project. But the reading of the ancient authors was his favourite employment, and the margins of his classics were full of notes, many of which have been published. Those upon Hesiod were imparted to Graevius, who inserted them in his edition of that author, 1667. The most complete collection found among his papers was his notes upon Terence; and therefore they were sent to Boeclerus, and afterwards printed. He took great liberties as a critic: for he rejected as supposititious all such verses as seemed to him not to savour of the author’s genius. Thus he struck out many verses of Virgil discarded the first ode in Horace and would not admit the secret history of Procopius. Notwithstanding the boldness of his criticisms, and his free manner of speaking in conversation, he was afraid of the public; and dreaded Salmasius in particular, who threatened to write a book against him if he published hjs thoughts about some passages in ancient authors. He was generally accounted a man of great learning, and is said to have been a sincere and honest man. He was cut for the stone in 1636; excepting which, his long life was hardly attended with any illness. He died of a catarrh, after three days illness, in the arms of James du Puy, and Menage his countryman, April 12, 1655, aged eighty. His life is written in Latin, with great judgment and politeness, by Mr. Portner, a senator of Ratisbon, who took the supposititious name of Antonius Periander Rhaetus; and is prefixed to his notes upon Terence, printed with those of Boeclerus, at Strasburg, in 1657, an edition in no great estimation.

Gyllenborg afterwards waited on Charles XII. and was appointed, with baron Goertz, minister-plenipotentiary at the conferences of pacification which were opened with the court of Russia in the isle of Aland, but which terminated without success. In 1719 he was raised to the dignity of high chancellor of Sweden. In the beginning of the following year he also acted an important part in the negociations respecting the accession of Frederick I. to the throne, and gained constantly greater influence during the reign of this monarch, who appointed him counsellor of the Swedish empire, and chancellor of the university of Lund; and in 1739, when a great change took place in the senate and ministry, in which he took an active part, he was made president of chancery, minister for the foreign and home departments, and soon after chancellor of tin* university of Upsal. He died Dec. 14, 1746, with a high character for political talent, general learning, and ambition to promote learning and science in his country. He left to the university of Upsal, his valuable cabinet of natural history, remarkable for a great number of amphibious productions and corals, which Linnæus has described under the title “Amphibia Gyllenborgiana.” He appears also to have been a man of a religious turn of mind, from his translating into the Swedish language Sherlock’s “Discourse on Death,” but which he could not get licensed, as the Swedish clergy pretended to find some things in it contrary to sound doctrine. He procured it, therefore, to be printed in Holland, and distributed the whole edition for the benefit of his countrymen. He als* translated some English comedies, with alterations suitable to the genius of the Swedes, which were acted with applause at Stockholm. He had a concern in a periodical paper called the “Argus,” printed at Stockholm, but which, owing to the editor meddling imprudently with politics, appears to have been discountenanced. The count married an English lady, second daughter of John Wright, esq. attorney-general of Jamaica, and widow of Elias Deritt, esq. deputy o'f the great wardrobe under the duke of Montague, by whom he had no issue; the counts of his name in Sweden are his collateral relations. His lady’s daughter by Mr. Deritt, accompanying her mother to Sweden, was created countess Gyllenborg, and afterwards married Baron Sparre, on whose dqath she returned to England, where she died in 1766, and her daughter by the Baron died at Thirske in Yorkshire in 1778.

