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

is a Spanish writer, who among biographers is classed under different names. In Moreri, we find him under that of Dryander, by which, perhaps, he is most generally known; but in France he took the name of Du Chesne, and by the Germans was called Evck, Eycken, or Eyckman. Referring to Marchand for a dissertation on these different names, it may suffice here to notice that Enzinas was of a distinguished family of Burgos, the capital of Old Castille, where he was probably born, or where at least he began his studies. He appears afterwards to have gone into Germany, and was the pupil of the celebrated Melancthon for some years, and thence into the Netherlands to some relations, where he settled. Having become a convert to the reformed religion, which was there established, he translated the New Testament into Spanish, and dedicated it to Charles V. It was published at Antwerp in 1543. He had met with much discouragement when he communicated this design to his friends in Spain, and was now to suffer yet more severely for his attempt to present his countrymen with a part of the scriptures in their own tongue. The publication had scarcely made its appearance, when he was thrown into prison at Brussels, where he remained from November 1543 to Feb. I, 1545, on which day finding the doors of his prison open, he made his escape, and went to his relations at Antwerp. About three years after, he went to England, as we learn from a letter of introduction which Melancthon gave him to archbishop Cranmer. About 1552 Melancthon gave him a similar letter to Calvin. The time of his death is not known. He published, in 1545, “A History of the State of the Low Countries, and of the religion of Spain,” in Latin, which was afterwards translated into French, and forms part of the “Protestant TYIartyrology,” printed in Germany. Mavchand points out a few other writings by him, but which were not published separately. Enzinas had two brothers, James and John. Of the former little is recorded of much consequence; but John, who resided a considerable time at Rome, and likewise became a convert to the protestant religion, was setting out for Germany to join his brother,' when some expressions which he dropped, relative to the corruptions and disorders of the church, occasioned his being accused of heresy, and thrown into prison. The terrors of a dungeon, and the prospect of a cruel death, did not daunt his noble sou), but when brought before the pope and cardinals to be examined, he refused to retract what he had said, and boldly avowed and justified his opinions, for which he was condemned to be burnt alive, a sentence which was put into execution at Rome in 1545.

, a celebrated Latin poet of Hesse, tras born January 6, 1488, under a tree in the fields, and therefore probably of very obscure parents. He became, however, so famous by his poems, as to be called the German Homer. He taught the belles lettres at Herfort and Nuremberg, then at Marpurg, where the landgrave of Hesse loaded him with favours. Eobanus was given to his country vice of excessive drinking, in which he prided himself. He died October 5, 1540, at Marpurg. He translated Theocritus into Latin verse, Basil, 1531, 8vo, and Homer’s Iliad, Basil, 1540, 8vo, &c. His “Eclogues,” Haloe, 1539, 8vo, and “De tuenda bona Valetudine,” Erancforr, 1564, 8vo, are particularly admired. His style is natural, easy, clear, and correct; nor had' Germany, at that time, produced much that was superior. His life was written by Joachim Camerarius, Nuremb. 1553, 8vo.

Neither his humble station, nor his singular merit, could however screen Epictetus from the tyranny of the monster Domitian. With the rest of the philosophers he was banished, under a mock decree of the senate, from Italy, which he bore with a degree of firmness worthy of a philosopher who called himself a citizen of the world, and could boast that, wherever he went, he carried his best treasures along with him. At Nicopolis, the place which he chose for his residence, he prosecuted his design of correcting viceand folly by the precepts of philosophy. Wherever he could obtain an auditory, he discoursed concerning the true way of attaining contentment and happiness; and the wisdom and eloquence of his discourses were so highly admired, that it became a common practice among the more studious of his - hearers to commit them to writing. It is probable from the respect which Adrian entertained for him that he returned to Rome after the death of Domitian; and the “Conference between Adrian and Epictetus,” if the work were authentic, would confirm this probability; but it is impossible to compare it with his genuine remains, without pronouncing it spurious.

, one of the most celebrated philosophers of antiquity, the real merit of whose system, however, still remains doubtful, was an Athenian of the Egean tribe, and born at Gargettus, in the vicinity of Athens, at the beginning of the third year of the 109th oh mpiad, or B. C. 344. His father Neocles, and his mother Chaerestrata, were of honourable descent, but being reduced to poverty, they were sent with a colony of 2000 Athenian citizens, to the island of Samos, which Pericles had subdued, to divide the lands among them by lot; but wljat fell to their share not proving sufficient lor their subsistence, Neocles took up the profession of a schoolmaster. Epicurus remained at Samos till he was eighteen years of age, when he removed to Athens, which the tyranny of Perdiccas soon made him leave; but after passing one year at Mitylene, and four at Lampsacus, he returned to Athens. From his fourteenth to his thirty-sixth year, he studied under the various philosophers of his day, and therefore when we read in Cicero that he boasted he was a selftaught philosopher, we are to understand only that his system of philosophy was the result of his own reflections, after comparing the doctrines of other sects. About th thirty-second year of his age he opened a school at Mitylene, which he soon removed to Lampsacus, where he had disciples from Colophon, but not satisfied with this obscure situation, he determined to make his appearance on the more public theatre of Athens. Finding, however, the public places in the city proper for this purpose, already occupied by other sects, he purchased a pleasant garden, where he took up his constant residence, and taught his system of philosophy; and hence the Epicureans were called the Philosophers of the Garden. Besides this garden, Epicurus had a house in Melite, a village of the Cecropian tribe, to which he frequently retreated with his friends. From this time to his death, notwithstanding all the disturbances of the state, Epicurus never left Athens, unless in two or three excursions into Ionia to visit his friends. During the siege of Athens by Demetrius, which happened when Epicurus was forty -four years of age, while the city was severely [harassed by famine, Epicurus is said to have supported himself and his friends on a small quantity of beans, which he shared equally with them.

, an ancient Christian writer, was born, about the year 320, at Besanduce, a village of Palestine, His parents are said by Cave to have been Jews; but others. are of opinion that there is no ground for this suspicion, since Sozomen affirms, that “from his earliest youth he was educated under the most excellent monks, upon which, account he continued a very considerable time in Ægypt.” It is certain, that, while he was a youth, he went into Ægypt, where he fell into the conversation of the Gnostics, who had almost engaged him in their party; but he soon withdrew himself from them, and, returning to his country, put himself for some time under the discipline of Hilarion, the father of the monks of Palestine. He afterwards founded a monastery near the village where he was born, and presided over it. About the year 367 he was elected bishop of Salamis, afterwards called Constantia, the metropolis of the isle of Cyprus, where he acquired great reputation by his writings and his piety. In the year 382, he was sent lor to Rome by the imperial letters, in order to determine the cause of Paulinus concerning the see of Antioch. In the year 3yi a contest arose between him and John, bishop of Jerusalem. Epipbanius accused John of holding the errors of Origen; and, going to Palestine, ordained Paulinian, brother of St. Jerom, deacon and priest, ill a monastery which did not belong to his jurisdiction. John immediately complained of this action of Epiphanius, as contrary to the canons and discipline of the church, and Epiphanius defended what he had done, in a letter to John. This dispute irritated their minds still more, which were already incensed upon the subject of Origen; and both of them endeavoured to engage Theophilus of Alexandria in their party. That prelate, who seemed at first to favour the bishop of Jerusalem, declared at last against Origen condemned his books in a council held in the year 399 and persecuted all the monks who were suspected of regarding his memory. These monks, retiring to Constantinople, were kindly received there by John Chrysostom; which highly exasperated Theophilus, who, from that time, conceived a violent hatred to Chrysostom. In the mean time Theophilus informed Epiphanius of what he had done against Origen, and exhorted him to do the same; upon which Epiphanius, in the year 401, called a council in the isle of Cyprus, procured the reading of Origen’s writings to be prohibited, and wrote to Chrysostom to do the same. Chrysostom, not approving this proposal, Epiphanius went to Constantinople, at the persuasion of Theophilus, in order to get the decree of the council of Cyprus executed. When he arrived there, he would not have any conversation with Cbrysostom, but used his utmost efforts to engage the bishops, who were then in that city, to approve of the judgment of the council of Cyprus against Origen. Not succeeding in this, he resolved to go the next day to the church of the apostles, and there condemn publicly all the books of Origen, and those who defended them; but as he was in the church, Cbrysostom informed him, by his deacon Serapion, that he was going to do a thing contrary to the laws of the church, and which might expose him to danger, as it would probably raise some sedition. This consideration stopped Epiphanius, who yet was so inflamed against Origen, that when the empress Eudoxia recommended to his prayers the young Theodosius, who was dangerously ill, he answered, that “the prince her son should not die, if she would but avoid the conversation of Dioscorides, and other defenders of Origen.” The empress, surprised at this presumptuous answer, sent him word, that “if God should think proper to take away her son, she would submit to his will that he might take him away as he had given him but that it was not in the power of Epiphanius to raise him from the dead, since he had lately suffered his own archdeacon to die.” Epiphanius’s heat was a little abated, when he had discoursed with Ammourns and his companions, whomTheophilus had banished for adhering to Origen’s opinions; for these monks gave him to understand that they did hot maintain an heretical doctrine, and that he had condemned them in too precipitate a manner. At last he resolved to return to Cyprus, and in his farewell to Chrysostom, he said, “I hope you will not die a bishop;” to which the latter replied, “I hope you will never return to your own country,” and both their hopes were realized, as Chrysostom was deposed from his bishopric, and Epiphanius died at sea about the year 403. His works were printed in Greek at Basil, 1544, in folio, and had afterwards a Latin translation made to them, which has frequently been reprinted. At last Petavius undertook an edition of them, together with a new Latin translation, which he published at Paris, 1622, with the Greek text revised and corrected by two manuscripts. This, which is the best edition, is in two volumes folio, at the end of which are the animadversions of Petavius, which however, are rather dissertations upon points of criticism and chronology, than notes to explain the text of his author. This edition was reprinted at Cologne, 1682, in 2 vols. folio.

It would be endless to collect the extraordinary eulogiums which great and learned men have bestowed upon Episcopius; one of which may be quoted as coming from an unexpected quarter, from Mabillon, an eminent member and ornament of the church of Rome: “I cannot forbear observing in this place,” says he, in his treatise of studies proper for them that live in monasteries, “that, if some passages had been left out of Episcopius’s theological institutions, which Grotius esteemed so much that he carried them with him wherever he went, they might have been very useful in the study of divinity. This work is divided into four books; the method of which is quite difr ferent from that which is generally followed. His style is beautiful, and his manner of treating his subjects answers his style perfectly well; nor would the time spent in reading of it be lost, if it was corrected with regard to some passages, in which the author speaks against the Roman catholics, and in favour of his own sect.” The Arminians have had very naturally the highest regard for Episcopius, and been careful to preserve his reputation from the attacks that have been made upon it: so careful, that, in 1690, they engaged Le Clerc, one of their professors, publicly to accuse Jurieu of calumny, because he had spoken evil of Episcopius. Le Cle.rc published a letter directed to Jurieu; in which he observes, that “they who have dipped into Episcopius’s works, and are acquainted, with the society of the remonstrants, have no occasion to see them vindicated. And as for those who have not read that author, and never conversed with any of the remonstrants, if they were so unjust as to judge only by Mr. Jurieu’s accusations, they would not deserve the least trouble to undeceive them; for it would show that they had no notion of common equity, and were too stupid to hearken to any vindication. But then we are persuaded,” adds he, “that there is not one person in the United Provinces, or any where else, that is disposed to believe this accuser upon his bare word.” After this preamble, Le Clerc says, “You charge Episcopius with two crimes: the first is, his being a Socinian; the second, his being an enemy to the Christian religion.” Le Clerc confutes the first of these accusations, by referring to several parts of Episcopius’s works, where he explodes the doctrine of the Socinians; and afterwards finds it no difficult task to answer the second, because Episcopius’s life and writings evidently shew, that he was a virtuous and conscientious man, and very zealous for the Christian religion. Le Clerc refers to a-passage in Episcopius’s Institutions, in which the truth of the Christian religion “is proved,” says he, “in so clear and strong a manner, that we might hope there would not remain any infidels in the world, if they would all duly weigh and consider his arguments. And yet you style him, sir, an enemy of Christianity; though it does not in the least appear, that you have either read his works, or examined his life. There is indeed nothing but the disorder of your mind, occasioned by your blind zeal, for which you have been long noted, that can make me say, O Lord, Forgive Him; for, in reality, you Know Not What You Do. You could not choose a better method to pass in the world for a man little acquainted with the duties of Christianity, and even of civil society, than by writing as you have done,” &c. With respect to his opinions on this subject, Episcopius acknowledges that Jesus Christ is called in Scripture the Son of God, not merely on account either of his miraculous conception, or of his mediation, or of his resurrection, or of his ascension, but on a fifth account, which, in his opinion, clearly implies his pre-existence; yet he contends, that it is not necessary to salvation, either to know or believe this fifth mode of filiation because it is not any wherfc said in Scripture to be necessary because we may have faith in Christ without it and because for the three first centuries the Christian church did not esteem a profession of belief in this mode to be necessary to salvation. Bishop Bull attacked with great learning this third reason of Episcopius, which has likewise been attacked with equal force of reasoning by more recent defenders of the Trinitarian doctrine. Of our English divines, Hammond is said to have borrowed largely of Episcopius, and Tillotson has been accounted one of his disciples.

, one of the most illustrious of the revivers of learning, was born at Rotterdam, October 28, 1467. His father Gerard, who was of Tergou, in that neighbourhood, fell in love with Margaret, the daughter of one Peter, a physician of Sevenbergen; and after promises of marriage, as Erasmus himself suggests, connected himself with her, though the nuptial ceremonies were not performed. From this intercourse Gerard had a son, whom Erasmus calls Anthony, in a letter to Lambert Grunnius, secretary to pope Julius II. and whose death, in another letter he tells us, he bore better than he did the death of his friend Frobenius. About two years after, Margaret proved with child again; and then Gerard’s father and brethren (for he was the youngest of ten children) beginning to be uneasy at this attachment, resolved to make him an ecclesiastic. Gerard, aware of this, secretly withdrew into Italy, and went to Rome; he left, however, a letter behind him, in which he bade his relations a final farewell; and assured them that they should never see his face more while they continued in those resolutions. At Rome he maintained himself decently by transcribing ancient authors, which, printing being not yet commonly used, was no unprofitable employment. In the mean time, Margaret, far advanced in her pregnancy, was conveyed to Rotterdam to lie in, privately; and was there delivered of Erasmus. He took his name from this city, and always called himself Roterodamus, though, as Dr. Jortin, the writer of his life, intimates, he should rather have said Roterodamius, or Roterodamensis. The city, however, was not in the least offended at the inaccuracy, but made proper returns of gratitude to a name by which she was so much ennobled; and perpetuated her acknowledgments by inscriptions, and medals, and by a statue erected and placed at first near the principal church, but afterwards removed to a Station on one of the bridges. Gerard’s relations, long ignorant what was become of him, at last discovered that he was at Rome and now resolved to attempt by stratagem what they could not effect by solicitation and importunity. They sent him word, therefore, that his beloved Margaret was dead; and he lamented the supposed misfortune with such extremity of grief, as to determine to leave the world, and become a priest. And even when upon his return to Tergou, which happened soon after, he found Margaret alive, he adhered to his ecclesiastical engagements; and though he always retained the tenderest affection for her, never more lived with her in any other manner than what was allowable by the laws of his profession. She also observed on her part the strictest celibacy ever after. During the absence of his father, Erasmus was under the care and management of his grandmother, Gerard’s mother, Catharine. He was called Gerard, after his father, and afterwards took the name of Desiderius, which in Latin, and the surname of Erasmus, which in Greek, signify much the same as Gerard among the Hollanders, that is, “amabilis,” or amiable. Afterwards he was sensible that he should in grammatical propriety have called himself Erasmius, and in fact, he gave this name to his godson, Joannes Erasmius Frobenius. As soon as Gerard was settled in his own country again, he applied himself with all imaginable care to the education of Erasmus, whom he was determined to bring up to letters, though in low repute at that time, because he discovered in him early a very uncommon capacity. There prevails indeed a notion in Holland, that Erasmus was at first of so heavy and sl9w an understanding, that it was many years before they could make him learn any thing; and this, they think, appears from a passage in the life written by himself, where he says, that “in his first years he made but little progress in those unpleasant studies, for which he was not born; in literis ill is inamoenis, quibus non natus erat.” When he was nine years old, he was sent to Dav enter, in Guelderland, at that time one of the best schools in the Netherlands, and the most free from the barbarism of the age; and here his parts very soon shone 'out. He apprehended in an instant whatever was taught him, and retained it so perfectly, that he infinitely surpassed all his companions. Rhenanus tells us that Zinthius, one of the best masters in the college of Daventer, was so well satisfied with Erasmus’s progress, and so thoroughly convinced of his great abilities, as to have foretold what afterwards came to pa>s, that “he would some time prove the envy and wonder of all Germany.” His memory is said to have b~?en so prodigious, that he was able to repeat all Terence and Horace by heart. We must nojt forget to observe, that pope Adrian VI. was his schoolfellow, and ever after his friend, and the encourager of his studies.

How he spent his time with the bishop of Cambray, with whom he continued some years, we have no account. bishop, however, was, now his patron, and apparently very fond of him; and he promised him a pension to maintain him at Paris. But the pension, as Erasmus himself relates, was never paid him; so that he was obliged to have recourse to taking pupils, though a thing highly disagreeable to him, purely for support. Many noble English became his pupils, and, among the rest, William Blunt, lord Montjoy, who was afterwards his very good friend and patron. Erasmus tells us, that he lived rather than studied, “vixit verius qnam studuit,” at Paris; for, his patron forgetting the promised pension, he had not only no books to carry on his studies, but even wanted the necessary comforts and conveniences of life. He was forced to take up with bad lodgings and bad diet, which brought on him a fit of illness, and changed his constitution so much for the worse, that, from a very strong one, it continued ever after weak and tender. The plague too was in that city, anl had been for many years; so that he was obliged, after a short stay, to leave it, almost without any of that benefit he might naturally have expected, as the university at that time was famous for theology. Leaving Paris, therefore, in the beginning of 1497 he returned to Cambray, where he was received kindly by the bishop. He spent some days at Bergis with his friend James Battus, by whom he was introduced to the knowledge of Anne Borsala, marchioness of Vere. This noble lady proved a great benefactress to him; and he afterwards, in gratitude, wrote her panegyric. This year he went over to England for the first time, to fulfill a promise which he had made to his noble disciple Montjoy. This noble lord, a man of learning, and patron of learned men, was never easy, it is said, while Erasmus was in England, but when he was in his company. Even after he was married, as Knight relates, he left his family, and went to Oxford, purely to proceed in his studies under the direction of Erasmus. He also gave him the liberty of his house in London, when he was absent; but a surly steward, whom Erasmus, in a letter to Colet, calls Cerberus, prevented his using that privilege often. Making but a short stay in London, he went to Oxford; where he studied in St. Mary’s college, which stood nearly opposite New-Inn hall, and of which there are some few remains still visible. Here he became very intimate with all who had any name for literature: with Colet, Grocyn, Linacer, William Latimer, sir Thomas More, and many others. Under the guidance of these he made a considerable progress in his studies; Colet engaging him in the study of divinity, and Grocyn, Linacer, and Latimer teaching him Greek. Greek literature was then reviving at Oxford; although much opposed by a set of the students, who called themselves Trojans, and, like the elder Cato at Rome, opposed it as a dangerous novelty.

He had now spent three years in close application to the Greek tongue, which -he looked upon as so necessary, that he could not fancy himself a tolerable divine without it. Having rather neglected it when he was young, he after wards studied it at Oxford, under Grocyn and Linacer, but did not stay long enough there to reap any considerable benefit from their assistance; so that, though he attained a perfect knowledge of it, it was in a great measure owing to his own application; and he might truly be called, in respect to Greek, what indeed he calls himself, “prorsus autodidactus;” altogether self-taught. His way of acquiring this language was by translating; and hence it is that we come to have in his works such a number of pieces translated from Lucian, Plutarch, and others. These translations likewise furnished him with opportunities of writing dedications to his patrons. Thus he dedicated to our king Henry VIII. a piece of Plutarch, entitled “How to distinguish a friend from a flatterer;” a dialogue of Lucian, called “Somnium, sive Gallus,” to Dr. Christopher Ursewick, an eminent scholar and statesman; the Hecuba of Euripides, to Warham, archhishop of Canterbury, which he presented to him at Lambeth, after he had been introduced by his friend Grocyn; another dialogue of Lucian, called “Toxaris, sive de arnicitia,” to Dr. Richard Fox, bishop of Winchester; and a great number of other pieces from different authors to as many different patrons, both in England and upon the continent. The example which Erasmus had set in studying the Greek tongue was eagerly and successfully followed; and he had the pleasure of seeing in a very short time Grecian learning cultivated by the greater part of Europe.

Erasmus was at Rome when Julius II. made his entry into that city from the conquest of Bologna; and this entry offended him as much as that at Bologna had done. For he could not conceive that the triumphs of the church, as they were called, were to consist in vain pomp and worldly magnificence, but rather in subduing all mankind to the faitti and practice of the Christian religion. While he was at Rome he was taken under the protection of the cardinal Raphael of St. George; and at his persuasion, employed on the ungrateful task of declaiming backwards and forwards upon the same argument. He was first to dissuade from undertaking a war against the Venetians; and then to exhort and incite to the war, upon every‘ variation of the pontiffV mind. When he was preparing to leave Rome, many temptations and arguments were ’used to detain him; and the pope offered him a place among his penitentiaries, which is reckoned very honourable, and a step to the highest preferments in that court. But his engagements in England prevented his staying at Rome; though, as we have already seen, he afterwards repented that he did not. He set out from Rome to Sienna, where he had left the archbishop of St. Andrew’s, his pupil; who, not willing to quit Italy without seeing Jlome, brought him back thither again. After a short stay they went to Cumae, to see the Sibyl’s cave; and there his pupil parted from him, being recalled to Scotland, where he was, killed in a battle fought against the English at Flodden-field in 1513. Erasmus has left a grand eulogium on this young nobleman in his “Adagia.”