, a French historian, of an ancient family, was born at Bourdeaux about 1535. He went to court at twenty years of age, and in 1556 and 1557 was secretary to Francis de Noailles, bishop of Acqs, in his embassies to England and Venice. After that, his first appearance in the republic of letters was in the quality of a poet and translator. In 1559, he published a poem, entitled “The Union of the Princes, by the Marriages of Philip King of Spain and the Lady Elizabeth of France, and of Philibert Emanuel Duke of Savoy, and the Lady Margaret of France;” and another entitled “The Tomb of the most Christian King Henry II.” In 1560 he published an abridged translation of “Tully’s Offices, 7 ' and of” Eutropius’s Roman History;“and, in 1568, of” The Life of JEmilius Probus.“He applied himself afterwards to the writing of history, and succeeded so well, that by his first performances of this nature, he obtained of Charles IX. the title of Historiographer of France 1571. He had published the year before at Paris a book entitled” Of the State and Success of the Affairs of France;“which was reckoned very curious, and was often reprinted. He augmented it in several successive editions, and dedicated it to Henry IV. in 1594: the best editions of it are those of Paris 1609 and 1613, in 8vo. He had published also the same year a work entitled” Of the Fortune and Power of France, with a Summary Discourse on the Design of a History of France:“though Niceron suspects that this may be the same with” The Promise and Design of the History of France," which he published in 1571, in order to let Charles IX. see what he might expect from him in support of the great honour he had conferred of historiographer of France. In 1576, he published a history, which reaches from Phararnond to the death of Charles VII. and was the first who composed a body of the French history in French. Henry III. shewed his satisfaction with this by the advantageous and honourable gratifications he made the author. The reasons which induced de Haillan to conclude his work with Charles Vllth’s death were, that the event beingrecent, he must eitlier conceal the truth, or provoke the resentment of men in power, but he afterwards promised Henry IV. to continue this history to his time, as may be seen in his dedication to him of this work in 1594; nothing however of this kind was found among his papers after his death: the booksellers, who added a continuation to his work as far as to 1615, and afterwards as far as to 1627, took it from Paulus Æmilius, de Comines, Arnoul Ferron, du Bellay, &c.

Some time before the civil wars broke out, he was called to the bar, and began to make a figure in the world; but, observing how difficult it was to preserve his integrity, and yet live securely, he resolved to follow those two maxims of Pomponius Atticus, who lived in similar times; viz. “To engage in no faction, nor meddle in public business, and constantly to favour and relieve those that were lowest.” He often relieved the royalists in their necessities, which so ingratiated him with them, that he became generally employed by them in his profession. He was one of the counsel to the earl of Strafford, archbishop Laud, and king Charles himself 5 as also to the duke of Hamilton, the earl of Holland, the lord Capel, and the lord Craven. Being esteemed a plain honest man, and of great knowledge in the law, he was equally acceptable to the presbyterians and the loyalists. In 1643 he took the covenant, and appeared several times with other lay -persons among the assembly of divines. He was then in great esteem with the parliament, and employed by them in several affairs, particularly in the reduction of the garrison at Oxford; being as a lawyer added to the commissioners named by the parliament to treat with those appointed by the king. In that capacity he was instrumental in saving the university, by advising them, especially the general Fairfax, to preserve that seat of learning from ruin. Afterwards, though no man more lamented the murder of Charles I. he took the oath called “The Engagement;” and, January 1651-2, was one of those appointed to consider of the reformation of the law. Cromwell, who well knew the advantage it would be to have the countenance of such a man as Hale to his courts, never left importuning him, till he accepted the place of one of the justices of the common bench, as it was called; for which purpose he was by writ made serjeant at law January 25, 1653-4. In that station he acted with great integrity and courage. He had at first serious scruples concerning the authority under which he was to act and, after having gone two or three circuits, he refused to sit any more on the crown side that is, to try any more criminals*. He had indeed so carried himself in some trials, that the powers then in being were not unwilling he should withdraw himself from meddling any farther in them; of which Burnet gives the following instance. Soon after he was made a judge, a trial was brought before him, upon the circuit at Lincoln, concerning the murder of one of the townsmen who had been of the king’s army, and was killed by a soldier of the garrison there. He was in the field with a fowling-piece on his shoulder, which the soldier seeing, he came to him, and said, he was acting

, a learned English lady, the daughter of Mr. Robert Murray of the Tullibardin family, and allied by the mother’s side to the Perth family, was born in London, Jan. 4, 1622. Her father was preceptor to Charles I. and afterwards provost of Eton college, and her mother was subgoverness to the duke of Gloucester and the princess Elizabeth. Anne was instructed by her parents in every polite and liberal science; but theology and physic were her favourite studies. She became so particularly versed in the latter art, and in the practice of surgery, that she was consulted by the first personages in the kingdom: and the reputation of her skill was also diffused over Holland, whence many persons came for her advice. She was a faithful royalist, and a sufferer in the cause of Charles. On March 2, 1656, she was married to sir James Halket, a worthy and amiable man, to whom she bore four children, one of which, Robert, her eldest son, only survived. During her first pregnancy she wrote, mder the apprehension that she should not survive her delivery, a tract, containing excellent instructions, entitled “The Mother’s Will to the Unborn Child.” She was fourteen years a wife, and twenty-eight a widow. She was an acute theologian and a profound student. Her learning, simplicity, unaffected piety, exemplary conduct, and sweetness of manners, conciliated universal respect and esteem. She left twenty-one volumes, principally on religious subjects, some in folio, and others in quarto, from which a volume of “Meditations” was printed at Edinburgh in 1701. She died April 22, 1699.

Upon the accession of king George II. his consort queen Caroline thought proper to make a visit at the royal observatory; and, being pleased with every thing she saw, took notice that Dr. Halley had formerly served the crown as a captain in the navy; and she soon after obtained a grant of his half-pay for that commission, which he enjoyed from that time during his life. An offer was also made him of being appointed mathematical preceptor to the duke of Cumberland; but he declined that honour in consideration of his advanced age, and because he deemed the ordinary attendance upon that employment not consistent with the performance of his duty at Greenwich. In August 1729 he was admitted as a foreign member of the academy of sciences at Paris. About 1737 he was seized with a paralytic disorder in his right hand, which, it is said, was the first attack he ever felt upon his constitution: however, he came as usual once a week till within a little while before his death, to see his friends in town on Thursday, before the meeting of the royal society. His paralytic disorder increasing, his strength gradually wore away, and he came at length to be wholly supported by such cordials as were ordered by his physician Dr. Mead. He expired as he sat in his chair, without a groan, January 14, 1741-2, in his eighty-sixth year, and was interred at Lee, near Blackheath.

, earl of Orkney, a brave officer, was the fifth son of William earl of Selkirk, and very early embraced the profession of arms. In March 1689-90 he was made a colonel, and distinguished himself with particular bravery at the battle of the Boyne, under king William, July 1, 1690; and those of Aghrim, July 12, 1691; of Steinkirk, Aug. 3, 1692, and of Lauden, July 19, 1693. Nor did he appear to less advantage at the sieges of Athlone, Limerick, and Namur. His eminent services in Ireland and Flanders through the whole course of the war, recommended him so highly to the favour of William III. that on Jan. 10, 1695-6, he was advanced to the dignity of a peer of Scotland, by the title of earl of Orkney. His lady, likewise, whom he married in 1695, and who was the daughter of sir Edward Villiers, knight-marshal, and a special favourite with the king, received a grant under the great seal of Ireland, of almost all the private estates of the abdicated king James, of very considerable value. Upon the accession of queen Anne, the earl of Orkney was promoted to the rank of majorgeneral March 9, 1701-2, to that of lieutenant-general Jan. 1, 1703-4, and in February following was made knight of the thistle. In 1704 his lordship was at the battle of Blenheim, which was crowned with so important a victory in favour of the allies; and he made prisoners of war a body of 1300 French officers and 12,000 common soldiers, who had been posted in the village of Blenheim. In July 1705, he was detached with 1200 men to march before the main body of the army, and to observe the march of a great detachment of the enemy, which marshal Villars had sent off to the Netherlands, as soon as he found the march of the allies was directed thither; and his lordship used such expedition, that he seasonably reinforced the Dutch, and prevented marshal Villeroy’s taking the citadel of Liege, about which his troops were then formed. The next month his lordship marched with fourteen battalionsof foot, and twenty-four squadrons of horse, to support the passage over the Dyle, which was immediately effected. In July 1706, he assisted at the siege of Menin; and on Feb. 12, 1706-7, was elected one of the sixteen peers for Scotland, to sit in the first parliament of Great Britain after the union. The same year he again served under the duke of Marlborough in Flanders; being in the latter end of May detached with seven battalions of foot from Meldart to the pass of Louvain, in order to preserve the communication with it, and on that side of Flanders; which his lordship did, and abode there during the time of the allied army’s encamping at Meldart. When they decamped on Aug. 1, to Nivelle, within two leagues of the French army, and a battle was expected, the earl, with twelve battalions of foot, and thirty squadrons of horse and dragoons, and all the grenadiers of the army, advanced a little out of the front of it, and lay all night within cannon-shot of the enemy; and the next morning charged their rear in their retreat for above a league and a half, and killed, disabled, and caused to desert, above 4000 of them. In the beginning of September following his lordship was again detached with another considerable body of troops to Turquony, under a pretence of foraging by the Scheld, but really with the design of drawing the enemy thither from Tournay to battle, and getting between them and the city. In November 1708, the earl commanded the van of the army at the passing of the Scheld; and in June the year following, assisted at the siege of Tournay, and took St. Amand and St. Martin’s Sconce; and on Aug. 20, was detached from the camp at Orchies towards St. Guilliampass, on the river Heine, towards the northward of Moms, in order to attack and take it, for the better passage of the army to Mons; and on the 30th of that month, was present at the battle of Malplaquet. In 1710 he was sworn of the privy-council; and made general of foot in Flanders, and in 1712 colonel of the royal regiment of foot-guards called the fuzileers, and served in Flanders under the duke of Ormond. In October, 1714, his lordship was appointed gentleman extraordinary of the bed-chamber to king George I. and on Dec. 17 following, governor of Virginia. He was likewise afterwards constable, governor and captain of Edinburgh castle, lord-lieutenant of the county of Clydesdale, and field-marshal. He died in London, at his house in Albemarle-street, Jan, 29, 1736-7.