Still we find Erasmus taking all opportunies of declaring his firm resolution to adhere to the see of Rome. “What connections,” says he, “have I with Luther, or what recompense to expect from him, that I should join with him to oppose the church of Rome, which 1 take to be a true part of the catholic church J, who should be loth to resist the bishop of my diocese” As for the monks, they would have been glad to have seen him a deserter, and lodged in the enemy’s quarters, because he would have much less incommoded them as a Lutheran than as a catholic; but he was determined not to stir. His wish was to seek a middle way, with a view of putting an end to these contests; but, above all, to keep himself from being looked upon as a party on either side. Thus, there is a remarkable letter of his, written to Pace, dean of St. Paul’s, in 1521, wherein he complains equally of the violence of Luther, and of the rage of the Dominicans; as also of the malice of Aieander, who ascribed to him some writings of Luther, of which he had not even heard. Some affirmed, that Erasmus had written a treatise called “The Captivity of Babylon,” although Luther openly acknowledged it for his own: others said, that Luther had taken many of his sentiments from Erasmus. “I see now,” says he, “that the Germans are resolved at all adventures to engage me in the cause of Luther, whether I will or not. In this they have acted foolishly, and have taken the most effectual method to alienate me from them and their party. Wherein could I have assisted Luther, if I had declared myself for him, and shared the danger along with him Only thus far, that, instead of one man, two would have perished. I cannot conceive what he means by writing with such a spirit: one thing I know too well, that he has brought a great odium upon the lovers of literature. It is true, that he hath given us many wholesome doctrines, and many good counsels; and I wish he had not defeated the effect of them by his intolerable faults. But, if he had written, every thing in the most unexceptionable manner, I had no inclination to die for the sake of truth. Every man has not the courage requisite to make a martyr; and I am afraid that, if I were put to the trial, I should imitate St. Peter.” In this Erasmus betrays his genuine character, and it is plain that it was not truth, nor the desire of propagating it, but self-preservation only, which influenced his conduct throughout this affair. He certainly approved of Luther’s principal doctrines, and inwardly wished he might carry his point; but, as he could not imagine that probable, he chose to adhere outwardly to the stronger party. “I follow,” says he, “the decisions of the pope and the emperor, when they are right, which is acting religiously: I submit to them, when they are wrong, which is acting prudently: and I think it is lawful for good men to behave themselves thus, when there is no hope of obtaining any more.” From this principle of policy, he extolled the book of Henry VIII. against Luther, even before he had seen it; and he began now to throw out hints, that he would one day enter the lists with the great reformer, yet, when his friend and patron Montjoy exhorted him, the same year, to write against Luther, he replied, “Nothing is more easy than to call Luther a blockhead nothing is less easy than to prove him one at least, so it seems to me.” Upon the whole, he was exceedingly perplexed how to behave to Luther; and frequently appears inconsistent, because he thought himself obliged to disclaim before men what in his heart he approved and even revered.

In April 1529 Erasmus departed from Basil, where he had now lived many years, but where he thought himself no longer safe; and went to Friburg, where at first he had apartments belonging to the king, but afterwards bought a house. Here, in 1531, he had a sight of the first oration of Julius Scaliger against his “Ciceronianus;” all the copies of which, or at least as many as he could, Erasmus is said to have collected and destroyed. “There is something,” says Dr. Jortin, “ridiculously diverting in the pompous exclamations and tragical complaints of Scaliger. One would imagine at least, that Erasmus had called Cicero fool, or knave: and yet all his crime was, to have besprinkled the servile imitators of Cicero with a little harmless banter.” After the first oration, Scaliger composed a second more scurrilous if possible than the first: but it was not published till after Erasmus’s death, in 1537. Some of Scaliger’s friends were much displeased at the scandalous manner in which he had treated Erasmus, and desired him to give over the contention. He declared himself, therefore, though in a proud and awkward manner, willing to be reconciled: and, to do him justice, he was at last sorry for his rudeness to Erasmus, and wrote a copy of verses in his praise, when he heard that he was dead.

Erasmus now began to complain to his friends, and to represent himself as quite worn down with age, pain, and sickness; and in 1535 he returned to Basil, to try if he could recover his health, where he continued ever after. This year Bembus congratulates him upon the high regard which the pope had for him; and hopes that it would end in great preferment, by which he probably meant a cardinal’s hat. The enemies of Erasmus have affirmed, that the court of Rome never designed him such a favour; but Erasmus has affirmed the contrary, and says, “that having written to Paul III. that pope, before he had unsealed his letter, spoke of him in the most honourable manner: that he had resolved to add to the college of cardinals some learned men, of whom he might make use in the general council, which was to be called and I,” says Erasmus, “was named to be one. But to my promotion it was objected, that my bad state of health would make me unfit for that function, and that my income was not sufficient so at present they think of loading me with preferments, that I may be qualified for the red hat.” He declares, however, that his health would not permit him to accept such favours, since he could scarce stir out of his chamber with safety; and he refused every thing that was offered him.

He had been ill at Friburg, and continued so at Basil. In the summer of 1536 he grew worse; and the last letter which we have of his writing is dated June the 20th of that year. He subscribes it thus, “Erasmus Rot. aegra manu.” He was for almost a month ill of a dysentery; and he knew that his disease would prove mortal. He had foreseen for several months, that he could not hold out long; and he foretold it again three days, and then two days, before his death. He died July 12, in the sixty-ninth year of his age; and was buried in the cathedral church of Basil, where his tomb is to be seen, with a Latin inscription on the marble, of which a copy it inserted in the first volume of his works. He had made his will in February, in which he left handsome legacies to his friends, and the remainder to be distributed to relieve the sick and poor, to marry young women, and to assist young men of good characters: by which it appeared, that he was not in low circumstances, nor so bad an ceconomist as he sometimes, between jest and earnest, represented himself. His friend Beatus Rhenanus has given us a description of his person and manners, and tells us, that he was low of stature, but not remarkably short; that he was well-shaped, of a fair complexion, with hair in his youth of a pale yellow, grey eyes, a cheerful countenance, a low voice, and an agreeable utterance; that he was neat and decent in his apparel; that he had a very tender and infirm constitution, and a tenacious memory; that he was a pleasant companion, a very constant friend, generous and charitable, &c. He had one peculiarity belonging to him, which was, that he could not endure even the smell of fish; so that, however he might be a papist in other respects, he had, as he says, a very Lutheran stomach. He used to dine late, that he might have a long morning for study. After dinner, he would converse cheerfully with his friends upon all sorts of subjects, and deliver his opinions freely upon men and things. Erasmus objected long to sit for his picture; but he conquered that aversion, and was frequently drawn by Holbein. He dwelt longer at Basil than at any other place. He delighted in that city; and though he sometimes made excursions, yet he was sure to return. The revolution in religion was the only cause that hindered him from fixing his abode there all his days. At Basil they show the house in which he died; and the place where the professors of divinity read their winter-lectures is called the college of Erasmus. His cabinet is one of the most considerable rarities of the city; it contains his ring, his seal, his sword, his knife, his pencil, his will written with his own hand, and his picture by Holbein, which is a masterpiece. The magistrates bought this cabinet, in 1661, for nine thousand crowns, of the descendants of Erasmus’s heir: and, if we may believe Patin, they made a present of it to the university; but others say, they sold it for a thousand crowns. Nothing has made the city of Rotterdam more famous, than its having given birth to this great man: nor has it been insensible of the honour, but has testified its high regard to him. The house in which he was born is adorned with an inscription, to inform both natives and strangers of this illustrious prerogative; the college, where Latin, Greek, and rhetoric are taught, bears the name of Erasmus, and is consecrated to him by an inscription on th6 frontispiece; a statue of wood was raised to him in 1549; a statue of stone in 1555, and one of copper in 1622, which is admired by the connoisseurs. It is in an open part of the city, standing on a bridge over a canal, upon a pedestal adorned with inscriptions, and surrounded with iron rails.

, an eminent German physician, but perhaps more celebrated as a divine, from being, the reputed founder of the Erastians, or of the opinions so called, for they are not a distinct sect, was born in 1523, or 1524, at Auggenen, a village in the lordship of Badenweiller, which is in the marquisate of Baden Dourlach. His family name was Leiber, or beloved, to which he gave, according to the custom of the times, a Greek turn, and called himself Erastus. In 1540, he was sent to the university of Basil, where he had some difficulties to struggle with, owing to the poverty of his parents; but, according to Melchior Adam, Providence raised him up a patron, who provided for him liberally, and after his studies at Basil, enabled him to travel to Italy for farther improvement. At Bologna he studied both philosophy and physic, the latter for nine years under the ablest masters. Returning, with a doctor’s degree, to his own country, he lived for some time at the court of the princes of Henneberg, where he practised physic with great reputation, until the elector palatine Frederick III. invited him to his court, and made him first physician and counsellor. This prince appointed him also professor of physic in the university 'of Heidelberg. In 1581 be returned to Basil, where he was also chosen professor of physic, and where he made a liberal foundation for the provision and education of poor students in medicine, and after superintending and establishing this, which was long called the Erastian foundation, he died Dec. 31, 1583, or, according to some, Jan. 1, 1584. His medical works were principally, 1. “Disputationum de Medicina nova Philippi Paracelsi,” p. i. Basil, 1572, p. ii. ibid. 1572, p. iii. ibid. 1572, p. iv. et ultima, ibid. 1573, all in 4to. In these volumes he refutes the doctrines which Paracelsus had previously taught at Basil, and had committed to writing, particularly^) astrology and medicine. 2. “Theses de~Contagio,” Heidelberg, 1574, 4to. 3. “De Occult. Pharmacor. Potestatibus,” ibid. 1574, 4to; Francfort, 1611. 4. “Disputat, de Auro Potabili,” Basil, 1578, 1594, 4to. 5. “De Putredine Lu ber,” ibid. 1580, 4to; Lipsiae, 1590. 6. “Epistola de Astrologia Divinatrice,” Basil, 1580, 4to. 7. “De Pinguedinis in Anhnalibus Generatione et Concretione,” Heidelbergae, 1580, 4to. 8. “Com ids Montani, Vicentini, novi Medicorum censoris, quinque Librorum de Morbis nuper Editorum viva Anatome,” Basil, 1581, 4to. 9. “Ad Archangeli Mercenarii Disputationem de Putredine responsioj” ibid. 152, 4to. 10, “Varia Opuscula Medica,” Franc. 1590, folio.

His fame, however, chiefly now rests on what he wrote in ecclesiastical controversy. When at Heidelberg, a dispute having arisen respecting the sacrament, chiefly founded on the question, “Whether the terms flesh and blood ought to be understood literally or metaphorically' he published a book” De crena Domini,“in which he contended for the metaphorical sense. He had indeed all his life paid so much attention to contested points of divinity, that he was reckoned as good a divine as a physician; and for this reason, in 1564, when a conference was held between the divines of the palatinate, and those of Wittemberg, respecting the real presence in the sacrament, Erastus was ordered by the elector Frederic to be present at it. The work, however, which excited most attention, in this country, at least, if not in his own, was his book on ecclesiastical excommunication, in which he denies the power of the church to excommunicate, exclude, absolve, censure, in short, to exert what is called discipline. Denying the power of the keys, he compared a pastor to a professor of any science who can merely instruct his students; he would have all ordinances of the gospel open and free to all, and all offences, whether of a civil or religious nature, to be referred to the civil magistrate, consequently the church with him was merely a creature of the state. Some of our first reformers adopted these sentiments so far as to maintain, that no one form of church government is prescribed in scripture as a rule for future ages, as Cranmer, Redmayn, Cox, &c. and archbishop Whitgift, in his controversy with Cartwright, delivers the same opinion. The Erastians formed a party in the assembly of divines in 1643, and the chief leaders of it were Dr. Lightfoot, Mr. Colman, Mr. Selden, and Mr. Whitlock; and in the house of cornmons there were, besides Selden and Whitlock, Oliver St. John, esq. sir Thomas Wicldrington, John Crew, esq. sir John Hipsley, and others. In the assembly, the Erastians did not except against the presbyterian government as a” political institution,“proper to be established by the civil magistrate, but they were against the claim of a” divine right.“Accordingly the clause of divine right was lost in the house of commons. It is almost needless to add, however, that after the restoration, these opinions, decayed, and we believe that at this time, there is no sect, however hostile in its opinions to the power of the established church, who has not, and does not assert a power of its own binding on all its members, in one shape or other. In Erastus’s life-time, he was opposed by Ursinus, his friend and colleague; and since has been answered by Hammond,” On the power of the Keys,“1647. But it is necessary to remark that what is called Erastus’s book on this subject was not published in his life-time. During that, indeed, he published his opinions in the form of theses, levelled at Caspar Olevianus and his colleagues, who wanted to introduce ecclesiastical discipline in the churches of the Palatinate; and Beza, who foresaw the mischiefs of this controversy, addressed himself both to Erastus and Olevianus, recommending peace. Having afterwards obtained a copy of the theses which Erastus had written, he determined to answer them; this excited Erastus to draw up a work in reply, but he declined printing it, lest he should disturb the peace of the churches. Six years after his death, however, it was published by one of his disciples, under the title” Explicatio questionis, utrum Excommunicatio, quatenus religionem intelligentes et amplexantes, a sacramentorum usu, propter admissum facinus arcet, mandato nitatur divino, an excogitata sit ab hominibus, &c.“Pesclavii (Puschlaw) apud Baocium Sultaceterum (fictitious names), 1589, 4to. By a letter of his in Goldast’s” Centuria Philologicarum Epistolarum,“it appears that Erastus pronounced his work unanswerable, but Beza very soon performed that task in his” Tractatus pius et moderatus," &c. Geneva, 1690, 4to, and to the general satisfaction of the divines of that period.

, a Spanish poet, was the son of a celebrated lawyer, and was born at Madrid in 1533. He was brought up in the palace of Philip II. and fought under him at the famous battle of Saint Quentin in 1557, after which being desirous to acquire the knowledge of different countries and their inhabitants, he travelled over France, Italy, Germany, and England. Having heard, while at London, that some provinces of Peru and Chili had revolted against the Spaniards, their conquerors and their tyrants, he was seized with an ardent longing to signalize his courage on this new scene of action. Accordingly he set out on the voyage; and soon after his arrival, he passed the frontiers of Chili into a little mountainous region, where he maintained a long and painful war against the rebels, whom at length he defeated. It is this war which makes the subject of his poem of the “Araucana,” so called from the name of the country, and which has very considerable merit, and several passages glow with all the charms of animated verse. The descriptions are rich, though defective in variety; but we can trace no plan, no unity of design, no probability in the episodes, nor harmony in the characters. This poem consists of more than 36 cantos, the length of which is produced by many repetitions and tedious details. Mr. Hayley, however, has bestowed considerable attention on it in his “Essay on Epic poetry,” with a view to recommend it to the English reader. It was printed, for the first time, in 1597, 12mo; but the best edition is that of Ma1632, 2 vols. 12mo. The time of his death is hot known, nor can he be traced beyond 1596.

, an eminent scholar of the middle age, was born in an early part of the ninth century. The most common account of him is, that he was a native of Ayr, in Scotland, though some writers have said that the place of his birth was Ergene, on the borders of Wales, and others have contended that he was an Irishman. It is, we apprehend, most probable that he was a Scotchman. However this may have been, he was animated, in a very dark period, with a most uncommon desire of literature. Seeing his country involved in great confusion and ignorance, and that it afforded no means of acquiring the knowledge after which he thirsted, he travelled into foreign, parts; and it is even asserted, by several authors, that he went to Athens, and spent some years in studying the Greek, Chaldaic, and Arabic languages. In whatever place he obtained his learning, it is certain that in philosophy he had no superior, and in languages no equal, in. the age during which he flourished. These extraordinary accomplishments, together with his wit and pleasantry, which rendered his conversation as agreeable as it was instructive, procured him an invitation from Charles the Bald, king of France, the greatest patron of literature in that period, to reside with him. Of this invitation Erigena accepted, and Jived a number of years in the court of that prince, on a footing of the most intimate acquaintance and familiarity. He slept often in the royal apartments, and dined daily at the royal table. From the following repartee, which is preserved by one of our ancient historians, we may judge of the freedom which Scotus used with the monarch. As they were sitting one day at table opposite to each other, after dinner, the philosopher having said something that was not quite agreeable to the rules of politeness, the king, in a merry humour, asked him, “Pray what is between a Scot and a sot” To which he answered, “Nothing but the table.” Charles, says the historian, laughed heartily, and was not in the least offended, as he made it- a rule never to be angry with his master, as he always called Erigena; yet, in order to assist our belief in the above joke, it has been observed, that we ought to know in what language Charles and Scotus conversed. Charles, however, valued this great man for his wisdom and learning, still more than for his wit, and retained him about his person, not merely as an agreeable companion, but as his preceptor in the sciences, and his best counsellor in the most arduous affairs of governnfenf. While Scotus resided in the court of France, he composed, at the desire of his royal patron, a number of works, which procured him many admirers on the one hand, and many adversaries on the other. The clergy, in particular, were dissatisfied with some of his notions, as not being perfectly orthodox. One of the subjects which employed his pen was the doctrine of predestination. In his treatise on this subject, which was addressed to Hincmar, archbishop of Rheims, and Pardulus, bishop of Laon, the position he begins with is, that every question may be resolved by four general rules of philosophy, viz. division, definition, demonstration, and analysis. By these rules he endeavours to prove, that there cannot be a double predestination, of one to glory, and another to damnation; and that predestination does not impose any necessity, but that man is absolutely free; and that, although he cannot do good without the grace of Jesus Christ, yet he does it, without being constrained or forced to do it by the will of God, by his own free choice. Sin, and the consequences of it, and the punishments with which it is attended, are, says Erigena, mere privations, that are neither foreseen nor predestinated by God; and predestination hath no place but in those things which God hath pre-ordained in order to eternal happiness; for our predestination arises from the foresight of the good use of our free-will. Sentiments so bold, and delivered in such an age, could not fail of exciting great indignation. Wemlo, or Ganelo, archbishop of Sens, having read the work, collected out of it several propositions, which he arranged under nineteen heads, according to the number and order of the chapters of Scotus’s treatise, and sent them to Prudentius, bishop of Troyes. This prelate, having examined them, found in them, as he thought, not only the errors of Pelagius, but the impiety of the Collyridians. He employed himself, therefore, in answering Erigena and another answer to him was written by Florus, a deacon of the church of Lyons. It does not appear that Scotus engaged any farther in the controversy.

, or, as he was called in Dutch, Thomas van Erpe, a very learned writer, and eminently skilled in the oriental tongues, was descended, both by his father and mother’s side, from noble families at Boisleduc in Brabant, which place his parents had quitted on account of their adherence to the protestant religion, and was born, at Gorcum in Holland, Sept. 11, 1584. Prom his earliest years he shewed a peculiar disposition for learning, which induced his father, though no scholar himself, to send him to Leyden, where he began his studies, and prosecuted them with such success, as to excite the admiration of his masters. In 1608, at the age of eighteen, he was admitted into the university of that city, where he took the degree of doctor in philosophy. Vossius informs us, that, soon after he became a student in that place, he grew so diffident of succeeding in his labours, as to have thoughts of laying them entirely aside; but that, being encouraged to persevere, and inspired with fresh courage, be made himself master of several branches of literature, and particularly metaphysics, in the pursuit of which last, his patience appears to have been invincible. He is said to have read over not only Aristotle, but likewise a great number of his interpreters, with all the commentaries of Suarez; in which he was so conversant, that, several years after he had gone through his course of philosophy, and was engaged in other studies, he could give a distinct account of the contents of almost every page of that vast work.

, lord Dun, an eminent Scotch lawyer, was born at Dun, co. Angus, 1670, and brought up to the law, partly in the university of St. Andrew’s, and partly in that of Paris. In 1696 he was called to the bar in the court of session, and became a famous pleader. He opposed the union in the Scottish parliament, and was a munificent benefactor to the persecuted episcopal clergy. In 1711 he took his seat on the bench in the court of session, under the title of lord Dun. In 1713 he was appointed one of the commissioners of the court of justiciary, which he held till 1750, when he retired; and in 1752, published a most excellent volume in 12mo, under the title of “Lord Dun’s Advices.” He died at Dun, 1755, aged eighty-five.

But while Mr. Erskine was attending to the affairs of religion, he did not neglect the duties which he owed to the public as a magistrate and a military knight. In the war with England, which began in September 1547, the English ships infested the east coast of Scotland, and some of them having landed about eighty men for the purposes of pillage, he collected a force trom the inhabitants, and repelled them with such bravery, that not a third of the eighty were able to regain their ships. In 1555 he had an interview with the celebrated John Knox, who had just arrived from Geneva, and was invited by him to the family-seat at Dun, where he preached and was resorted to by the principal men in that part of the country; and though this atVorded a public avowal of Mr. Erskine’s principles, the popish bishops thought him a man too powerful to be molested; and he still proceeded in his endeavours to promote the reformation. In December 1557, he, along v?ith the earl of Argyle, the earl of Glencairn, and other noble and distinguished characters, subscribed a covenant in which they bound themselves to advance the protestant religion, and to maintain in safety its ministers and professors, (who were now for the first time called the congregation) t by all means in their power, even to the hazard of their lives.

, a learned French divine, was born at Chalons-sur-Marne in 1511, of noble parents, became a doctor of the Sorbonne, and was rector of the university of Paris. He preached with considerable applause; but having in one of his sermons called the “Légende Doreée” the “Légende Ferrée,” it was concluded that he did not believe in the worship of the saints; especially from his doubting of certain facts related by the legendary writers in the “Golden Legend,” of which he ventured to speak thus disrespectfully. The faculty of Paris was about to pass a censure on him; but he explained himself in another discourse, and the transient storm was succeeded by a calm. The cardinal de Lorraine, who was well aware of his merit, employed him in several affairs of importance. D‘Espence attended him to Flanders in 1544, for the purpose of ratifying the peace between Charles V. and Francis I. His eminence took him afterwards to Rome in 1555, where he made so conspicuous a figure, that Paul IV. would have honoured him with the purple, in order to retain him. But his intention was set aside (says fatrjer, Berthier) as being apparently contrary to the interests of France. The imperialists requested the hat for three monks; and therefore the cardinal de Lorraine, who IV voured the design of getting D’Espence into the sacred college, relinquished the idea. “I rather chose,” says he in a letter to the king, “that he should not be there, than that three monks should get in; accordingly I entreated his holiness to think no more of it, and, by that means, I kept out the whole crew.” D'Espence, liking far less to live at Rome than at Paris, returned to France, and appeared with consequence at the assembly of the states of Orleans in 1560, and at the conference of Poissy in 1561, where he attached himself to the Calvinists, which gave much offence to his popish brethren. He died of the stone at Paris, Oct. 5, 1571, in the sixtieth year of his age. He was one of the most moderate and judicious doctors of the age in which he lived, and with all his attachment to popery, was the declared enemy of all violent measures, and disapproved of persecutions. He was well versed in the sciences, both ecclesiastical and profane. His works are almost all written in Latin, with an elegance scarcely known to the theologians of that period. The principal of them are, 1. “A treatise on Clandestine Marriages;” in which he proves that the sons of distinguished families cannot validiy contract marriage, without the consent of their relations. 2. “Commentaries on the Epistles of St. Paul to Timothy and Titus,” full of long digressions on the hierarchy and the ecclesiastical discipline. 3. Several controversial tracts, some in Latin and others in French. Ah his Latin works were collected at Paris in 1619, folio.