, usually reckoned the first Scotch reformer, is said by all the Scotch ecclesiastical writers to have been of royal descent, as by his father, he was nephew to James Hamilton, earl of Arran, and by his mother, nephew to John Stewart, duke of Albany: Mackenzie, however, who cannot be suspected of any wish to degrade his countryman, maintains that his father was only a bastard brother of the earl of Arran, and his mother a bastard sister of the duke of Albany. Whatever truth there may be in this, it appears that he had great family interest, and being possessed of uncommon abilities, was intended for the higher offices in the church, had he not become its decided enemy. He was born in 1503, and after completing the usual course of studies at the university of St. Andrew’s, went to Germany, where he was, according to Dempster, made a professor in the university of Marpurg, which was newly erected by Philip, Landgrave of Hesse. During his residence abroad he imbibed the opinions of Luther, Melanchthon, and other reformers; and on his return to his own country, where he had been made abbot of Ferme, or Feme, in Ross-shire, he spared no pains in exposing what he considered as the corruptions of the Church of Rome, and the many errors, both in doctrine and practice, that had crept into the Christian religion.

In the beginning of the national troubles he continued undisturbed at his living till the middle of July 1643; but, joining in the fruitless attempt then made atTunbridge in favour of the king, and a reward of 100l. being soon after promised to the person that should produce him, he was forced to retire privily and in disguise to Oxford. Having procured an apartment in his own college, he sought that peace in retirement and study which was no where else to be found. Among the few friends he conversed with was Dr. Christopher Potter, provost of Queen’s college; by whose persuasion it was, that he published his “Practical Catechism,” in 1644. This was one of the most valuable books published at that time; but great objections were raised against it by fifty-two ministers within the provincQ, of London; and especially by the famous Francis Cheynell, on account of its containing Arminian tenets. Hammond, however, defended his book, and the same year and the following, published several useful pieces, adapted to the times. In December of the same year he attended as chaplain the duke of Richmond and earl of Southampton; who were sent to London by Charles I. with terms of peace and accommodation to the parliament; and when a treaty was appointed at Uxbridge, he appeared there as one of the divines on the king’s side, where he managed, greatly to his honour, a dispute with Richard Vines, one of the presbyterian ministers sent by the parliament.

, the greatest musical composer of his time, or perhaps of any time or country, was born at Halle, in the duchy of Magdeburgh, February 4, 1684, by a second wife of his father, who was an eminent physician and surgeon of the same place, and then above sixty years of age. From his very childhood he discovered such a propensity to music, that his father, who always intended him for the civil law, took every method to oppose this inclination, by keeping him out of the way of, and strictly forbidding him to meddle with, musical instruments of any kind. The son, however, found means to get a little clavicord privately conveyed to a room at the top of the house; and with this he used to amuse himself when the family was asleep. While he was yet under seven years of age, he went with his father to the duke of Saxe Weisenfels, where it was impossible to keep him from harpsichords, and other musical instruments. One morning, while he was playing on the organ, after the service was over, the duke was in the church; and something in his manner of playing affected his highness so strongly, that he asked his valet-de-chambre (who was Handel’s brother-in-law) who it was that he heard at the organ? The valet replied, that it was his brother. The duke demanded to see him; and after making proper inquiries about him, expostulated very seriously with his father, who still retained his prepossessions in favour of the civil law. He allowed that every father had certainly a right to dispose of his children as he should think most expedient; but that in the present instance he could not but consider it as a sort of crime against the public and posterity to rob the world of such a rising genius. The issue of this conversation was, not only a toleration for music, but consent also that a master should be called in to forward and assist him.