, cardinal, archbishop of Rouen, was son of John d'Estouteville, of an ancient and illustrious family of Normandy, and born in 1403. He was charged with important commissions during the reigns of Charles VII. and of Louis XI. reformed the university of Paris, and patronized the learned. He was a man of great firmness of character, and a very stern executor of justice. It is said that the Barigel of Rome having caught a thief in the fact, and resolved to put him to death upon the spot, as there was no hangman to be found, he obliged a French priest who happened to be travelling through that place, to execute an office so unworthy of his character. The cardinal being informed of the transaction, and unable to account for it, sent for the Barigel, and caused him immediately to be hanged at a window of his house. Being a zealous partisan for the pragmatic sanction, he called an assembly of bishops at Bourges, to discuss the means for a strict observance of that regulation, and measures were adopted for that end, notwithstanding the remonstrances of the deputies of the church of Bourdeaux and Peter their archbishop, in favour of the pope, to whom they were desirous of leaving a plenary power. D‘Estouteville died at Rome, being dean of the cardinals, the 22d of December, 1483, at the age of eighty. Besides the archbishopric of Rouen, he possessed six bishoprics in France, and in, Italy four abbeys and three grand priories; but he employed the greater part of the revenues in the decoration of the churches of which he had the care, and in relieving the poor. It was he who completed the castle of Gaillori, one of the finest pieces of architecture of the sixteenth century, which had been begun by the cardinal George D’Amboise.

, of Miletus, a philosopher of the Megaric school, who flourished about the 105th olympiad, or the year 360 B. C. was the disciple and successor of Euclid, and a strenuous opponent of Aristotle, whose writings and character he took every occasion of censuring and calumniating. He is most remarkable, however, for having introduced new subtleties into the art of disputation, several of which, though often mentioned as proofs of great ingenuity, deserve only to be remembered as examples of egregious trifling. Of these sophistical modes of reasoning, called by Aristotle Eristic syllogisms, the following may suffice: 1. Of the sophism, called from the example, The Lying: “if when you speak the truth, you say you lie, you lie; but you say you lie, when you speak the truth: therefore, in speaking the truth, you lie.” 2. The Occult; “Do you know your father? Yes. Do you know this man who is veiled? No. Then you do not know your father; for it is your father who is veiled.” 3. Sorites, “Is one grain a heap? No. Two grains? No. Three grains? No. Go on, adding one by one and, if one grain be not a heap, it will be impossible to say, what number of grains make a heap.” 4. The Horned. “You have what you have not lost; you have not lost horns; therefore you have horns.” In such high repute were these silly inventions for perplexing plain truth, that Chrysippus wrote six books upon the first of these sophisms; and Philetas, a Choan, died of a consumption which he contracted by the close study which he bestowed upon it.

, archbishop of Lyons, of the fifth century, was of an illustrious family, and so reputed for his piety that he was afterwards sainted. He retired with his sons Salonius and Veranius into the solitude of Lerins r after having distributed a part of his property among the poor, and divided the other part between his daughters. After some time he quitted the isle of LeVins, where the fame of his virtues brought him much applause, and went over to that of Le'ro, at present called St. Marguerite. Itwas not till after repeated solicitations that he was prevailed upon to leave this desert for the see of Lyons, which dignity he accepted about the year 434. In this capacity he assisted at the first council of Orange in the year 441, where he acquired much reputation for his judicious speeches. He died about the year 454. History has not handed down to us the events of his episcopate: but Claudian Mamertius informs us, that Eucherius frequently held conferences at Lyons, in which he gave proofs of his learning and judgment, that he often preached, and always with success, and that he was accounted the greatest prelate of his age. He wrote several books in the ascetic taste of the times. 1. “In praise of the desert,” addressed to St. Hilary; in which, it must be owned, he paints that of Lerins in very pleasing colours, and the style is in general elegant. 2. A tract “On the contempt of the world;.” translated into French by Arnaud d'Andilly, as well as the former, 1672, 12mo. They are both in the form of letters; the latter addressed to his kinsman Valerian. 3. “On spiritual formularies;” for the use of Veranius, one of his sons, 4. “The history of St. Maurice aud the Martyrs of the Thebaic legion.” All these are in the Bibliotheca Patrum. His two sons, Salonius and Veranius, were bishops even during the life-time of their father.

, an eminent philosopher, who flourished irv the 97th olympiad, about 390 B. C. was the founder of the Megaric sect, which was so called from Megara, where he was bora. He was endued by nature with a subtle and penetrating genius, and applied himself early to the study of philosophy. The writings of Parmenides first taught him the art of disputation. Hearing of the fame of Socrates, Euclid removed from Megara to Athens, where he long remained a constant hearer, and zealous disciple, of that philosopher; and such was his regard for him, that, when, in consequence of the enmity which subsisted between the Athenians and Megarians, a decree was passed by the forner, that any inhabitant of Megara, who should be seen in Athens should forfeit his life, he frequently came to Athens by night, from the distance of about twenty miles, concealed in a long female cloak and veil, to visit his master. But as his natural propensity to disputation was not sufficiently gratified in the tranquil method of philosophising adopted by Socrates, he frequently engaged in the business and disputes of the civil courts, at which Socrates, who despised forensic contests, expressed some dissatisfaction. This probably was the occasion of a separation between Euclid and his master; for we find him, after this time, at the head of a school in Megara, in which his chief employment was, to teach the art of disputation, which he did with so much vehemence, that Timon said, Euclid had carried the madness of contention from Athens to Megara. He was, however, at times sufficiently master of his temper, as appears from his reply to his brother, who in a quarrel had said, “Let me perish if I be not revenged on you:” “and let me perish,” returned Euclid, “if I do not subdue your, resentment by forbearance, and make you love me as much as ever.” In disputation, Euclid was averse to the analogical method of reasoning, and judged, that legitimate argumentation consists in deducing fair conclusions from acknowledged premises. He held, that there is one supreme good, which he called by the different names of Intelligence, Providence, God; and that evil, considered as an opposite principle to the sovereign good, has no physical existence. The supreme good he defined to be that which is always the same. Good he therefore considered abstractedly, as residing in the Deity, and he seems to have maintained, that all things which exist are good by their participation of the first good, and that in the nature of things there is no real evil. When Euclid was asked his opinion concerning the gods, he replied, “I know nothing more of them than this: that they hate inquisitive persons,” an answer which at that time, and remembering the fate of Socrates, shows his prudence at least.

, brother of the celebrated historian Mezerai, was born at Rye in the diocese of Ses in 1601, and was educated, and studied for eighteen years in the congregation of the oratory, under the eyes of the cardinal de Berulle. This he quitted in 1643, to institute the congregation of the Eudists, or as it was called, “The congregation of Jesus and Mary.” His former brethren opposing the establishment of this society, Eudes concealed a part of his project, and confined his views to a house at Caen, for the purpose of bringing up priests, “but without any design,” said he, “to form anew institution,” and his scheme succeeded by means of this pious fraud. Eudes was reckoned a good preacher in his time, when the eloquence of the pulpit was in its ruder state; and, being followed on account of this talent, his congregation increased, principally in Normandy and Bretany. Eudes died at Caen, Aug. 19th, 1680, in the 79th year of his age; leaving behind him several works of the popish mystical kind, the principal of which are, 1. “Traite de la devotion et de l'office du coeur de la Vierge,” 1650, 12mo. 2. “LeContrat de Phomme avec Dieu,” 12mo. The congregation of the Eudists had had eight superior-generals at the time of the revolution.

In 1699 the peace of Carlowitch was concluded, and an end put at length to the war, which had lasted fifteen years: and it was a great satisfaction to Eugene to have contributed so much to the finishing of it by this famous victory at Zenta. He had passed the first years of his youth in the wars of Hungary; was in almost all the battles, where he had eminently distinguished himself; and it seemed now, that he had nothing to do but to enjoy at Vienna that tranquillity which is sometimes, although not always, relished by men who have spent their lives amidst the noise of arms and dangers. But this repose was not to last long. The king of Spain’s death, and the dreaded union of that monarchy with France which followed, kindled a new war, which called him to Italy to command the emperor’s army there. His Imperial majesty published a manifesto, setting forth his title to the crown of Spain, when Eugene was upon the point of entering Italy. The progress of his arms under this general made the French king resolve to send marshal Villeroy into Italy, in the room of marshal Catinat, who had not given satisfaction. But Eugene soon let him see that numbers alone, in which the French were greatly superior, could not gain a victory; for he foiled him in every skirmish and engagement, and at length took him prisoner by a contrivance conducted with so much secrecy, that the French had not the least suspicion of it. Eugene went to put himself at the head of a body he brought from the Oglio, and ordered another to come from the Parmezan at the same time to force the bridge. He marched with all secrecy to Cremona; and sent in, through the ruins of an old aqueduct, men who got through and forced one of the gates; so that he was within the town before Villeroy had any apprehension of an army being near him. Awakened on a sudden with the noise, he got out to the street, and there was taken prisoner. At the instant that one of the German officers laid hold on him he whispered him, and said, “I am marshal de Villeroy: I will give you ten thousand pistoles, and promise you a regiment, if you will carry me to the castle.” But the officer answered him, “I have a long time faithfully served the emperor my master, and will not now betray him.” So he was sent to the place where Eugene was; who sent him to one more secure, under a strong guard. But, notwithstanding this, the other body neglecting to come up at the time appointed, an Irish regiment secured the bridge; and the design of capturing the garrison failed, although it was so well contrived and so happily executed on one part. Eugene had but four thousand men with him, and the other body not being able to join him, he was forced to march back, which he did without any considerable loss, carrying marshal Villeroy and some other prisoners with him. In this attempt, though he had not an entire success, yet he gained all the glory to which the ambition of a military man could aspire, and was considered as the greatest and happiest general of the age.

, archbishop of Toledo in the seventh century, and called the Younger, to distinguish him from his immediate predecessor of the same name, was at first clerk of the church of Toledo, and when chosen archbishop on the death of the elder Eugenius, retired to Saragossa with, a view to spend his days in the retirement of a monastery. Being however discovered, he was brought back to Toledo by order of his sovereign, and appointed archbishop in the year 646, an office which he filled for nine years. He presided at the councils held at Toledo in the years 653, 655, and 656. He was the author of several works, particularly a treatise on the Trinity, two books of miscellanies, and one in prose and verse, which were published by father Sirmond at Paris in 1619, 8vo, along with the poetical pieces of Dracontius. His style is not remarkable for elegance, but his thoughts are often just and pious. He died in the year 657.

, a very eminent mathematician, was born at Basil, on the 14th of April, 1707: he was the son of Paul Euler and of Margaret Brucker (of a family illustrious in literature), and spent the first year of his life at the village of Richen, of which place his father was protestant minister. Being intended for the church, his father, who had himself studied under James Bernoulli!, taught him mathematics, as a ground-work of his other studies, or at least a noble and useful secondary occupation. But Euler, assisted and perhaps secretly encouraged by John Bernoulli, who easily discovered that he would be the greatest scholar he should ever educate, soon declared his intention of devoting his life to that pursuit. This intention the wise father did not thwart, but the son did not so blindly adhere to it, as not to connect with it a more than common improvement in every other kind of useful learn-, ing, insomuch that in his latter days men often wondered how with such a superiority in one branch, he could have been so near to eminence in all the rest. Upon the foundation of the academy of sciences at St. Petersburgh, in, 1723, by Catherine I. the two younger Bernouillis, NichoJas and Daniel, had gone thither, promising, when they set out, to endeavour to procure Euler a place in it: they accordingly wrote to him soon after, to apply his mathetics to physiology, which he did, and studied under the best naturalists at Basil, but at the same time, i. e. in 1727, published a dissertation on the nature and propagation of sound; and an answer to the question on the masting of ships, which the academy of sciences at Paris judged worthy of the accessit. Soon after this, he was called to St. Petersburgh, and declared adjutant to the mathematical class in the academy, a class, in which, from the circumstances of the times (Newton, Leibnitz, and so many other eminent scholars being just dead), no easy laurels were to be gathered. Nature, however, who had organized so many mathematical heads at one time, was not yet tired of her miracles and she added Euler to the number. He indeed was much wanted the science of the calculus integralis, hardly come out of the hands of its creators, was still too near the stage of its infancy not to want to be made more perfect. Mechanics, dynamics, and especially hydrodynamics, and the science of the motion of the heavenly bodies, felt the imperfection. The application of the differential calculus, to them, had been sufficiently successful; but there were difficulties whenever it was necessary to go from the fluxional quantity to the fluent. With regard to the nature and properties of numbers, the writings of Fermat (who had been so successful in them), and together with these all his profound researches, were lost. Engineering and navigation were reduced to vague principles, and were founded on a heap of often contradictory observations, rather than a regular theory. The irregularities in the motions of the celestial bodies, and especially the complication of forces whitfh influence that of the moon, were still the disgrace of geometers. Practical astronomy had jet to wrestle with the imperfection of telescopes, insomuch, that it could hardly be said that any rule for making them existed. Euler turned his eyes to all these objects he perfected the calculus integralis he was the inventor of a new kind of calculus, that of sines he simplified analytical operations and, aided by these powerful help-mates, and the astonishing facility with which he knew how to subdue expressions the most intractable, he threw a new light on all the branches of the mathematics. But at Catherine’s death the academy was threatened with extinction, by men who knew not the connection which arts and sciences have with the happiness of a people. Euler was offered and accepted a lieutenancy on board one of the empress’s ships, with the promise of speedy advancement. Luckily things changed, and the learned captain again found his own element, and was named Professor of Natural Philosophy in 1733, in the room of his friend John Bernouilli. The number of memoirs which Euler produced, prior to this period, is astonishing, but what he did in 1735 is almost incredible, An important calculation was to be made, without loss of time; the other academicians had demanded some months to do it. Euler asked three days—in three days he did it; but the fatigne threw him into a fever, and the fever left him not without the loss of an eye, an admonition which would have made an ordinary man more sparing of the other. The great revolution, produced by the discovery of fluxions, had entirely changed the face of mechanics; still, however, there was no complete work on the science of motion, two or three only excepted, of which Euler felt the insufficiency. He saw, with pain, that the best works on the subject, viz. “Newton’s Principia,” and “Herman’s Phoronomia,” concealed the method by which these great men had come at so many wonderful discoveries, under a synthetic veil. In order to lift this up, Euler employed all the resources of that analysis which had served him so well on so many other occasions; and thus uniting his own discoveries to those of other geometers, had them published by the academy in 1736. To say that clearness, precision, and order, are the characters of this work, would be barely to say, that it is, what without these qualities no work can be, classical of its kind. It placed Euler in the rank of the first geometricians then existing, and this at a time when John Bernouilli was still living. Such labours demanded some relaxation; the only one which Euler admitted was music, but even to this he could not go without the spirit of geometry with him. They produced together the essay on a new theory of music, which was published in 1739, but not very well received, probably, because it contains too much geometry for a musician, and too much music for a geometrician. Independently, however, of the theory, which is built on Pythagorean principles, there are many things in it which may be of service, both to composers, and to makers of instruments. The doctrine, likewise, of the genera and the modes of music is here cleared up with all the clearness and precision which mark the works of Euler. Dr. Burney remarks, that upon the whole, Euler seems not to have invented much in this treatise; and to have done little more than arrange and methodize former discoveries in a scientific and geometric manner. He may, indeed, not have known what antecedent writers had discovered before; and though not the first, yet to have imagined himself an inventor. In 1740, his genius was again called forth by the academy of Paris (who, in 1738, had adjudged the prize to his paper on the nature and properties of fire) to discuss the nature of the tides, an important question, which demanded a prodigious extent of calculations, aud an entire new system of the world. This prize Euler did not gain alone; but he divided it with Maclaurin and D. Bernouilli, forming with them a triumvirate of candidates, which the realms of science had not often beheld. The agreement of the several memoirs of Euler and Bernouilli, on this occasion, is very remarkable. Though the one philosopher had set out on the principle of admitting vortices, which the other rejected, they not only arrived at the same end of the journey, but met several times on the road; for instance, in the determination of the tides under the frozen zone. Philosophy, indeed, led these two great men by different paths; Bernouilli, who had more patience than his friend, sanctioned every physical hypothesis he was obliged to make, by painful and laborious experiment. These Euler’s impetuous genius scorned; and, though his natural sagacity did not always supply the loss, he made amends by his superiority in analysis, as often as there was any occasion to simplify expressions, to adapt them to practice, and to recognize, by final formulae, the nature of the result. In 1741, Euler received some very advantageous propositions from Frederic the Second (who had just ascended the Prussian throne), to go and assist him in forming an academy of sciences, out of the wrecks of the Royal Society founded by Leibnitz. With these offers the tottering state of the St. Petersburgh academy, under the regency, made it necessary for the philosopher to comply. He accordingly illumined the last volume of the “Melanges de Berlin,” with five essays, which are, perhaps, the best things in it, and contributed largely to the academical volumes, the first of which was published in 1744. No part of his multifarious labours is, perhaps, a more wonderful proof of the extensiveness and facility of his genius, than what he executed at Berlin, at a time when he contrived also that the Petersburgh acts should not suffer from the loss of him. In 1744, Euler published a complete treatise of isoperimetrical curves. The same year beheld the theory of the motions of tb.e planets and comets; the well-known theory of magnetism, which gained the Paris prize; and the much-amended translation of Robins’ s “Treatise on Gunnery.” In 1746, his “Theory of Light and Colours” overturned Newton’s “System of Emanations;” as did another work, at that time triumphant, the “Monads of Wolfe and Leibnitz.” Navigation was now the only branch of useful knowledge, for which the labours of analysis and geometry had done nothing. The hydrographical part alone, and that which relates to the direction of the course of ships, had been treated by geometricians conjointly with nautical astronomy. Euler was the first who conceived and executed the project of making this a complete science. A memoir on the motion of floating bodies, communicated to the academy of St. Petersburgh, in 1735, by M. le Croix, first gave him this idea. His researches on the equilibrium of ships furnished him with the means of bringing the stability to a determined measure. His success encouraged him to go on, and produced the great work which the academy published in 1749, in which we find, in systematic order, the most sublime notions on the theory of the equilibrium and mo. tion of floating bodies, and on the resistance of fluids. This was followed by a second part, which left nothing to be desired on the subject, except the turning it into a language easy of access, and divesting it of the calculations which prevented its being of general use. Accordingly in 1773, from a conversation with admiral Knowles, and other assistance, out of the “Scientia Navalis,” 2 vols. 4to, was produced, the “Theorie complette de la Construction et de la Manoeuvre des Vaisseaux.” This work was instantly translated into all languages, and the author received a present of 6000 livres from the French king: he had before had 300l. from the English parliament, for the theorems, by the assistance of which Meyer made his lunar tables . And now it was time to collect into one systematical and continued work, all the important discoveries on the infinitesimal analysis, which Euler had been making for thirty years, and which lay dispersed in the memoirs of the different academies. This, accordingly, the professor undertook; but he prepared the way by an elementary work, containing all the previous requisites for this study. This is called “An Introduction to the analysis of Infinitesimals,” and is a work in which the author has exhausted all the doctrine of fractions, whether algebraical or transcendental, by shewing their transformation, their resolution, and their developernent. This introduction was soon, followed by the author’s several lessons on the “calculus integralis, and differentialis.” Having engaged himself to count Orlow, to furnish the academy with papers sufficient to fill their volumes for twenty years after his death, the philosopher is likely to keep his word, having presented seventy papers, through Mr. Golofkin, in the course of his life, and left two hundred and fifty more behind him; nor is there one of these that does not contain a discovery, or something that may lead to one. The most ancient of these memoirs form the collection then published, under the title of “Opuscula Analytica.” Such were Euler’s labours, and these his titles to immortality His memory shall endure till science herself is no more! Few men of letters have written so much as Euler no geometrician, has ever embraced so many objects at one time or has equalled him, either in the variety or magnitude of his discoveries. When we reflect on the good such men do their fellow-creatures, we cannot help indulging a wish (vain, alas as it is) for their illustrious course to be prolonged beyond the term allotted to mankind. Euler’s, though it has had an end, was very long and very honourable; and it affords us some consolation for his loss, to think that he enjoyed it exempt from the ordinary consequences of extraordinary application, and that his last labours abounded in proofs of that vigour of understanding which marked his early days, and which he preserved to his end. Some swimmings in the head, which seized him on the first days of September, 1783, did not prevent his laying hold of a few facts, which reached him through the channel of the public papers, to calculate the motions of the aerostatical globes; and he even compassed a very difficult integration, in which the calculation had engaged him . But the decree was gone forth: on the 7th of September he talked with Mr. Lexell, who had come to dine with him, of the new planet, and discoursed with him upon other subjects, with his usual penetration. He was playing with one of his grand-children at tea-time, when he was seized with an apoplectic fit. “I am dying,” said he, before he lost his senses; and he ended his glorious life a few hours after, aged seventy-six years, five months, and three days. His latter days were tranquil and serene. A few infirmities excepted, which are the inevitable lot of an advanced age, he enjoyed a share of health which allowed him to give little time to repose. Euler possessed to a great degree what is commonly called erudition he had read all the Latin classics was perfect master of ancient mathematical literature and had the history of all ages, and all nations, even to the minutest facts, ever present to his mind. Besides this, he knew much more of physic, botany, and chemistry, than could be expected from any man who had not made these sciences his peculiar occupation. “I have seen,” says his biographer, Mr. Fuss, “strangers go from him with a kind of surprise mixed with admiration; they could not conceive how a man, who for half a century had seemed taken up in making and publishing discoveries in natural philosophy and mathematics, could have found means to preserve so much knowledge that seemed useless to himself, and foreign to the studies in which he was engaged. This was the effect of a happy memory, that lost nothing of what had ever been entrusted to it nor was it a wonder that the man who was able to repeat the whole Æneis, and to point out to his hearers the first and last verses of every page of his own edition of it, should not have lost what he had learned, at an age when the impressions made upon us are the strongest. Nothing can equal the ease with which, without expressing the least degree of ill-humour, he could quit his abstruse meditations, and give himself up to the general amusements of society. The art of not appearing wise above one’s fellows, of descending to the level of those with whom one lives, is too rare in these days not to make it a merit in Euler to have possessed it. A temper ever equal, a natural and easy chearfulness, a species of satirical wit, tempered with urbane humanity, the art of telling a story archly, and with simplicity, made his conversation generally sought. The great fund of vivacity which he had at all times possessed, and without which, indeed, the activity we have just been admiring could not have existed, carried him sometimes away, and he was apt to grow warm, but his anger left him as quickly as it came on, and there never has existed a man to whom he bore malice. He possessed a precious fund of rectitude and probity. The sworn enemy of injustice, whenever or by whomsoever committed, he used to censure and attack it, without the least attention to the rank or riches of the offender. Recent examples of this are in the recollection of all who hear me.” As he was filled with respect for religion, his piety was sincere, and his devotion full of fervour. He went through all his Christian duties with the greatest attention. Euler loved all mankind, and if he ever felt a motion of indignation, it was against the enemy of religion, particularly against the declared apostles of infidelity. He was of a very religious turn of mind. He published a New Demonstration of the Existence of God, and of the Spirituality of the Soul, which last has been admitted into several divinity schools as a standard book. With scrupulous exactness he adhered to the religion of his country, that of Calvinism, and, fortified by its principles, he was a good husband, a good father, a good friend, a good citizen, a good member of private society.