From conducting the performance he became composer to the Chouse; and “Almeria,” his first opera, was composed when he was not much above fourteen years of age. The success of it was so great, that it ran for thirty nights without interruption; and this encouraged him to compose others, as he did also a considerable number of sonatas during his stay at Hamburgh, which was about four or five years. He contracted an acquaintance at this place with many persons of note, among whom was the prince of Tuscany, brother to the grand duke. The prince, who was a great lover of the art for which his country was famous, would often lament Handel’s not being acquainted with the Italian music; shewed him a large collection of it,; and was very desirous he should return with him to Florence. Handel plainly answered, that he could see nothing in the music answerable to the prince’s character of it; but, on the contrary, thought it so very indifferent, that the singers, he said, must be angels to recommend it. The prince smiled at the severity of his censure, yet pressed him to return with him, and intimated that no convenience should be wanting. Handel thanked him for the offer of a favour which he did not chuse to accept; for he resolved to go to Italy on a speculation of his own, as soon as he could raise a sum sufficient for the purpose. He had in him from his childhood a strong spirit of independence, which was never known to forsake him in the most distressful seasons of his life; and it is remarkable that he refused the greatest offers from persons of the first distinction, because he would not be cramped or confined by particular attachments.

He now returned to his native country, but could not prevail on himself to settle while there was any musical court which he had not seen. He accordingly visited Hanover, where he met with Steffani, with whom he had been acquainted at Venice; and who was then master of the chapel to George I. when elector of Hanover. There also was a nobleman who had taken notice of him in Italy, and who afterwards did him great service when he came to Kngland for the second time, baron Kilmansegge, who now introduced him at court, and so well recommended him to his electoral highness, that he immediately offered him a pension of 1500 crowns per annum, as an inducement to stay. Handel excused his not accepting this high favour, because he had promised the court of the elector palatine, and had also thoughts of going to England, whither he had received strong invitations from the duke of Manchester. On this he obtained leave to be absent for a twelvemonth or more at a time, and to go whithersoever he pleased; and on these conditions he thankfully accepted the pension.

, one of our old English historians, descended from a reputable northern family, was born in 1373, and at the age of twelve was admitted into the family of sir Henry Percy, eldest son to the earl of Northumberland, familiarly known by the name of Harry Hotspur, on account of his impatient spirit. He was one of the most esteemed warriors of his time, active and enterprising, had a large vassalry, numerous partizans, and unlimited authority. His household, as lord of the east march of England, was constantly held at Berwick^ upon-Tweed. Harding, it appears, was with his patron, as a volunteer, in the battles of Homildon and Cokelawe. After the death of Percy, he enlisted under the banners of sir Robert Umfravile, with whom he had fought at Horoildon, and who was connected with the Percies by the ties of affinity as well as those of arms. In 1405, when king Henry IV. reduced the fortresses of lord Bardolph and the earl of Northumberland, sir Robert Umfravile’s services in the expedition were rewarded with the castle of Warkworth, under whom Harding became the constable. How long he remained at Warkworth does not appear, but his knowledge of Scottish geography seems soon to have engaged him in the secret service of his country, In 1415 we find him attendant on the king at Harfleur, and his journal of the march which preceded the memorable battle of Agincourt forms one of the most curious passages among the additions to the late reprint of his Chronicle. In 1416 he appears to have accompanied the duke of Bedford to the sea-fight at the mouth of the Seine. In 1424 he was at Rome, and employed partly in inspecting “the great Chronicle of Trogus Pompeius;” but soon after he was again employed in collecting documents for ascertaining the fealty due from the Scottish kings, which seems to have been attended with some personal danger. He has even been accused of forging deeds to answer his royal master’s purpose; but the truth of this charge cannot now be ascertained.

Actively as Harding was engaged in public life, he found time to gather materials lor his “Chronicle,”, and appears to have finished the first composition of it toward the latter en4 of the minority of king Henry VI. The Lansdowne manuscript closes with the life of sir Robert Umfravile, who died, according to Dugdale, Jan. 27, 1436, and under whom Harding seems to have lived in his latter years as constable of Kyme castle in Lincolnshire. Of the rewards which he received for his services, we find only a grant for life often pounds per annum out of the manor or alien preceptory of Wyloughton in the county of Lincoln, in the eighteenth year of Henry VI.; and in 1457 he had a pension of twenty pounds a year for life by letters patent, charged upon the revenues of the county of Lin., coin. During his latter days he appears to have re-composed his “Chronicle” for Richard duke of York, father to king Edward IV. who was slain in the battle of Wakefield, Dec. 31, 1460. It was afterwards presented to king Edward IV. himself. The history comes no lower than the flight of Henry VI. to Scotland, but from “the excusacion” touching his “defaultes,” in which the q‘ueen’is mentioned, it is evident that Harding could not have finished his work before 1465. How long he survived its completion is unknown, but he must then have been at least eighty-seven years of age. His “Chronicle of England unto the reign of king Edward IV.” is in verse, and as a metrical composition is beneath criticism, but, as a record of facts, is highly interesting to the English historian and antiquary. It was first printed by Grafton in 1543, with a continuation by the same, to the thirty-fourth year of Henry VIII. This has been long ranked among the most rare and expensive of our Chronicles, but those who prefer use to mere antiquity, will set a higher value on the edition printed in 1812 by the booksellers of London, Henry Ellis, esq. the learned editor of this edition, has prefixed a biographical and literary preface, to which the preceding account is much indebted, and has carefully collated Harding' s part of the “Chronicle” with two manuscripts of the author’s own time, the Lansdowne and the Harleian, both which are in the British Museum; and Grafton’s addition has been collated with his duplicate edition.^ It is noticed by Mr. Ellis as a very singular fact, that there should be two editions of Harding, both printed by Grafton in the month of January 1543, differing in almost every page, and one, in Grafton’s own portion of the work, containing (in the reign of Henry VIII.) no less than twenty-nine pages more than the other.

, a popish divine of considerable note, and the antagonist of bishop Jewel, was born at Comb-Martin in Devonshire, 1512. His school education was first at Barhstaple, and afterwards at Winchester, whence he was removed to New-college, Oxford, and after two years’ probation, was chosen fellow there in 1536. In 1542, having completed his degrees in arts, he was chosen Hebrew professor of the university by Henry VIII. and, fcis religion probably kept pace with the king’s, but Edward no sooner ascended the throne, than Harding became a zealous protestant. He was afterwards chaplain to the duke of Suffolk, father of Jane Grey, and had the honour to instruct this young lady in the protestant religion; but, on the accession of queen Mary, he immediately became a confirmed papist, and was chaplain and confessor to Gardiner bishop of Winchester. There is a curious epistle preserved by Fox, said to be written by lady Jane to Harding on his apostacy, which, Burnet observes, “is full of Jife in the thought, and zeal in the expression.” In 1554, he proceeded D. D. at Oxford, and was the year after made treasurer of the cathedral of Salisbury, as he had been a little before prebendary of Winchester. When Elizabeth came to the crown, being deprived of his preferment, he left the kingdom; and, having fixed his abode at Louvain in Flanders, he became, says Wood, “the target of popery,” in a warm controversy with bishop Jewel, respecting ordination, against whom, between 1554 and 1567, he wrote seven pieces. He died at Louvain Sept. 16, 1572, and was buried in the church of St. Gertrude, with an epitaph, given at length by Pits. He was undoubtedly a man of parts and learning, and not an inelegant writer. Humphrey, in his “Life of Jewel,” comparing himwith his adversary, says, “in multis pares sunt, & arnbo doctrinae & eloquentiae gloria praecellentes.”