, an Arian heretic of the fourth century, was born at Dacora, a town of Cappadocia and was the son of a peasant but not relishing a country life, he went to Constantinople, and afterwards to Alexandria, where he became the disciple and secretary of Ætius, but was abundantly more subtle than his master, as well as more bold in propagating the doctrines of his sect, who have since been called Eunomians. He then returned to Antioch, where he was ordained a deacon by Eudoxius, bishop of that place; but being sent to defend Eudoxius against Basil of Ancyra, before the emperor Constantius, he was seized upon the road by the partisans of Basil, and banished to Mida, a town, of Phrygia. He returned to Constantinople, and in the year 360 was made bishop of Cyzicum, by his protector Eudoxius, who advised him to conceal his doctrines: but Eunomius was incapable of following this advice, and gave so much disturbance to the church by the intemperance of his zeal, that Eudoxius himself, by the order of Constantius, was obliged to depose him from his bishopric, and he was that year banished again. He retired to a house "which he had in Chalcedonia, where he concealed the tyrant Procopius in the year 365, and being accused by the emperor Valens of having afforded shelter to his enemy, was by him banished a third time to Mauritania. Valens, bishop of Mursa, got him recalled; and he was next banished to the isle of Naxos, for disturbing the peace of the church. He again returned to Chalcedonia; but Theodosius the elder obliged him to quit that place, and sent him first to Halmyris, a desert of Mossia, near the Danube, and afterwards to Caesarea of Cappadocia; where, however, the inhabitants would not suffer him to continue, because he had formerly written against Basil, their bishop. Tired, at length, with being thus tossed about, he petitioned to retreat to the place of his birth; where he died very old, about the year 394, after having experienced great variety of sufferings.

Eusebius did not long survive Constantine, for he. died about the year 33 o, according to Dupin; or the year 340, according to Valesius. He wrote several great and important works, of which among those that are extant we have, 1. “Chronicon” divided into two parts, and carried down to A. D. 325 in which, not long before the council of Nice, Cave supposes this work to have been finished. The first part, which is at present extremely mutilated, contains an history of the Chaldeans, Assyrians, Medes, Persians, Lydians, Jews, Egyptians, &c. from the creation of the world. In the second part, which is called “Canon Chronicus,” he digests the history of the several nations according to the order of time. St. Jerom translated both parts into Latin: but we have remaining of the version of the first part, only some extracts, containing the names of the kings, printed with the translation of the second part. It was printed at Basil, and afterwards published more accurately by Arnauld de Pontac, bishop of Baras, at Bourdeaux in 1604. But no person ever undertook to collect the Greek fragments of the original, till Joseph Scaliger published them at Leyden, 1606, in folio, under the following title: “Thesaurus temporum, complectens Eusebii Pamphili chronicon Latine, S. Hieronymo interprete, cum ipsius chronici fragmentis Graecis antehac non editis, et auctores omnes derelicta ab Eusebio continuantes. Edente Josepho Justo Scaligero, qui notas et castigationes in Eusebium, nee non Isagogicorum Chronologix canonum libros tres adjecit.” There, was another edition, much enlarged, printed at Amsterdam in 1658, in 2 vols. fol. under the care of Alexander Morus. Dupin says, that “this work of Eusebius displays a prodigious extent of reading, and consummate erudition. It is necessary to have read an infinite number of books and ancient monuments, in order to compile an universal history; and to have been master of a very clear understanding at the same time, in order to collect such a multitude of facts, and dispose them in their proper order. This is an immense labour, which is a strong proof of the vast reading and prodigious memory of Eusebius. It must be owned, indeed, that Africanus’s Chronicle was of great service to him, and that he has copied that author throughout his work. However, he has corrected several of Africanus’s mistakes, though he has fallen into others himself. But it is almost impossible not to err in a work of such vast extent and difficulty as an universal chronicle. Mistakes are excusable in a performance of this kind; nor can they hinder it from being deservedly considered as one of the molt useful works of antiquity.” His next work is, 2. “Prseparationis Evangelicae, Hbri XV.” Valesius tells us that this book, as well as his treatise “De Demonstratione Evangelica,” was written before the Nicene council, since they are expressly cited in his “Ecclesiastical History,” which Valesius affirms to have been written also before it; but Cave is of opinion that the book “De Prseparatione Evangelica” was written after that council, undoubtedly after his “Chrdnicon,” since his “Canones Chronici” are expressly cited in it. 3. “De Demonstratione Evangelical” We have of this work only ten books extant, though Eusebius wrote twenty. A beautiful edition of this and the former book was printed in Greek by Robert Stephens in 1544 and 1545, in 2 vols. fol. They were reprinted at Paris, 1628, in 2 vols. fol. with a new version of the book “De Praeparatione,” by the Jesuit Francis Vigerus, and with Donatus’s translation! of the book “De Demonstratione.” 4. “Historic Ecclesiasticae, libri V.” containing the history of the church from the beginning to the death of Licinius the elder, which includes a period of 324 years. Valesius observes, that he wrote this after almost all his other works; and Cave says, that it was written after the Nicene council, since he mentions in it not only his “Chronicon,” but likewise his treatise “De Demonstratione.” At the end of the eighth book we find a small treatise “Of the Martyrs of Palestine;” in which he describes the martyrdom of those who suffered for the faith of Christ iri that province. This has been erroneously confounded with the 8th book of the history; whereas it is a separate tract, which serves for a supplement to that book. The Ecclesiastical History has been often translated and printed: but the best edition is that of Henry Valesius^ who, having remarked the defects of all the former translations, undertook a new one, which he has joined to the Greek text revised by four manuscripts, and has added notes full of erudition. Valesius’s edition was printed at Paris in 1659 and 1671, and at Francfort in 1672, with the rest of the ecclesiastical historians. It was printed again at Cambridge in 1720, in three vols. folio, by William Reading, who has joined to the notes of Valesius such observations of modern authors as he could collect; but, in Le Clerc’s opinion, somewhat too harsh, “they might as well have been placed at the end of the book, since they are much interior to those of Valesius, both for style and matter; and appear with the same disadvantage as an ordinary painting placed by the work of an eminent master.”

, so called from his being bishop of Emessa, was among the disciples of Eusebius of Cesarea, and died about the year 359. Several works are ascribed to him, which appear to belong to more modern authors i they are in the library of the fathers.

, one of the most celebrated anatomists of the sixteenth century, was a native of San Severino, a village in Italy. He was educated at Rome, where he first conceived a bias in favour of medicine, and especially of anatomy, and cultivated the latter with such success, that he was appointed to the professor’s chair in that college. His life probably passed in the quiet pursuit of his studies and exercise of his profession, as no other events are on record concerning him. He died at Home in 1574. Eustachius was the author of several works, the greater part of which are lost. His treatise “De Controversiis Anatomicorum,” which was one of the most considerable of his productions, is much regretted. His opuscula which remain appeared under the following titles, “Opuscula Anatomica, nempe de Renum structura, officio, et administratione de auditus organo ossium examen de mom capitis de vena quae azygos dicitur, et de alia, quae in flexn brachii communem profundam producit de dentibus,” Venet. 1563, and again in 1674, with the notes of Pinus. An edition was also published at Leyden, in 1707, under the superintendance of Boerhaave. He has the merit of several discoveries in anatomy; being the tirst who described the renal capsules, the thoracic duct, and the passage leading from the throat to the internal ear, which is still called from him the Eustachian tube. A series of figures engraved on copper were mentioned in his “Opuscula” as nearly finished; but they were not discovered until 1714, when they were published at Rome by Lancisi, physician to pope Clement XL in one volume, folio. These plates were again published, but not well printed, at Geneva in 1717. The edition of Rome in 1728 is excellent; but the one published at the same city in 1740, by Petrioli, is less valuable. The same work was twice published at Leyden, under the direction of Albinus, viz. in 1744 and 1762. Eustachius edited the lexicon of Erotran at Venice in 1666, under the title of “Erotiani, Graeci scriptoris vetustissimi, vocum, quae apud Hippocratem sunt, collectio, cum annotatiombus Eustachii,” in quarto.

, originally a monk of the fifth century, and for his piety elected abbot of the convent near Constantinople to which he belonged, is said to have lived to an advanced age before he distinguished himself by any peculiar opinions. Then, through a violent desire to oppose the Nestorian heresy, which was supposed to divide the nature of Christ into two distinct persons, he became the leader of a new heresy, by absorbing the human nature of Christ entirely in the divine, and maintaining that the human body of Christ was only apparent. His doctrines were first noticed in a council assembled at Constantinople by Fluvianus, in the year 448, where they were condemned, and himself deposed from his dignity of abbot. Eutyches, however, had interest enough with the emperor Theodosius to procure another council at Ephesus, in the year 449, in which the former acts were reversed, Flavian and other bishops who had opposed Eutyches deposed, and every thing carried with such violence, that this council is generally named woJoj xwrrpun), the convention of robbers. A third council was necessary to settle these differences; and pope Leo the First, (called St. Leo, or Leo the Great) prevailed on Marcian, the successor of Theodosius, to cull one at Chalcedon, which met in the year 451, and was reckoned the fourth recumenical or general council. Six hundred and thirty bishops were present. Here Kutyches was condemned, though absent, and the following doctrine laid down in opposition to his heresy: “That in Christ two distinct natures were united in one person, without any change, mixture, or confusion.” Yet even after this decision, violent disputes and divisions subsisted for a considerable time. It is uncertain what became of Eutyches after the council of Ephesus; Leo certainly applied ta Marcian and to Pulcheria to have him deposed; but whether he succeeded or not, is unknown. Two supplications to Theodosius, one confession, and a fragment of another by Eutyches, are still extant.

, a Welch divine and poet, was born at Cynhavvdrew, in Cardiganshire, about 1730, and was entered of Jesus college, Oxford, about the beginning of 1751, where he probably took a bachelor’s degree, but left college after taking orders, and officiated as curate in several places, particularly Newick in Kent, Llanvair Talhaiarn in Denbighshire, and Towyn in Merion. He was at the same time an assiduous student of Welch literature, employing all his leisure hours in transcribing an cient manuscripts, of which labour he left behind him about an hundred volumes of various sizes. Having passed a great part of his life in such pursuits, without being able to procure the smallest promotion in the church, his fortitude deserted him, and, to chase away his vexations, he fell into that which increased them, a habit of drinking, which at times produced symptoms of derangement, and precluded his chance of obtaining any new friends. He inherited a small freehold in Cardiganshire, which he conveyed over to a younger brother to raise money to support himself at the university. Such a sacrifice to the laudable ambition of learning ought not to have gone unrewarded. Mr. Evans died at his birth-place in 1790. lu 1764 he published a 4to vol. “Dissertatio de Bardis,” or “Some Specimens of the Poetry of the ancient Welch Bards. Translated into English, with explanatory notes on the historical passages, and a short account of the men and places mentioned by the Bards; in order to give the curious some idea of the taste and sentiments of our ancestors, and their manner of writing,” 4to. Although these specimens appeared to considerable disadvantage in a translation, yet Mr. Evans’s Latin Dissertation proved his very intimate acquaintance with the subject, and that his researches into the history of his poetical countrymen had been profound and successful. His other works were an English poem called “The Love of our Country, with historical notes,” 1772, 4to, in which, with some not inelegant versification, there is rather too much of prejudice and personal complaint; several Welch compositions, printed in the “Diddanwch Tenluaidd,” and two volumes of Sermons by Tillotson and others, translated into Welch. All the manuscripts that Mr. Evans possessed at his death became the property of Paul Pan ton, esq. of Plas Gwyn, in Mona, in consideration of an annuity of twenty pounds, which that gentleman settled upon him.

, a dissenting divine of Wales, was born, in 1680, at Wrexham, in Denbighshire, descended from a race of clergymen of the establishment until his father, who was ejected for non-conformity from the living of Oswestry, in Shropshire, in 1662, and became the minister to an independent congregation at Wrexham. The son was educated with great care, and inducted to the different branches’ of literature necessary to qualify him for the office of the ministry, which he afterwards exercised in London, first as an assistant, and afterwards as successor to Dr. Daniel Williams. He was also one of the lecturers at tSalter’s hall meeting and belonged to what is called “The Merchant’s lecture.” Tn youth he was remarkably studious, and not only read over all the Christian writers of the first three centuries, but also the whole of Pool’s Synopsis, in five large folio volumes. He married a lady of family, and had a daughter supposed to be a considerable fortune; but he had been tempted to embark his property in the South-sea scheme, and the loss is supposed to have contributed to shorten his days. He died in 1730, in the fifty-first year of his age, highly esteemed by all who knew him. He had ever been eminent for piety, integrity, and public spirit; in his principles he was orthodox, but disposed to think well of and to honour those who differed from him, without any regard to the sentiments which they might hold. He received a diploma of D. D. from the universities of Edinburgh and Aberdeen. His “Practical Discourses concerning the Christian Temper,” are still in considerable estimation. The celebrated Dr. Watts characterized them as “the most complete summary of those duties which make up the Christian life,” and Dr. Doddridge, as the best practical pieces in our language. His other works are, “Sermons upon various subjects, preached to young people,” 1725, 12mo; “A Letter to Mr. Gumming, concerning the regard which ought to be had to Scripture consequences;” “A Second Letter,” in defence of the former, and about twenty occasional Sermons, printed separately. He was the editor also of the “Life of the rev. James Owen,” 1711, 12mo.

, celebrated as a philosopher, patriot, and learned writer of the seventeenth century, was descended from an ancient and honourable family, a branch of which, at the time of his birth, was settled in the county of Surrey, though it flourished originally in the county of Salop, at a place which is still called Evelyn. George Evelyn, esq. purchased the family estate at Wotton in Surrey, in the reign of queen Elizabeth, and had, by two wives, sixteen sons and eight daughters. He died May 30, 1603, in the seventy-third year of his age, leaving his estate at Wotton to Richard Evelyn, esq. his youngest and only surviving son by his second wife. This Richard Evelyn, esq. married Eleanor, or Ellen, daughter and heiress of John Stansficld, of die Cliff" near Lewes, esq. and had by her three sons, George, John, and Richard.

Mr. Evelyn’s tour is thus chronicled by himself: “July 26, 1643, he went to France, and having passed the remainder of the year, with the winter and next spring, at Paris, ia which time he made an excursion into Normandy, and saw Rouen, April 25, 1644, he set out for Orleans, and after visiting Blois, Tours, Anjou, and all the fine places on the Loire, together with the town and palace built by the great cardinal Richelieu, and called by his name, he arrived Sept. 2 at Lyons, and went from thence by Avignon to Marseilles, and so along the coast to a little town called Canes, where (in Oct.) he embarked and arrived at Genoa, the curiosities of which having viewed, he proceeded to Pisa, Leghorn, Florence, Sienna, and so came (Nov. 4) to Rome, where he spent the winter in seeing all the antiquities and curiosities of that famous city, making an excursion (Jan. 27, 1644-5) to Naples, and returning Feb. 7. May 18 he left Rome, and passing through Bologna and Ferrara, came (in June) to Venice, where he spent the remaining part of the year, and sometimes going to Padua, where the earl of Arundel was, the great collector of pictures, statues, &c. whom he was acquainted with, and who, at his taking leave of him, gave him directions written with his own hand, what curiosities to inquire after in his travels. March 20, 1646, he left Venice in company with Mr. Waller the poet, and went to Milan, taking Vincenza and Verona in his way; from hence he passed the Alps, and came to Geneva. In July he departed from Geneva, and in October got to Paris again by the way of Orleans.”

Being now recommended to sir Richard Brown, bart. the king’s minister there, he made his addresses to his only daughter Mary, whom he married June 27, 1647, and in her right became possessed of Sayes-court near Deptford, in Kent, where he resided after his return to England, which was in October of that year. Soon after his arrival he went to Hampton court, where he had the honour to kiss his majesty’s hand, and gave him an account of several things he had in charge. On Jan. 21, 1648-9, he published his tract on liberty and servitude, for which he wasseverely threatened, and probably on this account he went again to France in July 1649, and in November of that year he attended his father-in-law sir Richard Brown, when he had his first audience at the French court, after the death of Charles I. and delivered his credentials from Charles II. In July 1650 he went again to England, but returned to Paris in the following month. In Jan. 1651-2 he left France, and returning to England, settled at Sayescourt near Deptford, and in May was joined by his wife from France. In all he appears to have spent about seven years in his travels, and with a mind highly improved by what he had seen and read, he silently pursued his studies at this retirement (for such it then was), and wrote and published some of those works which afterwards gave him a distinguished name in the learned world. It was here also that he first shewed his skill in planting and gardening, both then very little understood in England, and rendered this place the wonder and admiration of the most judicious men of his time. The situation, indeed, of public affairs induced him to consider privacy as a very great blessing; and so fond was he of his rural retreat, that he very rarely quitted it, though but a young man, with a considerable fortune, and extremely admired and courted by all his acquaintance. This studious disposition, together with his disgust of the world, occasioned by that strange scene of violence and confusion that was then acted upon the public stage, was so strong, that he actually proposed to the honourable Mr. Robert Boyle, the raising of a kind of college for the reception of persons of the same turn of mind, where they might enjoy the pleasure of agreeable society, and at the same time pass their days without care or interruption. His plan was thus formed: “I propose the purchasing of thirty or forty acres of land, in some healthy place, not above twenty-five miles from London, of which a good part should be tall wood, and the rest upland pastures, or downs sweetly irrigated. If there were not already an house which might be converted, &c. we wonld erect, upon the most convenient site of this near the wood, our building, viz. one handsome pavillion, containing a refectory, library, withdrawing-room, and a closet this the first story for, we suppose the kitchen, larders, cellars, and offices, to be contrived in the half-story under ground. In the second should be a fair lodging-chamber, a palletroom, gallery, and a closet, all which should be well and very nobly furnished, for any worthy person that might desire to stay any time, and for the reputation of the college. The half-story above, for servants, wardrobes, and like conveniences. To the entry fore-front of this court, and at the other back-front, a plot walled in, of a competent square for the common seraglio, disposed into a garden, or it might be only carpet, kept curiously, and to serve for bowls, walking, or other recreations, &c. if the company please. Opposite to the house, towards the wood, should be erected a pretty chapel, and, at equal distances, even within the flanking walls of the square, six apartments or cells for the members of the society, and not contiguous to the pavillion, each whereof should contain a small bed-chamber, an outward room, a closet, and a private garden, somewhat after the manner of the Carthusians. There should likewise be an elaboratory, with a repository for rarities and things of nature; aviary, dovehouse, physic-garden, kitchen-garden, and a plantation of orchard-fruit, &c. all uniform buildings, but of single stories, or a little elevated. At a convenient distance, towards the olitory garden, should be a stable for two or three horses, and a lodging for a servant or two. Lastly, a garden-house and conservatory for tender plants. The estimate amounts thus the pavillion 400l. the chapel, 150. apartments, walls, and out-housing, 600l. the purchase of a fee for thirty acres, at fifteen pounds 1600/, will be the utmost. Three of the cells, or apartments, that is, one moiety with the appurtenances, shall be at the disposal of one of the founders, and the other half at the others. If, I and my wife take up two apartments (for we are to be decently asunder, however, I stipulate, and her inclination will greatly suit with it, that shall be no impediment to the society, but a considerable advantage to the ceeonomicpart), a third shall be for some, worthy person; and, to facilitate the rest, I offer to furnish the whole pavillion completely to the value of 500l. in goods and moveables, if need be for seven years, till there shall be a public stock, &c. There shall be maintained, at the public charge, only a chaplain, well qualified, an ancient woman to dress the meat, wash, and do all such offices; a man to buy provision, keep the garden, horses, &c. a boy to assist him and serve within. At one meal a day, of two dishes only, unless some little, extraordinary upon particular days or occasions (then never exceeding three) of plain and wholesome meat a small refection at night wine, beer, sugar, spice, bread, fish, fowl, candle, soap, oats, hay, fuel, &c. at four pounds per week, 200l. per annum; wages, fifteen pounds; keeping the gardens, twenty pounds; the chaplain, twenty pounds per annum. Laid up in the treasury 145l. to be employed for books, instruments, drugs, trials, &c. The. total, 400l. a year, comprehending the keeping of two horses for the chariot, or the saddle, and two kine; so that 200l. per annum will be the utmost that the founders shall be at to maintain the whole society, consisting of nine persons (the servants included), though there should no others join capable to alleviate the expence. But, if any of those who desire to be of the society be so well qualified as to support their own particulars, and allow for their proportion, it will yet much diminish the charge; and of such there cannot want some at all times, as the apartments are empty. If either of the founders thinks expedient to alter his condition, or that any thing do humanitus contingere, he may resign to another, or sell to his colleague, and dispose of it as he pleases, yet so as it still continue the institution. Orders. At six, in summer, prayers in the chapel. To study till half an hour after eleven. Dinner in the refectory till one. Retire till four. Then called to conversation (if the weather invite) abroad, else in the refectory. This never omitted but in case of sickness. Prayers at seven. To bed at nine. In the winter the same, with some abatements for the hours, because the nights are tedious, and the evening’s conversation more agreeable. This in the refectory. All play interdicted, sans bowls, chess, &c. Every one to cultivate his own garden. One month in spring a course in the claboratory on vegetables, &c. In the winter a month on other experiments. Every man to have a key of the elaboratory, pavillion, library, repository, &c. Weekly fast. Communion once every fortnight, or month at least. No stranger easily admitted to visit any of the society, but upon certain days weekly, and that only after dinner. Any of the society may have his commons to his apartment, if he will not meet in the refectory, so it be not above twice a week. Every Thursday shall be a music-meeting at conversation hours. Every person of the society shall render some public account of his studies weekly, if thought fit, and especially shall be recommended the promotion of experimental knowledge, as the principal end of the institution. There shall be a decent habit and uniform used in the college. One month in the year may be spent in London, or any of the universities, or in a perambulation for the public befiefit, &c. with what other orders shall be thought convenient.”

“The sixth of December, 1631, being in the gulph of Volo riding at anchor about ten of the clock that night, it began to rain sand or ashes, and continued till two of the clock the next morning. It was about two inches thick on the deck, so that we cast it overboard with shovels, as we did snow the day before: the quantity of a bushel we brought home, and presented to several friends, especially to the masters of Trinity-house. There were in our company capt. John Wilds, commander of the Dragon, and capt. Anthony Watts, commander of the Elizabeth and Dorcas. There was no wind stirring when these ashes fell: it did not fall only in the places where we were, but likewise in other parts, as ships were coming from St. John d'Acre to our port, they being at that time an hundred leagues from us. We compared the ashes together, and found them both one. If you desire to see the ashes, let me know.” In the spring of 1670, our author communicated in a letter to the lord viscount Brouncker, a large and circumstantial account of a very singular and extraordinary invention by a person of rank, called the Spanish Sembrador, or new engine for ploughing and equal sowing all sorts of grain, and harrowing at once: by which a great quantity of seed-corn is saved, and a rich increase yearly gained; together with a description of the contrivance and uses of this engine. The description of this machine, translated from the Spanish into English, is of a considerable length, and therefore we refer the reader to it in the Transactions, No. 21. The chief reason for mentioning it here was, to shew how vigilant our author was in his inquiries, and how diligent in the prosecution of them; and yet not with any view of concealing the discoveries he made, but quite the contrary, that the royal society might have the honour, and the British nation the benefit, of them. In this respect, no doubt, be reaped abundant since it was declared, over and over again in the Transactions, that his Sylva had raised whole forests, and his Pomona produced numberless orchards: yet that he affected not praise out of any degree of vanity, but was really pleased with being the instrument of good to others, appears very plainly from that warmth, as well as readiness, tvith which he recommended other men’s works to the favour of the public, even upon subjects on which he had employed his own pen, particularly in the case of Mr. Smith, which is printed in the Transactions.

, and more generally known by these last names, was born at the Hague in 1511, and received the first impressions of virtue and knowledge from his father. On what account our author, as he was not the second son, was called Secundus, is not known. Perhaps the name was not given him till he became eminent, and was in poetry nemini sccundus. Poetry, however, was not the profession which his father wished him to follow. He intended him for the law, and when he could no longer direct his studies himself, placed him under the care of Jacobus Valcardus, or Volcardus. This gentleman, the author of a treatise “de usu eloquentix in obeundis muncribus publicis,” is said to hare been every way qualified to discharge the important trust that was committed to him; and he certainly gained the affection of his pupil, who, in one of his poems, mentions his death with every appearance of unfeigned sorrow. Another tutor, Stenemola of Mechlin, was soon provided, but it does not appear that Secundus devoted much of his time to legal pursuits. Poetry, and the sister arts of painting and sculpture, had engaged his mind at a very early period. He is said to have written verses when but ten years old; and from the vast quantity which he left behind him, we have reason to conclude that such writing was his principal employment.

In 1535 he accompanied the emperor Charles V. to the siege of Tunis, but gained no laurels as a soldier. The hardships which were endured at that memorable siege were but little suited to the soft disposition of a votary of Venus and the Muses; and upon an enterprise which might have furnished ample matter for an epic poem, it is remarkable that Secundus wrote nothing which has been deemed worthy of preservation. Having returned from his martial expedition, he was sent by the cardinal to Rome to congratulate the pope upon the success of the emperor’s arms; but was taken so ill on the road, that he was not able to complete his journey. But being advised to seek without a moment’s delay, the benefit of his native air, he soon recovered. Having now quitted the service of the archbishop of Toledo, he was employed in the same office of secretary to the bishop of Utrecht; and so much had he jhitherto distinguished himself by the classical elegance of his compositions, that he was soon called upon to fill the important post of private Latin secretary to the emperor, who was then in Italy. This was the most honourable office to which our author was ever appointed; but before he could enter upon it, death put a stop to his labours. Having arrived at St. Arnaud, in the district of Tournay, in order to meet, upon business, with the bishop of Utrecht, he was on Oct. 8, 1536, cut off by a violent fever, in the very flower of his age, not having quite completed his twenty-fifth year. He was interred in the church of the Benedictines, and his relations erected to his memory a marble monument, with a plain Latin inscription.

, a Spanish ex-jesuit, was born at Balbastro, in the kingdom of Arragon, in 1732, and at the age of ten, went to Salamanca, where he began his studies with great ardour, and made extraordinary proficiency in mathematics and physics. In 1764- he was appointed to teach mathematics and engineering in the royal military school founded at Segovia. On entering into this office, he delivered a speech, shewing the necessity of cultivating the art of war upon fixed principles; and with a view to exhibit examples as well as precepts to his scholars, he published the lives of all the eminent Spanish heroes, under the title of “The Spanish military History,” Segovia, 1769, 4to; and as a supplement, he added, in 1772, “The Engineer’s Manual,” 8vo. Both these works were much admired, the first particularly, for the elegance of the language, and the impartiality of the narrative. At what time he entered the order of the Jesuits is not known, but after their expulsion, he lived at Rome, and devoted his attention chiefly to music, of which, from his infancy, he was passionately fond. After six years’ labour and study, he produced a work on the subject, which contributed, although without much reason, to his reputation in the musical world. This appeared at Rome in 1774, and was entitled “Dell' Origine e della regole della Musica, &c.” 4to, in which, says Dr. Burney, too confident of his own powers, he imagined himself capable, with four years’ study only, intuitively to frame a better system of counterpoint than that upon which so many great musicians had been formed. Possessed of eloquence, fire, and a lively imagination, his book has been called in Italy, “a whimsical romance upon the art of music, in which is discovered a rage for pulling down, without the power of rebuilding.” The author has certainly, with shrewdness and accuracy, started several difficulties, and pointed out imperfections in the theory and practice of music, as well as in the particular systems of Tartini and Rameau; but his own resources and experience are totally insufficient to the task of correcting the errors of the old system, or forming a new one that is more perfect. He has more eloquence of language than science in music. His reasoning is ingenious and specious, even when his data are false; but his examples of composition are below contempt; and yet they are courageously given as models for students, superior to those of the old great masters of harmony.

, or Eykens, called the Olp, was born at Antwerp in 1599, and became eminent for his historical paintings. His compositions are full of spirit; his figures have some degree of elegance; his draperies are broad, and the hack-grounds of his pictures are enriched with architecture and landscape in a good taste. As he always studied and copied nature, his colouring was warm, agreeable, and natural; and to his carnations he always gave a great deal of delicacy, particularly to the carnations of hrs nymphs and boys. He painted subjects in one colour, such as basso-relievos and vases of marble, extremely well; and was frequently employed to insert figures in the landscapes of other masters, as he designed them correctly, and adapted them to the different scenes with propriety and judgment. The principalpaintings mentioned as his productions are, a “Last Supper,” in St. Andrew’s church at Antwerp; “St. John preaching in the Desert,” in another church; “St. Catherine,” in the cathedral of Antwerp, &c. The time of his death is not known. Descamps has strangely divided him into two persons, in both which the dates are erroneous.

, lord chief justice of the court of common pleas, a native of Wiltshire, was born in 1734, and educated, if we mistake not, at Winchester, and afterwards at Merton college, Oxford, where he took his degree of M. A. in 1739, but before that had begun to study Jaw in London. His first professional appearance was as one of the four common pleaders belonging to the city of London, who purchase their situations, and are usually called the city counsel. He is said to have been at this time decent in his manners, grave in his appearance, and regular in his attendance, but was not known beyond the practice of the lord mayor’s and sheriff’s courts, and had displayed no particular tokens of future eminence. An accidental event, however, brought him forward into unexpected notice, and subsequent circumstances led him to distinction. At this period sir William Morton was recorder of London. He had quitted the practice of the bar, and confined himself to the duties of that station. He had been brought into parliament by the influence of the duke of Bedford, and had looked with a natural expectation to a seat in one of the courts of law; but at length, disappointed, and growing old, he applied to the court of aldermen for leave to appoint a deputy to assist him in his official duties.

He had not, however, proceeded long in the calm exercise of his duties, when he was called upon to encounter difficulties, and to be involved in circumstances, which had. not encumbered any of his predecessors. We allude to the period when the wild delusion of “Wilkes and Liberty” had in some degree influenced the whole kingdom; and whose epidemic rage had, in a peculiar manner, infected the metropolis. A very large majority of the livery espoused every measure that was brought forward in opposition to government. The lower classes, too fond of uproar, supported the same principle; and the corporation itself became at length subject to the predominating influence. The sheriffs were selected from among those citizens who were the most violent in support of opposition measures; and men totally unconnected by their situations and characters with the city, purchased their freedom, and took up their livery, in order to take upon themselves these troublesome and expensive offices. The ordinary rotation of the court of aldermen was infringed, to elect such of its members to the chief magistracy as were the partizans and supporters of Mr. Wilkes and his cause.

As his judicial life was one sober series of official employment, in which no extraordinary events called forth an extraordinary application of mind or knowledge, his reputation is confined to the regular scene of public duty. It may, perhaps, be thought that his appointment to preside at the state trials in London in 1794 is an exception to the foregoing observation. It was indeed a very important charge; nor do we mean to disparage his useful qualities or acknowledged integrity, by expressing our opinion concerning it. Whether it arose from his superior view of the case, an harassed mind, or what he conceived to be a discreet accommodation to the circumstances of the moment, we do not pretend to determine; but it appeared to us that he did not resist the bold irregularities of Home Tooke as sir Michael Foster would have resisted them.

In private life, lord chief justice Eyre displayed the qualities which rendered him estimable among his friends, nor was he less respected by his brethren in public life. In him was exhibited a rare union of judicial qualities; and his talents and disposition were such as peculiarly adapted him to the bench. To great sagacity he added great candour. Though he soon discerned the merits, and foresaw the issue of a cause, he never betrayed any impatience, nor relaxed in his attention during its progress; and in this as in other respects, resembled the venerable Hale; it was scarcely possible to discover the opinion which he had formed before the moment when he was called upon to deliver it publicly. He was not only impartial in the ordinary sense of the word, but anxious to prevent his judgment in the case before him from being biassed by his indignation at any illiberal or dishonest conduct. Such indeed was the temper and ability with which he sifted every question, as commonly to extort an acknowledgment even from the unsuccessful party, that his case had been fairly, fully, and dispassionately heard and determined.

, a noble Roman, was the fourth in decent from the preceding, and in a very similar career of honours, obtained yet more glory than his ancestor. He also was consul five times, in the years 233 Ant. Chr. 228, C 15, 214, and 210; and dictator in the years 221 and 217. His life is among those written by Plutarch. In his first consulship, he obtained the honour of a triumph for a signal victory over the Ligurians. His second consulship produced no remarkable event, nor, indeed, his first dictatorship, which seems to have been only a kind of civil appointment, for the sake of holding comitia, and was frustrated by some defect in the omens. But in the consternation which followed the defeat at Thrasymene, his country had recourse to him as the person most able to retrieve affairs, and he was created dictator a second time. In this arduous situation he achieved immortal fame, by his prudence in perceiving that the method of wearing out an invader was to protract the war, and avoid a general engagement, and his steady perseverance in preserving that system. By this conduct he finally attained the honourable title of Cunctator, or protector. But before he could obtain the praise he merited, he had to contend not only with the wiles and abilities of Hannibal, but with the impatience and imprudence of his countrymen. The former he was able to baffle, the latter nearly proved fatal to Rome. “If Fabius,” said Hannibal, “is so great a commander as he is reported to be, let him come forth and give me battle.” “If Hannibal,” said Fabius in reply, “is so great a commander as he thinks himself, let him compel me to it.” A battle in Apulia, however, was brought on by the rashness of his master of the horse, Minucius, and it required all the ability of Fabius to prevent an entire defeat. His moderation towards Minucius afterwards, was equal to his exertions in the contest. After he had laid down his office, the consul Paulus jEmilius endeavoured to tread in his steps; but rashness again prevailed over wisdom, and the defeat at Cannae ensued in the year 215, and then the Romans began to do full justice to the prudence of Fabius. He was called the ^ield, as MarcelU is the sword of the republic; and, by an honour almost unprecedented, was continued in the consulship for two successive years. He recovered Tarentum before Hannibal could relieve it, and continued to oppose that general with great and successful skill. It has been laid to his charge that when Scipio proposed to carry the war into Africa, he opposed that measure through envy; and Plutarch allows that though he was probably led at first to disapprove, from the cautious nature of his temper, he afterwards became envious of the rising glory of Scipio. It is, however, possible, that he might think it more glo rious to drive the enemy by force out of Italy, than to draw" him away by a diversion. Whether this were the case or not, he did not live to see the full result of the measure, for he died in the year 203, at a very advanced age, being, according to some authors, near a hundred. This was the very year preceding the decisive battle of Zama, winch concluded the second Punic war. The highest encomiums are bestowed by Cicero upon Fabius, under the person of Cato, who just remembered him, and had treasured many of his sayings.

, one of the agents in the French revolution, was born at Carcassane, Dec. 28, 1755, and was educated in polite literature and natural philosophy by his parents, whom he quitted in his youth, and became by turns a painter, musician, engraver, poet, and actor. He performed on the stages of Versailles, Brussels, and Lyons, but with no great success. As a writer for the stage, however, he was allowed considerable merit, and obtained, on one occasion, at the Floral ia, the prize of the Eglantine, the name of which he added to his own. In 1786 he published in a French periodical work, “Les Etrennes du Parnasse,” a little poem called “Chalons sur Marne,” in which he drew a very charming picture of the moral pleasures that were to be found in that place and its neighbourhood. This piece, however, fell very short of the celebrity to which he afterwards attained. In 1789 and 1790 he published two comedies, “Le Philinte,” and “L'Intrigue Epistolaire,” the former of which was reckoned one of the best French pieces of the last century.

He was soon, however, called to perform a more important part on the revolutionary stage, being chosen, in 1792, a deputy to the national convention. For this office he had all the negative qualities that were necessary, no regard for religion or Civil subordination; and accordingly took a very active part in the insurrection of Aug. 10, and the prison massacres of the September following; the latter are called “measures which would save France.” After this, it was in character to vote for the death of the king. It was generally supposed that he contributed with Danton and Robespierre to the massacre of May 31, 1793, when the Girondine faction was overthrown by a popular insurrection. What gives the appearance of authenticity to this supposition is, that Fabre himself, some days afterwards, observed to a friend, that the domineering spirit of the Girondines, who had engrossed all power and office, had induced him and his colleagues, in order to shake off the yoke, to throw themselves into the hands of the sans culoterie; but that he could not help, however, foreboding dangerous consequences from that day, May 31st, as the same mob which they had taught to despise the legislature, might, at the instigation of another faction, overthrow him in his turn.

He was the author of the following works 1 <c De Aquis & Aquae-ductibus Veteris Romae Dissertationes tres,“Romae, 1680, 4to. This book may serve to illustrate Frontinus, who has treated of the aqueducts of Rome, as they were in his time under the emperor Trajan. It is inserted in the fourth volume of Graevius’s” Thesaurus Antiquitatum Romanarum.“. 2.” De Columna Trajana Syntagma. Accesseruntexplicatio Veteris Tabellae Anaglyphae Homeri Iliadem, atque ex Stesichoro, Arctino, et Lesche Ilii excidium continentis, et emissarii lacus Fucini descriptio,“Romae, 1683, folio. 3.” Jasithei ad Grunnovium Apologema, in ej usque Titivilitia, sive de Tito Livio somnia, animadversiones,“Neapol. 1686, 4tp. This work is an answer to James Gronovius’ s” Responsio ad Cavillationes R. Fabretti,“printed at Leyden, 1685. Fabretti had given, occasion to this dispute, by censuring, in his book” De Aquae-ductibus,“some corrections of Gronovius; and thus had drawn upon himself an adversary, who treated him witk very little ceremony. Fabretti replied to him here, under the name Jasitheus, and treated him with equal coarseness. Gronovius called him Faber fiusticus, which he retorted by styling his antagonist Grunnovius. 4.” Inscriptionum Antiquaruni, quae in aedibus paternis asservantur, explicatio et additamentum,“Romae, 1699, folio. Fabretti had an admirable talent in decyphering the most difficult inscriptions, and discovered a method of making something out of those which seemed entirely disfigured through age, and the letters of which were effaced in such a manner as not to be discernible. He cleaned the surface of the stone, without touching those places where the letters had been, engraven. He then laid upon it a piece of thick paper well moistened, and pressed it with a spunge, or wooden pin covered with linen; by which means the paper entered into the cavity of the letters, and, taking up the dust there, Discovered the traces of the letters. M. Baudelot, in his book” De FUtilitc* des Voyages,“informs us of a secret very like this, in order to read upon medals those letters which are difficult to be deciphered. 5.” A Letter to the abb Nicaise,“containing an inscription remarkable for the elegance of its style, inserted in the” Journal des Seavans“of Dec. 1691. He left unfinished” Latium vetus illustratum." Fabretti discovers in his writings a lively genius, a clear and easy conception, and a great deal of learning.

, an industrious and learned Jesuit, was born in the diocese of Bellay in 1606 or 1607. He for a long time held the chair of professor of philosophy in the college de la Trinit at Lyons; but in consequence of his profound knowledge of theology, he was called to Home, where he was made a penitentiary. He died in that city on the 9th of March, 1688. He was a man of most extensive and universal knowledge, and studied medicine and anatomy with considerable ardour. He assumed the credit of the discovery of the circulation of the blood, and father Regnault, and other credulous persons, have supported his assumption, on the grounds that he had main*­tained the fact of the circulation in a discussion in 1638: but Harvey had published his discovery in 1623. The medical works of this Jesuit consist of an apology for the Peruvian bark, in answer to Plempius, which he published at Rome in 1655, under the title of “Pulvis Peruvianus Febrii'ugus vindicatus;” and two other essays, one, “De Plantis, et Generatione Animalium,” the other, “De Homine,” published at Paris in 1666, and at Nuremberg in 1677. His theological works are mostly controversial, and now held in little estimation.

, bishop of Hermianum in Asia, is noticed by ecclesiastic writers as having been present at the council of Constantinople, held by pope Vigilius in the year 547, where he was a strenuous defender of the writings called The Three Chapters,“which the council of Chalcedon had pronounced orthodox. The works so named were, 1. The writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia. 2. The books which Theodoret of Cyrus wrote, against the twelve anathemas published by Cyril against the Nestorians. 3. The letter which Ibas of Edessa had written to Maris, a Persian, concerning the council of Ephesus, and the condemnation of Nestorius. The question of condemning these writings, had been raised by Theodore bishop of Csesarea, for the sake of weakening the authority of the council of Chalcedon, and crushing the Nestorians. The emperor Justinian listened to this prelate, published an edict against The Three Chapters in the year 544, and in the council of Constantinople above-mentioned, forced the pope Vigilius to accede to the same sentence. Vigilius, agitated between the contending parties, changed his opinion and conduct four times; but Facundus remained firm, and was banished for his perseverance. He wrote twelve books on the subject, addressed to Justinian, which are still extant, and one against Mutianus, but^in fatft^ against Vigilius; both published with notes, by P. Sirmond, in 1629. There is also an” Epistola Catholics fidei pro defensione trium capitulorum," added to the edition of 1675. His style is animated, but he is frequently deficient in moderation.

, an elegant Latin poet and philologist, was born at Cremona in the early part of the sixteenth century, and by his accomplishments in polite literature, gained the esteem and friendship of the cardinal de Medicis, afterwards pope Pius IV. and of his nephew the cardinal Borromeo. Having acquired a critical knowledge of the Latin language, he was enabled to display much judgment in the correction of the Roman classics, and in the collation of ancient manuscripts on which he was frequently employed, and indeed had an office of that kind in the Vatican library. Ghilini says that he was equally learned in the Greek language, but Muret asserts that he was quite unacquainted with the Greek. That he was a very elegant Latin poet, however, is amply proved by his “Fables,” and perhaps his being accused of stealing from Phgedrus may be regarded as a compliment to his style. Thuanus appears to have first suggested this accusation. He says that the learned world was greatly obliged to him, yet had been more so, if, instead of suppressing, he had been content with imitating the Fables of Phaedrus, and asserts that Faeruo dealt unfairly with the public concerning Phoedrus, who was then unknown; having a manuscript of that author, which he concealed from the world for fear of lessening the value of the Latin fables he had made in imitation of Æsop. Perrault, however, who published a translation of Faerno’s Fables into French verse at Paris in 1699, has defended his author from Thuanus’s imputation. His words in the preface are as follow “Faerno has been called a second Phsedrus, by reason of the excellent style of his Fables, though he never saw Phaedrus, who did not come to our knowledge till above thirty years after his death; for Pithoeus, having found that manuscript in the dust of an old library, published it in the beginning of this century, Thuanus, who makes very honourable mention of our author in his history, pretends, that Phcedrus was not unknown to him; and even blames him for having suppressed that author, to conceal what he had stolen from him. But there is no ground for what he says; and it is only the effect of the strong persuasion of all those who are so great admirers of antiquity as to think that a modern author can do nothing that is excellent, unless he has an ancient author for his model. Out of the hundred fables which Faerno published in Latin verse, there are but five that had been treated by Phsedrus $ and out of those five there are but one or two that have been managed nearly in the same manner: which happened only because it is impossible that two men, who treat on the same subject, should not agree sometimes in the same thoughts, or in the same expressions.”

In 1541 the plague began to spread at Isne; when Fagius understanding that the wealthiest of the inhabitants were about to leave the place, without having any regard to the poorer sort, rebuked them openly, and admonished them of their duty; telling them that they should either continue in the town, or liberally bestow their alms before they went, for the relief of those they left behind; and declaring at the same time, that during the time of that calamity he would himself in person visit those that were sick, would administer spiritual comfort to them, pray for them, and be present with them day and night: all which he did, and yet escaped the distemper. At the same season the plague raged in Strasburg, and among many others, proved fatal to the reformer, Wolfang Capito; upon which Fagius was called by the senate to succeed him. Here he continued to preach till the beginning of the German wars, when the elector Palatine, intending a reformation in his churches, called Fagius from Strasburg to Heidelberg, and made him the public professor thefe: but the emperor prevailing against the elector, an obstruction was thrown in the way of the reformation. During his residence here, however, he published many books for the promotion of Hebrew learning, which were greatly approved by Bucer and others, and form the most important of the works he has left.