At Eton and Cambridge, he had the fame of the most eminent scholar of his time, and wrote Latin verse with great elegance. When at Cambridge he was at the head of the whig party, which happened to prevail in a contest respecting the expulsion of a student, who, in one of the college exercises had offended the tories. In this contest he made himself master of the law and custom of visitatorial power, which he discussed in a very masterly essay; but this, although intended for publication, has not yet appeared. He was a very profound and judicious antiquary, particularly in what concerned English law and history. At the request of William duke of Cumberland (to whom he had been appointed, in Dec. 1732, law-reader, and was afterwards his attorney-general), he wrote a very learned memorial upon the regency (when that subject was agitated in the last reign), which lord Hardwicke called “an invaluable work.” It was by Mr. Hardinge' s advice and encouragement that Mr. Stuart undertook his journey to Athens, with a view of illustrating the history of that city. His diligence, accuracy, knowledge, and skill, in the office of clerk to the House of commons, were never exceeded. He put the “Journals” into their present form; and drew up a very able report of the condition in which he found them. In his office of secretary he was laborious, able, and zealous; and so honest, that he had many enemies. He was chosen representative for the borough of Eye in parliament in 1748 and 1754, and was a very useful member; but had no talents or courage for eloquence, though his taste in estimating it was exquisite.

, an English bishop, was born in London, and educated at Eton, whence he was admitted of King’s college, Cambridge, in 1688, and took his degree of A. B. in 1692, and of A. M. 1696. He afterwards became tutor in the college, and in that capacity superintended the education of the celebrated Anthony Collins, who was fellow-commoner there. He had also the tuition of the marquis of Blandford, only son of the illustrious duke of Marlborough, who appointed him chaplain-general to the army; but this promising young nobleman died in 1702, and was buried in King’s college chapel. The inscription on his monument is by our author. In 1708 Mr. Hare took his degree of D. D. obtained the deanery of Worcester, and in 1726 the deanery of St. Paul’s. In Dec. 1727, he was consecrated bishop of St. Asaph, where he sat about four years, and was translated, Nov. 25, 1731, to the bishopric of Chichester, which he held with the deanery of St. Paul’s to his death. He was dismissed from being chaplain to George I. in 1718, by the strength of party prejudices, in company with Dr. Moss and Dr. Sher-r lock, persons of distinguished rank for parts and learning. About the latter end of queen Anne’s reign he published a remarkable pamphlet, entitled “The difficulties and discouragements which attend the Study of the Scriptures, in the way of private judgment;” in order to shew, that since such a study of the scriptures is an indispensable duty, it concerns all Christian societies to remove, as much as possible, those discouragements. This work was thought to have such a direct tendency to promote scepticism, and a loose way of thinking in matters of religious concern, that the convocation judged it right to pass a severe censure on it; and Whiston says, that, finding this piece likely to hinder preferment, he aimed to conceal his being the author. The same writer charges him with being strongly inclined to scepticism that he talked ludicrously of sacred matters and that he would offer to lay wagers about the fulfilling of scripture prophecies. The principal ground for these invidious insinuations some suppose to be, that, though he never denied the genuineness of the apostolical constitutions (of which he procured for Whiston the collation of two Vienna Mss.), yet “he was not firm believer enough, nor serious enough in Christianity, to hazard any thing in this world for their reception.” He published many pieces against bishop Hoadly, in the Bangorian controversy; and also other learned works, which were collected after his death, and published in four volumes, 8yo. 2. An edition of “Terence,” with notes, in 4to. 3. “The Book of Psalms, in the Hebrew, put into the original poetical metre,” 4to. In this last work he pretends to have Discovered the Hebrew metre, which was supposed to be irretrievably lost. But his hypothesis, though defended by some, yet has been confuted by several learned men, particularly by Dr. Lowth in his “Metrics Hareaue brevis confutatio,” annexed to his lectures “De Sacra Poesi Hebreeorum.” He was yet more unfortunate in the abovementioned edition of Terence, which sunk under the reputation of that of Dr. Bentley, of whom he was once the warm admirer, and afterwards the equally warm opponent. During their friendship the emendations on Menander and Philemon were transmitted through Hare, who was then chaplain-general to the army, to Burman, in 1710; and Bentley’s “Remarks on the Essay on Freethinking” (supposed to be written by Collins) were inscribed to him in 1713. As soon as the first part of these were published, Hare formally thanked Dr. Bentley by name for them, in a most flattering letter called “The Clergyman’s Thanks to Phileleutherus,” printed the same year; but, in consequence of the rupture between them, not inserted in the collection of Hare’s works. This rupture took place soon after the above-mentioned date, and Bentley in the subsequent editions of his “Remarks” withdrew the inscription. Hare was excessively piqued at the utter annihilation of his Terence and Phoedrus, the one soon after its birth, the other before its birth, by Bentley’s edition of both together in 1726, who never once names Hare.