, an eminent French physician in the reign of Louis XIV. was born at Paris, May 11, 1638. He was the son of Henry Fagon, commissioner in ordinary of war, and of Louisa de la Brosse, niece of Guy de la Brosse, physician in ordinary to Louis XIII. and grandson of a physician in ordinary to Henry IV. He studied first in the Sorbonne, under M. Gillot, an eminent doctor, with whom he resided as student, and who persuaded him to chuse the medical profession. M. Fagon never forgot M. Gillot in his highest prosperity; but, if he met him in the street, alighted from his coach, and conducted him to the house where he was going. This young physician had scarcely begun to dispute, when he ventured to maintain, in a thesis, the circulation of the blood, which was at that time held as a paradox among the old doctors; and also another on the use of tobacco, published long afterwards; “An frequens Nicotian ye usus vitam abbreviet,” Paris, 1699, 4to. He took his doctor’s degree 1664, M. Vallot wishing to repair and replenish the royal garden, M. Fagon offered his services; and going, at his own expence, to Auvergne, Languedoc, Provence, the Alps, and the Pyrenees, returned with an ample collection of curious and useful plants. He had the principal share in the catalogue of the plants in that garden, puhlished 1665, entitled “Hortus Regius,” to which he prefixed a little Latin poem of his own. M. Fagon was made professor of botany and chemistry at the royal garden, and began to have the plants engraved; but there are only forty -five plates finished, which are very scarce. The king appointed bim first physician to the dauphiness in 1680, and to the queen some months after. In 1693 he was made first physician to the king, and superintendant of the royal garden in 1698, to which he retired after the king’s death, and, for the improvement of which, he persuaded Louis XIV. to send M. de Tournfort into Greece, Asia, and Egypt, which produced the scientific voyage so well known to the learned world. Fagon died March 11, 1718, aged near eighty. The academy of sciences had chosen him an honorary member in 1699. He left “Les Qualités du Quinquina,” Paris, 1703, 12mo. He married Mary Nozereau, by whom he had two sons Anthony, the eldest, bishop of Lombez, then of Vannes, died February.16, 1742 the second, Lewis, counsellor of state in ordinary, and to the royal council, and intendant of the finances, died at Paris May 8, 1741, unmarried. The Fagonia, in botany, was so called by Tournfort in honour of him.

While his brothers were thus honourably employed abroad, Edward Fairfax devoted himself to a studious course of life. That he had the advantages of a very liberal education cannot be doubted, from his intellectual acquirements, and the distinction which he soon obtained in the literary world. Indeed, his attainments were such, that he became qualified to have filled any employment, either in church or state. But an invincible modesty, and the love of retirement, induced him to prefer the shady groves and natural cascades of Denton, and the forest of Knaresborough, to the employments and advantages of a public station. Accordingly, having married, he fixed himself at Fuyistone [Fewston], as a private gentleman. His time was not, however, inactively or ingloriously spent. This was apparent in his poetical exertions, and in several compositions in prose, the manuscripts of which were left by him in the library of lord Fairfax, at Denton. The -tare and education of his children, for which he was so well qualified, probably engaged some part of his attention. We are informed, likewise, that he was very serviceable, in the same way, to his brother lord Fairfax; besides which, he assisted him in the government of his family and the management of his atVairs. The consequence of this was, that all his lordship’s children were bred scholars, and well principled in religion and virtue; that his house was famed for its hospitality, and, at the same time, his estate improved. Wiiat Mr. Edward Fairfax’s principles were, appears from the character which he gives of himself, in his book on dæmonology: “For myself,” says he, “I am in religion neither a fantastic puritan, nor a superstitious papist: but so settled in conscience, that I have the sure ground of God’s word to warrant all I believe, and the commendable ordinances of our English church to approve all I practise: in which course I live a faithful Christian, and an obedient subject, and so teach my family.” In these principles he persevered to the end of his days, which took place about 1632. He died at his own house, called Newhall, in the parish of Fuyistone [Fewston], between Denton and Knaresborough, and was buried in the same parish, where a marble stone, with an inscription, was placed over his grave.

Hitherto he had acquitted himself with undaunted bravery, and with great and deserved applause from his party. Had he stopped here, or at such times at least as the king’s concessions were in reason and equity a just ground for peace (which was more than once), he might have been honourably ranked among the rest of those patriots, who took up arms only for the redress of grievances. But his boundless ambition, and his great desire to rule, made him weakly engage, with the utmost zeal, in the worst and most exceptionable parts of the rebellion. When the parliamentarians thought fit to new-model their army, and to lay aside the earl of Essex, they unanimously voted sir Thomas Fairfax to be their general in his room, he being ready to undertake or execute any thing that he was ordered. To him Oliver Cromwell was joined with the title of lieutenant-general, but with intention of being his governor, exercising the superiority of deep art over a comparatively weak mind. Sir Thomas, being thus voted commander-in-chief of the parliament’s army on the 21st of January, 1644-5, received orders from the parliament speedily to come up from the north to London, where he arrived privatcsly, Feb. 18, and, the next day, was brought by four of the members into the house of commons, where he was highly complimented by the speaker, and received his commission of general. The 15th of the same month, an ordinance was made, for raising and maintaining of forces under his command: it having been voted, a few days before, that he should nominate all the commanders in his army, to be taken out of any of the other armies, with the approbation of both houses. March 25, the parliament ordered him 1500l. The 3d of April, he went from London to Windsor, where he appointed the general rendezvous and continued there till the last day of that month, new-framing and modelling the army or rather Cromwell doing it in his name. April 16, he was appointed, by both houses, governor of Hull. In the mean time, Taupton, in Somersetshire, one of the parliament’s garrisons, being closely besieged by the royalists, sir Thomas Fairfax received orders to hasten to its relief, with 8000 horse and foot. He began his march May 1, and by the 7th had reached Blandford in Dorsetshire: but, the king taking the field from Oxford, with strong reinforcements brought by the princes Rupert and Maurice, sir Thomas was ordered by the parliament to send 3000 foot and 1500 horse to relieve Taunton, and himself to return, with the rest of Juis forces, to join Oliver Cromwell and major-general Browne, and attend the king’s motions. The 14th of May he was come back as far as Newbury; where having rested three nights, he went and faced Dennington-castle, and took a few prisoners. Thence he proceeded to lay siege to Oxford, as he was directed by the committee of both kingdoms, and sat down before it the 22d. But, before he had made any progress in this siege, he received orders to draw near the king, who had taken Leicester by storm, May 31, and was threatening the eastern associated counties. Sir Thomas therefore rising from before Oxford, June 5, arrived the same day at Marsh-Gibbon, in Buckinghamshire on the llth he was at Wootton, and the next day at Gilsborough, in Northamptonshire where he kept his head-quarters till the 14th, when he engaged the king’s forces, at the fatal and decisive battle of Naseby, and obtained a complete victory. The king, after that, retiring into Wales, sir Thomas went and laid siege on the 16th to Leicester, which surrendered on the 18th. He proceeded, on the 22d, to Warwick; and thence (with 'a disposition either to go over the Severn towards the king, or to move westward as he should be ordered) he marched on through Gloucestershire towards Marlborough, where he arrived the 28th. Here he received orders from the parliament, to hasten to the relief of Taunton, which was besieged again by the royalists; letters being sent at the same time into the associated comities for recruits, and tfce arrears of pay for his army; but on his arrival at Bland ford, he was informed, that lord Goring had drawn off his horse from before Taunton, and left his foot in the passage to block up that place, marching himself with the horse towards Langport. Sir Thomas Fairfax, therefore, advancing against him, defeated him there on the 10th of July; and the next day^ went and summoned Bridgewater, which was taken by storm on the 22d. He became also master of Bath the 30th of the same month; and then laid close siege to Sherborne-castle, which was likewise taken by storm August 15. And, having besieged the city of Bristol from the 22d of August to the 10th of September, it was surrendered to him by prince Rupert. After this laborious expedition, the general rested some days at Bath, having sent out parties to reduce the castles of the Devises and Berkley, and other garrisons between the west and London; and on the 23d moved from Bath to the Devises, and thence to Warminster on the 27th, where he stayed till October 8, when he went to Lyme in Dorsetshire. From this place he came to Tiverton, of which he became master on the 19th; and then, as he could not undertake a formal siege in the winter season, he blocked up the strong city of Exeter, which did not surrender till the 13th of April following: in the mean time, he took Dartmouth by storm, January 18, 1645-6; and several forts and garrisons at different times. Feb. 16, he defeated thelord Hopton near Torrington. This nobleman retreating with his broken forces into Cornwall, sir Thomas followed him: in pursuit of whom he came to Launceston Feb. 25, and to Bodmin March 2. On the 4th, Mount Edgecornbe was surrendered to him; and Fowey about the same time. At last the parliament army approaching Truro, where lord Hopton had his head-quarters, and he being so hemmed in as to remain without a possibility of escaping, sir Thomas, on the 5th of March, sent and offered him honourable terms of capitulation, which after some delays, lord Hoptoit accepted, and a treaty was signed by commissioners on both sides, March 14 in pursuance of which, the royalists, consisting of above 5000 horse, were disbanded and took an oath never to bear arms against the parliament. But, before the treaty was signed, lord Hopton, and Arthur lord Capel, retired to Scilly, whence they passed into Jersey, April 17, with Charles prince of Wales, sir Kdtvard Hyde, and other persons of distinction. Thus the king’s army in the west being entirely dispersed by the vigilance and wonderful success of general Fairfax, he returned, March 31, to the siege of Exeter, which surrendered to him upon articles, the 13th of April, as already observed: and with the taking of this city ended his western expedition. He then marched, with wonderful speed, towards Oxford, the most considerable garrison remaining in the king’s hands, and arriving on the 1st of May, with his army, began to lay siege to it. The king, who was there, afraid of being enclosed, privately, and in disguise, departed thence on the 27th of April; and Oxford surrendered upon articles, June 24, as did Wallingford, July 22. After the reduction of these places, sir Thomas went and besieged Ragland-castle, in Monmouthshire, the property of Henry Somerset, marquis of Worcester, which yielded Aug. 19. His next employment was to disband major-general Massey’s brigade, which he did at the Devises. About that time he was seized with a violent fit of the ston, unjder which he laboured many days. As soon as he was recovered, he took a journey to London; where he arrived November 12, being met some miles off by great crowds of people, and the city militia. The next day, both houses of parliament agreed to congratulate his coming to town, and to give him thanks for his faithful services and wise conduct: which they did the day following, waiting upon him at his house in Queen-street*. Hardly had he had time to rest, when he was called upon to convoy the two hundred thousand pounds that had been granted to the Scotish army; the price of their delivering up their sovereign king Charles. For that purpose he set out from London, December 18, with a sufficient force, carrying at the same time 50,000l. for his own army. The king being delivered by the Scots to the parliament’s commissioners at Newcastle, Jan. 30, 1646-7, sir Thomas went and met him, Feb. 15, beyond Nottingham, in his way to Holmby; and his majesty stopping his horse, sir Thomas alighted, and kissed his hand; and afterwards mounted, and discoursed with him as they rode along. The 5th of March following, after long debate in parliament, he was toted general of the forces that were to be continued. He came to Cambridge the 12th of the same month, where he was highly caressed and complimented, and created master of arts.

Hitherto, the crafty and ambitious Cromwell had permitted him to enjoy in all respects the supreme command, at least to outward appearance. And, under his conduct, the army’s rapid success, after their new model, had much surpassed the expectation of the most sanguine of their masters, the parliament* The question now was, to disband the majority of them after their work was done, and to employ a part of the rest in the reduction of Ireland. But either of the two appeared to all of them intolerable. For, many having, from the dregs of the people, risen to the highest commands, and by plunderings and violence amassing daily great treasures, they could not bear the thoughts of losing such great advantages. To maintain themselves therefore in the possession of them, Cromwell, and his son-in-law Ireton, as good a contriver as himself, but a much better writer and speaker, devised how to raise a mutiny in the army against the parliament. To this end they spread a whisper among the soldiery, “that the parliament, now they had the king, intended to disband them; to cheat them of their arrears; and to send them, into Ireland, to be destroyed by the Irish.” The army, enraged at this, were taught by Ireton to erect a council among themselves, of two soldiers out of every troop and every company, to consult for the good of the army, and to assist at the council of war, and advise for the peace and safety of the kingdom. These, who were called adjutators, or agitators, were wholly under Cromwell’s influence and direction, the most active of them being his avowed creatures. Sir Thomas saw with uneasiness his power on the army usurped by these agitators, the forerunners of confusion and anarchy, whose design (as he observes) was to raise their own fortunes upon the public ruin; and that made him resolve to lay down his commission. But he was over-persuaded by the heads of the Independent faction to hold it till he had accomplished their desperate projects, of rendering themselves masters not only of the parliament, but of the whole kingdom; for, he joined in the several petitions and proceedings of the army that tended to destroy the parliament’s power. About the beginning of June, he advanced towards London, to awe the parliament, though both houses desired his army might not come within fifteen miles of the same; June 15, he was a party in the charge against eleven of the members of the house of commons; in August, he espoused the speakers of both houses, and the sixty -six members that had fled to the army, and betrayed the privileges of parliament: and, entering London, August 6, restored them in a kind of triumph; for which he received the thanks of both houses, and was appointed constable of the Tower. On the other hand it is said that he was no way concerned in, the violent removal of the king from Holmby, by cornet Joyce, on the 3d of June; and waited with great respect upon his majesty at sir John Cutts’s house near Cambridge. Being ordered, on the 15th of the same month, by the parliament, to deliver the person of the king to such persons as both houses should appoint; that he might be brought to Richmond, where propositions were to be presented to him for a safe and well-grounded peace; instead of complying (though he seemed to do so) he carried his majesty from place to place, according to the several motions of the army, outwardly expressing, upon most occasions, a due respect for him, but, not having the will or resolution to oppose what he had not power enough to prevent, he resigned himself entirely to Cromwell. It was this undoubtedly that made him concur, Jan. 9, 1647-8, in that infamous declaration of the army, of “No further addresses or application to the king; and resolved to stand by the parliament, in what should be further necessary for settling and securing the parliament and kingdom, without the king and against him.” His father dying at York, March 13, he became possessed of his title and estate and was appointed keeper of Pontefract-castle, custos rotulorum of Yorkshire, &c. in his room. But his father’s death made no alteration in his conduct, he remaining the same servile or deluded tool to Cromwell’s ambition. He not only sent extraordinary supplies, and took all pains imaginable for reducing colonel Poyer in Wales, but also quelled, with the utmost zeal and industry, an insurrection of apprentices and others in London, April 9, who had declared for God and king Charles. The 1st of the same month he removed his head-quarters to St. EdmundV bury; and, upon the royalists seizing Berwick and Carlisle, and the apprehension of the Scots entering England, he was desired, May 9, by the parliament, to advance in person into the North, to reduce those places, and to prevent any danger from the threatened invasion. Accordingly he began to march that way the 20th. But he was soon recalled to quell an insurrection in Kent, headed by George Goring, earl of Norwich, and sir William Waller. Advancing therefore against them from London in the latter end of May, he defeated a considerable party of them at Maidstone, June 2, with his usual valour. But the earl and about 500 of the royalists, getting over the Thames at Greenwich into Essex, June 3, they were joined by several parties brought by sir Charles Lucas, and Arthur lord Capel, which made up their numbers about 400; and went and shut themselves up in Colchester on the 12th of June. Lord Fairfax, informed of their motions, passed over with his forces at Gravesend with so much expedition, that he arrived before Colchester June 13. Immediately he summons the royalists to surrender; which they refusing, he attacks them the same afternoon with the utmost fury, but, being repulsed, he resolved, June 14, to block up the place in order to starve the royalists into a compliance. These endured a severe and tedious siege of eleven weeks, not surrendering till August 28, and feeding for about five weeks chiefly on horse-flesh; all their endeavours for obtaining peace on honourable terms being ineffectual. This affair is the most exceptionable part in lord Fairfax’s conduct, if it admits of degrees, for he granted worse terms to that poor town than to any other in the whole course of the war he endeavoured to destroy it as much as possible he laid an exorbitant fine, or ransom, of J2,000l. upon the inhabitants, to excuse them from being plundered; and he vented his revenge and fury upon sir Charles Lucas and sir George Lisle, who had behaved in the most inoffensive manner during the siege, sparing that buffoon the earl of Norwich, whose behaviour had been quite different: so that his name and memory there ought to be for ever detestable. After these mighty exploits against a poor and unfortified town, he made a kind of triumphant progress to Ipswich, Yarmouth, Norwich, St. Edmund’s-bui y, Harwich, Mersey, and Maldon. About the beginning of December he came to London, to awe thatcity and the parliament, and to forward the proceedings against the king quartering himself in the royal palace of Whitehall: and it was by especial order from him and the council of the army, that several members of the house of commons were secluded and imprisoned, the 6th and 7th of that month; he being, as Wood expresses it, lulled in a kind of stupidity. Yet, although his name stood foremost in the list of the king’s judges, he refused to act, probably by his lady’s persuasion. Feb. 14, 1648-9, he was voted to be one of the new council of state, but on the 19th he refused to subscribe the test, appointed by parliament, for approving all that was done concerning the king and kingship. March 31 he was voted general of all the forces in England and Ireland; and in May he inarched against the levellers, who were grown very numerous, and began to be troublesome and formidable in Oxfordshire, and utterly routed them atBurford. Thence, on the 22d of the same month, he repaired to Oxford with Oliver Cromwell, and other officers, where he was highly feasted, and created LL.D. Next, upon apprehension of the like risings in other places, he went and viewed the castles and fortifications in the Isle of Wight, and at Southampton, and Portsmouth; and near Guildford had a rendezvous of the army, which he exhorted to obedience. June 4, he was entertained, with other officers, &c. by the city of London, and presented with a large and weighty bason and ewer of beaten gold. In June 1650, upon the Scots declaring for king Charles II. the juncto of the council of state having taken a resolution to be beforehand, and not to stay to be invaded from Scotland, but to carry first the war into that kingdom; general Fairfax, being consulted, seemed to approve of the design: but afterwards, by the persuasions of his lady, and of the presbyterian ministers, he declared himself unsatisfied that there was a just ground for the parliament of England to send their army to invade Scotland and resolved to lay down his commission rather than engage in that affair and on the 26th that high trust was immediately committed to Oliver Cromwell, who was glad to see him removed, as being no longer necessary, but rather an obstacle to his farther ambitious designs. Being thus released from all public employment, he went and lived quietly at his own house in Nun-Appleton in Yorkshire; always earnestly wishing and praying (as we are assured) for the restitution of the royal family, and fully resolved to lay hold on the first opportunity to contribute his part towards it, which made him always looked upon with a jealous eye by the usurpers of that time. As soon as he was invited by general Monk to assist him against Lambert’s army, he cheerfully embraced the occasion, and appeared, on the 3d of December 1659, at the head of a body of gentlemen of Yorkshire and, upon the reputation and authority of his name, the Irish brigade of 1200 horse forsook Lambert’s army, and joined him. The consequence was, the immediate breaking of all Lambert’s forces, which gave general Monk an easy inarch into England. The 1st of January 1659-60, his lordship made himself master of York; and, on the 2d of the same month, was chosen by the rump parliament one of the council of state, as he was again on the 23d of February ensuing. March '29 he was elected one of the knights for the county of York, in the healing parliament; and was at the head of the committee appointed May 3, by the house of commons, to go and attend king Charles II. at the Hague, to desire him to make a speedy return to his parliament, and to the exercise of his kingly office. May 16 he waited upon his majesty with the rest, and endeavoured to atone in some measure for all past offences, by readily concurring and assisting in his restoration. After the dissolution of the short healing parliament, he retired again to his seat in the country, where he lived in a private manner till his death, which happened November 12, 1671, in the sixtieth year of his age. Several letters, remonstrances, and other papers, subscribed with his name, are preserved in Rushworth and other collections, being published during the time he was general; but he disowned most of them. After his decease, some “short memorials, written by himself,” were published in 1699, 8vo, by Brian Fairfax, esq. but do his lordship no great honour, either as to principle, style, or accuracy. Lord Fairfax, as to his person, was tall, but not above the just proportion, and of a gloomy and melancholy disposition. He stammered a little, and was a bad orator ou the most plausible occasions. As to the qualities of his mind, he was of a good natural disposition; a great lover of learning, having contributed to the edition of the Polygiott, and other large works; and a particular admirer of the History and Antiquities of Great Britain, as appears by the encouragement he gave to Mr. Dodsvrorth. In religion he professed Presbyterianismn, but where he first learned that, unless ia the army, does not appear. He was of a meek and humble carriage, and but of few words in discourse and council; yet, when his judgment and reason were satisfied, he was unalterable; and often ordered things expressly contrary to the judgment of all his council. His valour was unquestionable. He was daring, and regardless of self-interest, and, we are told, in the field he appeared so highly transported, that scarcely any durst speak a word to him, and he would seem like a man distracted and furious. Had not the more successful ambition and progress of Cromwell eclipsed lord Fairfax’s exploits, he would have been considered as the greatest of the parliamentary commanders; and one of the greatest heroes of the rebellion, had not the extreme narrowness of his genius, in every thing but war, obstructed his shining as a statesman. We have already noticed that he had some taste for literature, and that both at York and at Oxford he endeavoured to preserve the libraries from being pillaged. He also presented twenty-nine ancient Mss. to the Bodleian library, one of which is a beautiful ms. of -Cower' s “Confessio Amantis.” When at Oxford we do not find that he countenanced any of the outrages committed there, but on the contrary, exerted his utmost diligence in preserving the Bodleian from pillage; and, in fact, as Mr. Warton observes, that valuable repository suffered less than when the city was in' the possession of the royalists. Lord Orford has introduced lord Fairfax among his “Royal and Noble Authors,” “not only as an historian, but a poet. In Mr. Thoresby’s museum were preserved in manuscript the following pieces:” The Psalms of David;“”The Song of Solomon“” The Canticles;“and” Songs of Moses, Exod. 15. and Deut. 32.“and other parts of scripture versified.” Poem on Solitude.“Besides which, in the same collection were preserved” Notes of Sermons by his lordship, by his lady, and by their daughter Mary,“the wife of the second duke of Buckingham; and” A Treatise on the Shortness of Life.“But, of all lord Fairfax’s works, by far the most remarkable were some verses which he wrote on the horse on which Charles the Second rode to liis coronation, and which had been bred and presented to the king by his lordship. How must that merry monarch, not apt to keep his countenance on more serious occasions, have smiled at this awkward homage from the old victorious hero of republicanism and the covenant” Besides these, several of his Mss. are preserved in the library at Denton, of which Mr. Park has given a list in his new edition of the “Royal and Noble Authors.”

, was born about 3691. He was the eldest son of Thomas, fifth lord Fairfax, of Cameron, in the kingdom of Scotland, by Catherine, only daughter and heiress of Thomas lord Culpepper; in whose right he afterwards possessed Leeds Castle, with several manors and estates in the county of Kent, and in the Isle of Wight; and that immense tract of country comprised within the boundaries of the rivers Potowmac and Rappahannoc in Virginia, called the Northern Neck; containing by estimation live millions seven hundred thousand acres. He had the misfortune to lose his father while young; and at his decease, he and his two brothers, Henry and Robert, and four sisters, one of whom, Frances, was afterwards married to Denny Martin, esq. of Loose, in Kent, came under the guardianship of their mother and grandmother, the dowager ladies Fairfax and Culpepper, the latter of whom was a princess of the house of Hesse Cassel.

Lord Fairfax, at the usual age, was sent to the university of Oxford to complete his education, and was highly esteemed there for his learning and accomplishments. His judgment upon literary subjects was then, and at other times, frequently appealed to; and his biographer informs us he was one of the writers of the Spectator, but the annotators on that work have not been able to ascertain any of his papers. After some years’ residence in the university, he took a commission in the regiment of horse called the Blues, and remained in it, as is supposed, till the death of the survivor of the two ladies above mentioned; who had usually resided at Leeds Castle. Some time before their decease, a circumstance happened, that eventually occasioned him much uneasiness. He had been persuaded, upon his brother Henry’s arriving at the age of twenty-one, or rather compelled by the ladies Culpepper and Fairfax, under a menace, in case of refusal, of never inheriting the Northern Neck, to cut off the intail, and to sell Denton Hall, and the Yorkshire estates, belonging to this branch of the Fairfax family, which had been in their possession for five or six centuries, in order to redeem those of the late lord Culpepper, that had descended to his heiress, exceedingly encumbered, and deeply mortgaged. This circumstance happened while lord Fairfax was at Oxford, and is said to have occasioned him the greater vexation, as it appeared afterwards, that the estates had been disposed of, through the treachery of a steward, for considerably less than their value; less even than what the timber that was cut down to discharge the purchase money, before the stipulated day of payment came, was sold for. He conceived, therefore, a violent disgust against the -ladies, who, as he used to say, had treated him with such unparalleled cruelty; and ever afterwards expressed the keenest sense of the injury that had been done, as he thought, to the Fairfax family. After entering into possession, he began to inquire into the value and situation of his estates; and he soon discovered that the proprietary lands in Virginia had been extremely mismanaged and under-let. An agent, who at the same time was a tenant, had been employed by the dowager lady Fairfax, to superintend her concerns in that quarter of the world; and he is said to have abused her confidence, and to have enriched himself and family, as is too frequently the case, at the expence of his employer. Lord Fairfax therefore wrote to William Fairfax, esq. his father’s brother’s second son, who held, at that time, a place of considerable trust and emolument under the government in New England; requesting him to remove to Virginia, and to take upon himself the agency of the Northern Neck. With this request Mr. Fairfax readily complied; and as soon as he conveniently could, he removed with his family to Virginia, and settled in Westmoreland county. He there opened an agencyoffice for the granting of the proprietary lands; and as the quit-rent demanded was only after the rate of two shillings for every hundred acres, the vacant lands were rapidly let, and a considerable and permanent income was soon derived from them.

On his return at this time, he went to Belvoir, the seat of his friend and relation Mr. William Fairfax, and remained several years in his family, undertaking and directing the management of his farms and plantations, and amusing himself with hunting and the pleasures of the field. At length, the lands about Belvoir not answering his expectation, and the foxes becoming less numerous, he determined to remove to a fine tract of land on the western side of the Blue Ridge, or Apalachian mountains, in Frederic county, about eighty miles from Belvoir where he built a small neat house, which he called Greenway-court; and laid out one of the most beautiful farms, consisting of arable and grazing lands, and of meadows two or three miles in length, that had ever been seen in that quarter of the world. He there lived the remainder of his life, in the style of a gentleman farmer, or rather of an English country gentleman. He kept many servants, white and black; several hunters; a plentiful, but plain table, entirely in the English fashion; and his mansion was the mansion of hospitality. His dress corresponded with his mode of life, and notwithstanding he had every year new suits of clothes, of the most fashionable and expensive kind, sent out to him from England, which he never put on, was plain in the extreme. His manners were humble, modest, and unaffected; not tinctured in the smallest degree with arrogance, pride, or self-conceit. He was free from the selfish passions, and liberal almost to excess. The produce of his farms, after the deduction of what was necessary for the consumption of his own family, was distributed and given away to the poor planters and settlers in his neighbourhood. To these he frequently advanced money, to enable them to go on with their improvements; to clear away the woods, and cultivate the ground; and where the lands proved unfavourable, and not likely to answer the labour and expectation of the planter or husbandman, he usually indemnified him for the expence he had been at in the attempt, and gratuitously granted him fresh lands of a more favourable and promising nature. He was a friend and father to all who held and lived under him; and as the great object of his ambition was the peopling and cultivating of that beautiful country of which he was the proprietor, he sacrificed every other pursuit, and made every other consideration subordinate, to this great point

, a very celebrated engraver, was born in London in the early part of the seventeenth century. He was the pupil of Peake, the printer and printseller, who was afterwards knighted, and worked with him three or four years. At the breaking out of the civil war, Peake espoused the cause of Charles I.; and Faithorne, who accompanied his master, was taken prisoner by the rebels at Basing-house, whence he was sent to London, and confined in Aldersgate. In this uncomfortable situation he exercised his graver; and a small head of the first Villiers, duke of Buckingham, in the style of Mallan, was one of his first performances. The solicitations of his friends in his favour at last prevailed; and he was released from prison, with permission to retire on the continent. The story of his banishment for refusing to take the oath to Oliver Cromwell, would have done him no discredit, had it been properly authenticated, but that does not appear to be the case. Soon after his arrival in France, he found protection and encouragement from the abbe* de Marolles, and formed an acquaintance with the celebrated Nanteuil, from whose instructions he derived very considerable advantages. About 1650, he returned to England, and soon after married the sister of a person who is called “the famous” captain Ground. By her he had two sons, Henry, who was a bookseller, and William, an engraver in mezzotinto.

, one of the scientific travellers, employed by the late empress of Russia to explore her vast dominions, was born in Westrogothia, a province in Sweden, about 1727. He studied medicine in the university of Upsal, and went through a course of botany under the celebrated Linnæus, to whose son he was, tutor. He publicly defended the dissertation (in the Linnaei “Amcenitates Academics”) which that famous botanist had composed on a new species of plants, which he called astromeTi'a. In 1760, he was so deeply affected with depression of spirits, that Linnæus, in order to amuse his mind, sent him to travel over the island of Gothland, to make a collection of the plants it produces, and the various kinds of corals and corallines which the sea leaves on its shores; but this journey was attended with no diminution of his distemper, which found a continual supply of aliment in a sanguine melancholy temperament, in a too sedentary way of life, and in the bad state of his finances.

, a most celebrated physician and anatomist of Italy, was descended from a noble family, and born at Modena, most probably in 1523, although some make him born in 1490. He enjoyed a strong and vigorous constitution, with vast abilities of mind, which he cultivated by an intense application to his studies in philosophy, physic, botany, and anatomy. In this last he made some discoveries, and, among the rest, that of the tubes by which the ova descend from the ovarium, and which from him are called the “Fallopian tubes.” He travelled through the greatest part of Europe, and penetrated by his labour the most abstruse mysteries of nature. He practised physic with great success, and gained the character of one of the ablest physicians of his age. He was made professor of anatomy at Pisa in 1548, and was promoted to the same office at Padua in 1551; at which last place he died October 9, 1563, according to the common opinion, in the prime of life, but not so, if born in 1490.

, a native of the West of England, who may be termed the inventor of circulating libraries, was, at the beginning of the last century, pastor of a congregation of protestant dissenters in Salisbury, where he had a number of pupils for near twenty years. Professing a creed very different from, the opinions of Calvin, as appears by his numerous publications, he incurred the displeasure of persons of that persuasion, and a controversy arose in which clergymen of the establishment and the dissenters had an equal share. It turned on the divine prescience, the freedom of the human will, the greatness of the divine love, and the doctrine of reprobation. Driven from a comfortable settlement to the great metropolis, where he acquired no new one as a teacher, Mr. Fancourt, about 1740 or 1745, established the first circulating library for gentlemen and ladies, at a subscription of a guinea a year for reading; but in 1748 extended it to a guinea in all, for the purchase of a better library, half to be paid at the time of subscribing, the other half at the delivery of a new catalogue then in the press, and twelve pence a quarter beside, to begin from Michaelmas 1754, to the librarian. Subscriptions were to be paid without further charge to the proprietors, but to pay only from the time of subscribing; out of which quarterly payments were to be deducted the rent of the rooms to receive the books, and accommodate subscribers, a salary to the librarian to keep an open account, and to circulate the books; a stock to buy new books and duplicates as there was occasion; the expence of providing catalogues, and drawing up writings for settling the trust. This trust was to be vested in twelve or thirteen persons chosen by ballot out of the body of proprietors; and the proposer, Mr. Fancourt himself, was to be the first librarian, and to continue so as long as he discharged his office with diligence and fidelity. Every single subscriptionentitled the subscriber to one book and one pamphlet at a time, to be changed ad libitum for others, and kept ad Libitum, if not wanted by other subscribers. Mr. Fancourt advertised himself also in these proposals as a teacher of Latin, to read, write, and speak it with fluency in a year’s time or less, at twelve guineas a year, one guinea a month, or twelve pence an hour, allowing five or six hours in a week. The great hypercritic of Mr. Fancourt’s design was the late Dr. C. Mortimer. Not to trace the poor librarian through every shifting of his quarters, he fixed at last at the corner of one of the streets in the Strand, where, encumbered with a helpless and sick wife, turned out of fashion, and outplanned by a variety of imitators, and entangled with a variety of plans, not one of which could extricate him from perplexities, this poor man, who may be said to have first circulated knowledge among us, sunk under a load of debt, unmerited reproach, and a failure of his faculties, brought on by the decay of age, precipitated by misfortunes. His library became the property of creditors, and he retired in humble poverty to Hoxton-square, where some of his brethren relieved his necessities till the close of his life, in his ninetieth year, June 8, 1768. As a preacher, though neither what is now called popular, nor pastor of a London congregation, he was occasionally called upon to fill up vacancies, and is said to have preached with a considerable degree of manly eloquence.

, surnamed Strabo, was consul at Rome in 161 B. C. with Valerius Messala. The law called Fannia was made during his consulate, for regulating the expences of feasts, and empowering the pretors to drive the rhetoricians and philosophers from Rome. This law prohibited more than ten asses to be spent at a common feast, and an hundred at the most solemn, such as those of the Saturnalia, or of the public games; which seems almost incredible, when it is considered that a sheep at that time cost ten asses, and an ox an hundred, according to the opinion of several learned men. Caius Fannius, his son, distinguished himself by his eloquence, and was consul 120 B. C. He opposed the enterprizes of Caius Gracchus, and made a speech against him, which is praised by Cicero. Caius Fannius, cousin-german of this latter, was questor 139 B. C. and pretor ten years after; served under Scipio Africanus the younger in Africa; and, in Spain, under Fabius Maximus Servilianus. He was the disciple of Panetius, a celebrated stoic philosopher; married the youngest daughter of Lelius, and wrote some annals, which are much praised by Cicero.

, was born in 1644, at the castle of Valgorge, in Vivarais. He was captain of the guards to the duke of Orleans, and his son, who was regent. His gaiety, and sprightly wit, made him the delight of the best companies. He left a few songs, and other poetical pieces, which have been printed with those of his friend the abb de Chaulieu, and separately, with his Memoirs, 2 vols. small 12mo. They are full of wit and delicacy; but we are told he had attained the age of sixty before he made any poetical etibrt, and that then his inspirer was rather Cupid or Bacchus than Apollo, He also wrote the words of an opera, called “Panthea.” His “Memoirs” are written with great freedom and openness, and show the dislike which their author, and all his party, had to the government. We do not find when they were first published, but an English edition bears date 1719. The Author died at Paris, 1712.

In 1528, he had the same success in promoting the reformation in the city of Aigle, and soon after in the bailU wick of Morat. He went afterwards to Neufchatel in 1529, and disputed against the Roman catholic party with so much strength, that this city embraced the reformed religion, and established it entirely Nov. 4, 1530. He was sent a deputy to the synod of the Waldenses, held in the valley of Angrogne. Hence he went to Geneva, where he laboured against popery: but the grand vicar and the other clergy resisted him with so much fury, that he was obliged to retire. He was called back in 1534 by the inhabitants, who had renounced the Roman catholic religion; and was the chief person that procured the perfect abolition of it the next year. He was banished from Geneva with Calvin in 1533, and retired to Basil, and afterwards to Neufchatel, where there was great probability of a large evangelical harvest. From thence he went to Metz, but had a thousand difficulties to encounter; and was obliged to retire into the abbey of Gorze, where the count of Jurstemberg protected him and the new converts. But they could not continue there long; for they were besieged in the abbey, and obliged at last to surrender, after a capitulation. F. rel very happily escaped, though strict search was made alter him, having been put in a cart among the sick and infirm. He took upon him his former functions of a minister at Neufchatel, whence he took now and then a journey to Geneva. When he went thither in 1553, he was present at Servetus’s execution. He went again to Geneva in 1564, to^take his last leave of Calvin, who was dangerously ill. He took a second journey to Metz in 1565, being invited by his ancient flock, to witness the success of his lubours, but returned to Neufchatel, and died there Sept. 13, or, as Dupin says, Dec. 3, in the same year.

Mr. Farmer’s first appearance as an author was in a discourse on the suppression of the rebellion of 1745. It was preached on the day of public thanksgiving appointed upon that occasion in 1746, and printed in the same year. This was the only sermon that we recollect his having ever committed to the press. His abilities, though they might have been usefully displayed in that way, led him to those novel opinions on which his temporary fame was founded. Iiv 1761, he published “An Inquiry into the nature and design of Christ’s Temptation in the Wilderness” the general intention of which is to show, that this part of the evangelical history is not only to be understood as a recital of visionary representations, but that the whole was a divine vision, premonitory of the labours and offices of our Lord’s future ministry. An interpretation so new and singular, could not pass unnoticed. In 1762 there appeared a pamphlet against the Inquiry, entitled “Christ’s Temptations, real facts: or, a Defence of the Evangelic History; shewing that our Lord’s temptations may be fairly and reasonably understood as a narrative of what was really transacted.” A second edition of Mr. Farmer’s treatise was soon called for; in which the subject received additional illustration from a considerable number of new notes. Besides this, he published in 1764, an appendix to the “Inquiry,” containing some farther observations on the point in debate, and an answer to objections. Another tract, the publication of which was occasioned by the “Inquiry,” was entitled “The Sovereignty of the Divine Administration vindicated, or a rational Account of our blessed Saviour’s remarkable Temptation in the Wilderness; the Possessed at Capernaum, the Demoniacs at Gadara, and the Destruction of the Swine: with free Remarks on several other important passages in the New Testament.” This was a posthumous piece, which had been written before Mr. Farmer’s work appeared, by Mr. Dixon, who had been a dissenting minister, first at Norwich, and afterwards at Bolton in Lancashire. Mr. Dixon proposes a figurative or allegorical interpretation of our Lord’s temptation. A third edition, with large additions, of Mr. Farmer’s “Inquiry” was published in 1776. In 1771, he published “A Dissertation on Miracles, designed to shew that they are arguments of a divine interposition, and absolute proofs of the mission and doctrine of a Prophet,” 8vo. Not long -after the appearance of the “Dissertation,” a notion was propagated, that Mr. Farmer had made considerable use of a treatise of Le Moine l s on the same subject, without acknowledging it; and it was asserted, that his book had the very same view with Mr. Le Moine’s, and was a copy of his work.Mr. Farmer therefore endeavoured to vindicate himself in a pamphlet, published in 1772, entitled “An Examination of the late rev. Mr. Le Moine’s Treatise on Miracles,” in which he enters into a particular discussion of that performance, and a defence of himself; but the accusation continued to be repeated, particularly by a writer in th? London Magazine.

In 1760 he proceeded M. A. and succeeded as classical tutor to Mr. Bickham, who was at that time presented to the college-rectory of Loughborough, in Leicestershire. He proved an excellent classical tutor, and had the art of gaining the esteem of his pupils; but, having less attachment to theology and mathematics, he is thought to have been less zealous in recommending those studies, although he never remitted what was necessary for the purposes of initiation, and more can perhaps seldom be achieved by any tutor in the short time he has to direct the pursuits of his scholars. At what time he took orders is not mentioned, but during his being tutor he served the curacy of Swavesey, a village about eight miles from Cambridge. The bent of his private studies being to ancient literature and antiquities, he was in 1763 recommended to, and elected a fellow of, the society of antiquaries. In 1765 he served the office of junior proctor of the university. In May of the following year he published, from the university press, proposals for a history of the town of Leicester, “originally collected by William Staveley, esq. barrister at Jaw, now first offered to the public from the author’s ms. with very large additions and improvements, &c.” It is somewhat singular that Mr. Farmer should mistake the name of Staveley, which was Thomas, both in these proposals and in the imprimatur which he obtained for it in 1767. That however he set about this work with full intention of pursuing it with diligence, is evident from the tenour of many of the letters which he addressed at that period to some eminent antiquaries, his friends; but, in a very few months, he began to perceive that the task he had undertaken was much more lahorious than he had at first imagined. He. clung to it, however, through many delays, sometimes flattering himself, and sometimes his subscribers, that it would be completed, until, at length, when he had actually begun to print it, he took the advantage of his promotion to the mastership of Emanuel college, and urging that as an excuse for discontinuing his labours, advertised to return the subscription-money, which was punctually done when called for. He then presented the Mss. and plates to Mr. Nichols, who has since completed the history both of the town and county of Leicester, with a degree of spirit, ability, and industry, perhaps unprecedented in this department of literature.

In 1766 Mr. Farmer published his justly celebrated “Essay on the Learning of Shakspeare,” a thin octavo volume, which completely settled a much litigated question, contrary to the opinions of many eminent writers, in a manner that carried conviction to the mind of every one who had either carefully or carelessly reflected on the subject. It may in truth be pointed out as a masterpiece, whether we consider the sprightliness and vivacity with xvliich it is written, the clearness of the arrangement, the force and variety of the evidence, or the compression of scattered materials into a narrow com pass; materials which inferior writers would have expanded into a large volume. A second edition of this valuable performance was called for in 1767, in which are a few corrections of style; and a third was printed in 1789, without any additions, except a note at the end, accounting for his finally abandoning his intended publication of the Antiquities of Leicester. It was afterwards added to the prolegomena of Steevens’s Shakspeare, 1793, 15 vols. and in the two subsequent editions of 21 vols. by Mr. Reed in 1803, and Mr. Harris in 1812.

In 1767 Mr. Farmer took the degree of B. D. and in 1769 was appointed by Dr. Terrick, then bishop of London, to be one of the preachers at the chapel royal, Whitehall. During the residence in London which this office required, he lodged with the celebrated Dr. Askew, in Queen’s Square, Bloomsbury, and became himself a collector of books at a time when such as are now thought invaluable could be picked up at stalls at the most trifling prices. In 1775, on the death of Dr. Richardson, he was chosen master of Emanuel college; Mr. Hubbard, the senior fellow, who had been chosen, declining it, with, says Mr. Cole, “his wonted moderation and disinterestedness, and giving his full suffrage to his friend Mr. Farmer.” He now took the degree of D. D. and was very soon succeeded in his tutorship by Dr. William Bennet, the present very learned and amiable bishop of Cloyne. In 1775-6, Dr. Farmer served, in his turn, the office of vicechancellor. During his holding this office an event occurred, which would scarcely be worth mentioning in a life of Dr. Farmer, had it not been grossly misrepresented. When the disturbances in America had become serious, the university of Cambridge, with numberless other loyal bodies, voted an address to the king, approving of the measures adopted by government to reduce the colonies to their duty; the address, however, was not carried unanimously, and was, in particular, opposed by Dr. John Jebb, so well known for his free opinions in politics and religion, and by some others, of whom, one man, a member of the caput, carried his opposition so far, as actually to refuse the key of the place which contained the seal necessary on such occasions. In this emergency the vicechancellor, Dr. Farmer, is said to have forced open the door with a sledge-hammer; and this act of violence is called courtly zeal, and all his subsequent preferments are attributed to it. But the fact'is, that the opening of this door (of a chest) was not an act of intemperate zeal. The sense of the university had been taken; the senate, by its vote, had given its sanction to the measure before the vicechancellor exerted his authority, and gave his servant his official orders to break open the chest.

, a learned grammarian, was born in London about 1575. His father was a carpenter in that city his grandfather had been mayor of Truro in Cornwall and his great-grandfather was an Italian musician, who had settled in England. After having received a proper grammatical education, he was admitted of Merton-college, Oxford, in the beginning of 1590, where he became servitor to Mr. Thomas French, fellow of that college, and soon distinguished himself as a youth of lively parts and great hopes. Being, however, of an unsettled disposition, he abruptly quitted the university, and, abandoning both his religion and his country, passed over to Spain, and was for some time educated there in a college belonging to the Jesuits. At length, growing weary of the severe discipline of the institution, he found a way to leave it, and went with sir Francis Drake and sir John Hawkins in their last voyage, in 15^5. By the former of these great naval commanders he is said to have been held in some esteem. Mr. Farnabie is afterwards reported to have served as a soldier in the Low Countries. No advantage was gained by him in these expeditions; for, having been reduced to much distress, he landed in Cornwall, and from the urgency of his necessities was obliged to descend to the humble employment of teaching children their horn-book. Whilst he was in this low situation he did not cbuse to go by his own name, but changed it to Thomas Baimafe, the anagram of Farnabie. By degrees he rose to those higher occupations of a school-master for which he was so well qualified, and after some lime, he fixed at Martock in Somersetshire, where he taught a grammarschool with great success. In 1646, when Mr. Charles Darby was called to teach the same school, he found in that town, and the neighbourhood, many persons who had been Mr. Farnahie’s scholars, and who, in their grey hairs, were ingenious men and good grammarians. From Martock Mr. Farnabie removed to London, and opened a school in Goldsmiths’-rents, behind Red-Cross-street, near Cripplegate, where were large gardens and handsome houses, together with all the accommodations proper for the young noblemen and gentlemen committed to his care. So established was his reputation, that at one time the number of his scholars amounted to more than three hundred. Whilst he was at the head of this school, he was created master of arts in the university of Cambridge, and on the 24th of April, 1616, was incorporated to the same degree at Oxford.

Soon after this, having now no inducement to remain at Dublin, he went to London, where, in 1696, the celebrated actor Wilks prevailed upon him to write a play, and, knowing his humour and abilities, assured him, that he was considered by all as fitter to furnish compositions for the stage, than to act those of other writers. Another encouragement, which suffered him to exercise his genius at leisure, he owed to the earl of Orrery, a patron as well as a master of letters, who conferred a lieutenant’s commission upon him in his own regiment in Ireland, which Farquhar held several years, and gave several proofs both of courage and conduct. In 1698, his first comedy, called “Love in a Bottle,” appeared on the stage; and for its sprightly dialogue and busy scenes, was well received by the audience. In 1700 he produced his “Constant Couple, or, Trip to the Jubilee,” it being then the jubilee year at Rome, when persons of all countries flocked thither, for pardons or amusements. In the character of sir Harry Wildair, our author drew so gay and airy a character, so suited to Wilks’s talents, and so animated by his gesture and vivacity of spirit, that the player gained almost as much reputation as the poet. Towards the end of this year, Farquhar was in Holland, probably upon his military duty: and he has given a very facetious description of those places and people, in two of his letters, dated from the Brill and from Leyden: in a third, dated from the Hague, he very humourously relates how merry he was there, at a treat made by the earl of Westmoreland; while not only himself, but king William, and others of his subjects, were detained there by a violent storm. There is also among his poems, an ingenious copy of verses to his mistress upon the same subject. This mistress is supposed to have been Mrs. Oldfield, whom he first recommended to the stage. In 1701 he was a spectator, if not a mourner, at Dryden’s, funeral; for the description he has given of it in one of his letters, affords little indication of sorrow.

Encouraged by the great success of his last play, he wrote a continuation of it, in 1701, called, “Sir Harry Wildair, or, The Sequel of the Trip to the Jubilee:” in which Mrs. Oldfield obtained as much reputation, and was as greatly admired in her part, as Wiiks was m his. In 1702 he published his “Miscellanies, or, collection of poems, letters, and essays,” which contain a variety of humourous and pleasant sallies of fancy. It is said, that some of the letters were published from copies returned to bun. at his request, by Mrs. Oldfield, There is at the end of them, “A discourse upon Comedy, in reference to the English stage;” and in one of the letters, ' The Picture,“containing a description and character of himself, from which we learn that he was very ingenuous, very good-natured, and very thoughtless. In 1703 he brought out another lively comedy called” The Inconstant, or, the way to win him:" but the fashion now turning towards Italian and French operas, this comedy, although not inferior, was received more coldly than the former. Farquhar was married this year, and, as was at first reported, to a great fortune; which indeed he expected, but was miserably disappointed. The lady had fallen in love with him, and so violent was her passion, that she resolved to have him at any rate: and as she knew he was too much dissipated to fall in love, or to think of matrimony, unless advantage was annexed to it, she first caused a report to be spread of her being a great fortune, and then had him persuaded that she was in love with him. He married her: and though he found himself deceived, his circumstances embarrassed, and his family increasing, he never once upbraided her for the imposition, but behaved to her with all the delicacy and tenderness of an indulgent husband.

Very early in 1704, a farce called “The Stage-coach,” in the composition of which he was jointly concerned with another, made its first appearance, and was well received. His next comedy, named “The Twin-Rivals,” was played in 1705; and in 1706, his comedy, called “The Recruiting Officer.” ' He dedicated this “to all friends round the Wrekin,” a noted hill near Shrewsbury, where he had been to recruit for his company; and where, from his observations on country life, the manner in which Serjeants inveigle clowns to enlist, and the loose behaviour of the officers towards the milk-maids and country girls, he collected matter sufficient to form a comedy which still holds its place on the stage. His last comedy was “The Beaux Stratagem,” of which he did not live to enjoy the full success. The characters in this play were all said to have been taken from originals then living in or near the city of Litchfield; and the last of them, Thomas Bond, a servant in the family of sir Theophilus Biddulph, died in 1759. He was the Scrub. This perhaps of all his pieces has remained longest, and is oftenest acted on the stage. Towards the close of his short life, he was unhappily oppressed some debts; and this obliged him to make application to a courtier, who had formerly made him many professions of friendship. His pretended patron advised him to convert his commission into the money he wanted, and pledged his honour that in a short time he would provide him another. This circumstance appearing favourable, and unable to bear the thoughts of want, he sold his commission: but when he renewed his application, and represented his distressed situation, his noble patron had forgot his promise, or rather, perhaps, had never the least intention to fulfil it. This distracting disappointment so preyed upon his mind, as to occasion his death, April, 1707, before he was thirty years of age. Soon after, the following letter to Mr. Wilks was found among his papers: “Dear Bob, I have not any thing to leave thee to perpetuate my memory but two helpless girls look upon them sometimes, and think of him that was to the last moment of his life, thine, George Farquhan” This recommendation, which resembled the celebrated testament of Eudamidas, was duly regarded by Wilks; and when the girls became of an age to be put out into the world in business, he procured a benefit for each of them, to supply the necessary resources.

, knight, and knight-banneret, a valiant and renowned general, governor, and nobleman in France, during our conquests in that kingdom, under king Henry IV. V. and VI. of England, and knight-companion of the most noble order of the garter, has been supposed, from the title of his French barony, and from his name being so often corruptly mentioned in the French histories^ owing to his long residence, and many engagements in the wars there, to have been born in France, at least of French extraction. Others, allowing him to have been a native of England, have no less erroneously fixed hist birth-place in Bedfordshire; but it is well known that he was descended of an ancient and famous English family in the county of Norfolk, which had flourished there and in other parts of the kingdom, in very honourable distinction, before the conquest: and from a train of illustrious ancestors, many of them dignified with the honour of knighthood, invested with very eminent employments, and possessed of extensive patrimonies. But one of the principal branches being seated at Castre in Fleg near Great Yarmouth in that county, which estate descending to these ancestors, he afterwards adorned with a noble family seat, it is presumed he was born therej or in Yarmouth. His father was John Fastolff, esq. of that town, a man of considerable account, especially for his public benefactions, pious foundations, &c. His mother was Mary, daughter of Nicholas Park, esq. and married to sir Richard Mortimer, of Attleburgh; and this their son was born in the latter end of king Edward the Illd’s reign. As he died at the age of eighty, in 1459, his birth could not happen later than 1378. It may fairly be presumed he was grounded as well in that learning and other accomplishments which afterwards, improved by his experience and sagacity, rendered him so famous in war and peace, as in those virtuous and religious principles which governed his actions to the last. His father dying before he was of age, the care of his person and estate were committed to John duke of Bedford, who was afterwards the most wise and able regent of France we ever had there; and he was the last ward which that duke had: others, indeed, say that he was trained up in the Norfolk family, which will not appear improbable when we consider that it was not unusual in those times for young noblemen whilst under wardship to be trained under others, especially ministers of state, in their houses and families, as in academies of behaviour, and to qualify them for the service of their country at home pr abroad. But if he was under Thomas Mowbray duke pf Norfolk, while he enjoyed that title, it could be but one year, that duke being banished the kingdom by king Richard II. in 1398, though his younger son, who was restored to that title many years after, might be one of sir John FastoltFs feoffees. And it is pretty evident that he was, but a few years after the banishment of that duke, in some considerable post under Thomas of Lancaster, after^ wards duke of Clarence, and second son of the succeeding king Henry IV. This Thomas was sent by his father so early, according to some writers, as the second year of his reign, which was in 1401, lord lieutenant of Ireland. And it is not improbable that Fastolff was then with him; for we are informed by William of Wyrcestre, that in the sixth, and seventh years of the said king Henry, that is, in 1405 and 1406, this John Fastolff, esq. was continually with, him. And the same lord lieutenant of Ireland was again there in 1408, 10 Henry IV. and almost to the beginning of the next year, when it is no less probable that Fastolff was still with him; for, in the year last mentioned, we find that he was married in that kingdom to a rich young widow of quality, named Milicent, lady Castlecomb, daughter of Robert lord Tibetot, and relict of sir Stephen Scrope, knight; the same, perhaps, who is mentioned, though not with the title of knighthood, by sir P. Leycester, to have been the said lord lieutenant’s deputy of Ireland, during most of the intervals of his return to England; which deputy-lieutenant died in his office the same year. This marriage was solemnized in Ireland on the feast of St. Hilary, 1408, and Fastolff bound himself in the sum of 1000l. to pay her 100l. a year, for pin-money during life; and she received the same to the 24th year of king Henry VI. The lands in Wiltshire and Yorkshire which came to Fastolff by this marriage with the said lady, descended to Stephen Le Scrope, her son and heir. We may reasonably believe that this marriage in Ireland engaged his settlement in that kingdom, or upon his estate in Norfolk, till his appointment to the command of some forces, or to some post of trust under the English regency in France, soon after required his residence in that kingdom. For, according to the strictest calculation we can make from the accounts of his early engagements in France, the many years he was there, and the time of his final return, it must be not long after his marriage that he left either England or Ireland for that foreign service; being employed abroad by Henry IV. V. and VI. in the wars in France, Normandy, Anjou, Mayne, and Guyenne, upwards of forty years; which agrees very well with what Caxton has published, in his concise, yet comprehensive character of him, little more than twenty years after his death, where he speaks of his “exercisyng the warrys in the royame of Fraunce and other countrees, &c. by fourty yeres enduryng.” So that, we cannot see any room, either in the time or the temper, in the fortunes or employments of this knight, for him to have been a companion with, or follower and corrupter of prince Henry, in his juvenile and dissolute courses; nor, that Shakspeare had any view of drawing his sir John Falstaff from any part of this sir John Fastolff’s character; or so much as pointing at any indifferent circumstance in it that can reflect upon his memory, with readers conversant in the true history of him. The one is an old, humourous, vapouring, and cowardly, lewd, lying, and drunken debauchee, about the prince’s court when the other was a young and grave, discreet and valiant, chaste and sober, commander abroad continually advanced to honours and places of profit, for his brave and politic atchievements, military and civil; continually preferred to the trust of one government or other of countries, cities, towns, &c. or as a genera^ and commander of armies in martial expeditions while abroad; made knight-banneret in the field of battle; baron, in France, and knight of the garter in England and, particularly, when finally settled at home, constantly exercised in acts of hospitality, munificence, and chanty; a founder of religious buildings, and other stately edifices ornamental to his country, as their remains still testify; a generous patron of worthy and learned men, and a public benefactor to the pious and the poor. In short, the more we compare the circumstances in this historical character, with those in that poetical one, we can find nothing discreditable in the latter, that has any relation to the former, or that would mislead an ignorant reader to mistake or confound them, but a little quibble, which makes some conformity in their names, and a short degree in the time wherein the one did really, and the other is feigned to live. And, in regard to the prince of Wales, or our knight’s being engaged in any wild or riotous practices of his youth, the improbabilities may also appear from the comparison of their age, and a view of this prince’s commendable engagements till that space of time in which he indulged his interval of irregularities, when the distance of our knight will clear him from being a promoter of, or partaker in them. For it is apparent, that he had been intrusted with a command in France some time before the death of king Henry IV. because, in 1413, the rery first year of his son, who was now grown the reformed, and soon after proved the renowned, Henry V. it appears that Fastolff had the castle and dominion of Veires in Gascoigne committed to his custody and defence: whence it is very reasonably inferred, that he then resided in the said duchy, which at that time was possessed by the English. In June 1415, Fastolff, then only an esquire, was returned, by indenture, with ten men of arms, and thirty archers, to serve the king at his arrival in France. Soon after king Henry was arrived in Normandy, in August following, with above 30,000 men, the English army having made themselves masters of Harfleur, the most considerable port in that duchy, Fastolff was constituted lieutenant thereof, with 1500 men, by the earl of Derby, as Basset in his ms history informs us; but, as we find it in others, the king, upon this conquest, constituted his said uncle Thomas Beaufort, earl of Dorset and duke of Exeter, governor of Harfleur, in conjunction sir John Fastolff; and, having repaired the fortificaplaced therein a garrison of two thousand select men, as Titus Livius numbers them; or of fifteen hundred ien at arms, and thirty-five knights, according to Hall’s account; to which number Monstrelet also adds a thousand archers. Towards the latter end of October, in the year last mentioned, he was dangerously engaged in the evermemorable battle of Agincourt, where it is said that Fastolff, among others, signalized himself most gallantly by taking the duke of Alengon prisoner; though other historians say that duke was slain after a desperate encounter with king Henry himself, in which he cut off the crowned crest of the king’s helmet. The fact is, that, in a succeeding battle, Fastolff did take this duke’s son and successor prisoner. In the same year, 1415, he, with the duke and 3000 English, invaded Normandy, and penetrated almost to Rouen; but on their return, loaded with booty, they were surprised, and forced to retreat towards Harfleur, whither the enemy pursuing them, were totally defeated. The constable of France, to recover his credit, laid siege to Harfleur, which made a vigorous defence under sir John Fastolff and others till relieved by the fleet under the duke of Bedford. He was at the taking of the castle of Tonque, the city of Caen, the castle of Courcy, the city of Sees, and town of Falaise, and at the great siege at Rouen, 1417. For his services at the latter he was made governor of Conde Noreau; and for his eminent services in those victories, he received, before the 29th of January following, the honour of knighthood, and had the manor and demesne of Fritense near Harfleur bestowed upon him during life. In 1418 he was ordered to seize upon the castle and dominion of Bee Crispin, and other manors, which were held by James D'Auricher, and several other knights; and had the said castle, with those lands, granted him in special tail, to the yearly value of 2000 scutes. In 1420 he was at the siege of Monsterau, as Peter Basset has recorded; and, in the next year, at that of Meaulx-en-Brie. About five months after the decease of king Henry V. the town of Meulent having been surprized in January 1422, John duke of Bedford, regent of France, and sir John Fastolff, then grand master of his household, and seneschal of Normandy, laid siege to the same, and re-took it. In 1423, after the castle of Craven t was relieved, our knight was constituted lieutenant for the king and regent in Normandy, in the jurisdictions of Rouen, Evreux, Alengon, and the countries beyond the river Seine: also governor of the countries of Anjou and Maine, and before the battle of Verneuil was created banneret, About three months after, being then captain of Alengon, and governor of the marches thereof, he laid siege to the castle of Tenuye in Maine, as a French historian informs us, which was surrendered to him; and, in 1424, he was sent to oppose the delivery of Alenon to the French, upon a discovery made that a Gascoigner had secretly contracted to betray the same. In September 1425, he laid siege to Beaumont le Vicompt, which surrendered to him. Then also he took the castle of Sillie-Je-Guillem, from which he was dignified with the title of baron: but this, revolting afterwards again to the French, was assaulted by the earl of Arundel, and retaken about seven years after. In the year last mentioned, our active warrior took also St. Ouen D'Estrais, near Laval, as likewise the castle of Gravelle, with other places of strength, from the enemy; for which dangerous and indefatigable service in France he was about the same time elected in England, with extraordinary deference to his merits, knight companion of the order of the garter. In 1426 John lord Talbot was appointed governor of Anjou and Maine, and sir John Fastolff was removed to another place of command, which, in all probability, might be the foundation of that jealousy, emulation, or competition, between them, which never was cordially reconciled. In October 1428, he had a protection granted him, being then going into France; and there he performed an enterprise of such bravery and conduct as is scarcely thought to have been paralleled in ancient or modern history. The English army, at the siege of Orleans, being in great want of provisions, artillery, and other necessaries, sir John Fastolff, with some other approved commanders, was dispatched for supplies by William de la Pole duke of Suffolk, to the regent at Paris; who not only provided him plentifully therewith, but allowed him a strong guard at his return, that he might convey the same safely to the siege. The French, knowing the importance of this succour, united two armies of very superior numbers and force to meet him; but, either in different encounters, or in a pitched battle, as the French thetnselv es allow, he totally overthrew them; slew greater numbers than he had under his command, not to mention the wounded and the prisoners; and conducted his convoy safe to the English camp. And because it was in the time of Lent, and he had, among his other provision, several of his carriages laden with many barrels of herrings, which he applied to form a fortification, the French have ever since called this victory “The battle of herrings.” But as the fortune of war is precarious, the English army was soon after obliged to raise the siege of Orleans, and though they received recruits from the duke of Bedford, they were in no degree strong enough to encounter the French army at Patay. At the battle which happened there in June 1429, many of the English, who were of most experienced and approved valour, seeing themselves so unequal, and the onset of the French so unexpected, made the best retreat they could and, among them who saved themselves, as it is said, was sir John Fastolff vfho, with such as could escape, retired to Corbeil thus avoiding being killed, or, with the great lord Talbot, lord Hungerford, and sir Thomas Ramps ton, taken prisoner of war. Here the French tales, which some English historians have inconsiderately credited, contradict or invalidate themselves; for, after having made the regent most improbably, and without any examination, or defence, divest Fastolff of his honours, they no less suddenly restore him to them, for, as they phrase it, “apparent causes of good excuse; though against the mind of the lord Talbot;” between whom there had been, it seems, some emulous contests, and therefore it is no wonder that Fastolff found him upon this occasion an adversary. It is not likely that the regent ever conceived any displeasure at this conduct, because Fastolff was not only continued in military and civil employments of the greatest concern, but appears more in favour with the regent after the battle of Patay than before. So that, rather than any dishonour here can be allowed, the retreat itself, as it is told, must be doubted. It was but in 1430 that he preferred him to the lieutenancy of Caen in Normandy. In 1432 he accompanied him into France, and was soon after sent ambassador to the council of Basil, and chosen, in the like capacity, to negociate a final or temporary peace with France. And that year, Fastolff, with the lord Willoughby, commanded the army which assisted the duke of Bretagne against the duke of Alen^on. Soon after this he was for a short space in England; for, in 1433, going abroad again, he constituted John Fastolff, of Olton, probably a near relation, his general attorney. In 1434, or the beginning of the year after, sir John was again with the regent of France;'and, in 1435, he was again one of the ambassadors to conclude a peace with France. Towards the latter end of this year the regent died at Rouen, and, as the greatest proof he could give of his confidence in the honour and integrity of sir John Fastolff, he made him one of the executors of his. last will. Richard, duke of York, who succeeded in the regency of France, made Fastolff a grant of an annuity of twenty pounds a year of his own estate, “pro notabili et landdbili servicio, ac bono consilio;” which is sufficient to shew this duke’s sentiments also of his merits. In 1436, and for about four years longer, he seems to have been well settled at his government in Normandy; after which, in 1440, he made his final return home, and, loaclen with the laurels he had gathered in France, became as illustrious in his domestic as he had been in his foreign character. The late Mr. Gough, by whom this article was much enlarged, had an inventory of all the rich jewels, plate, furniture, &c. that he either had, or left in France, at his return to England. In 1450 he conveyed to John Kemp, cardinal archbishop of York, and others, his manor of Castre in Fleg, and several other lands specified in the deed of conveyance. The same year, Nov. 8, the king by writ directed Richard Waller, esq. David John William Needham, and John Ingoldsby, to cause Thomas Danyell, esq. to pay to sir John FastolfF, knight, the lOOl. that he was indebted to him for provisions, and for his ship called the George of Prussia, alias Danyell’s Hulk, which ship the said Danyell took on the sea as a prize, and never had it condemned; so that the king seized it, ordered it to be sold, and sir John to be paid out of it. At length being arrived, in 1459, beyond the age of fourscore years, he says of himself, that he was “in good remembrance, albeit I am gretly vexed with sickenesse, and thurgh age infebelyd.” He lingered under an hectic fever and asthma for an hundred and forty-eight days; but before he departed he made his will on the fifth of November in that year, and died at his seat at Castre the next day after, being the festival of St. Leonard, or the eve before, as appears in the escheats, in the 39th or last year of king Henry the Vlth’s reign, and no less than thirty-six years beyond the extravagant period assigned by Fuller. He was buried with great solemnity under an arch, in a chapel of our lady of his own building, on the south side of the choir at the abbey-church of St. Bennet in the Holm, in Norfolk, which was ruined at the dissolution; and so much was he respected after his decease, that John Beauchamp, lord of Powyke, in his last will dated the 15th of Edward IV. appointed a chantry, more especially for the soul of sir John Fastolff.

The ruins of his house at Castre still remaining, shew it to have been alike capacious and strong. It was moate4 round, but the moat is now for the most part filled up. The grand entrance was on the West. The house formed a rectangled parallelogram the south and north sides longer than east and west the stables in front the best rooms on the right hand of the square, under which side is a noble vault, and over it probably the hall. The embattled brick tower at the north west corner is standing, above one hundred feet high; and over one of the windows were carved his arms in the garter as above described, supported by angels, now removed; on one of the doors a saltire engrailed. To it adjoined a dining-parlour, fifty-nine feet long, and twenty-eight broad. East from the castle stood the college, forming three sides of a square larger than the former, with two round towers; the whole converted into barns and stables. The castle moat is said to have communicated with a navigable creek, and in a farm housa north west of the mansion, called the barge-house, is shewn a large arch, capable of receiving a boat of considerable burthen. Weever says he had licence from Henry VI. to build his house castle-wise as a fortification on that side of Yarmouth, to which perhaps relates the licence granted him 1443, 22 Hen. VI. to employ some of the king’s ships to carry materials for building and furnishing one of his mansion-houses. The current tradition is, that this house was erected by a French nobleman, who was taken prisoner by our famous knight, according to the model and architecture of his own castle in France, as the price of his ransom.

February 10, 1474, 13 Edw. IV. an indenture was made between sir William Yelverton, William Jenny, serjeant at law, and William Worcester, executors of sir John on one part, and Thomas Cager and Robert Kytton on the other, whereby the said Robert was appointed surveyor of the lands and tenements in Southwark, and other places in Surrey, late sir John’s, to perform his last will, and also> receiver of the rents; who was to have six marks per annum, and to be allowed, besides all reasonable costs, that he shall do in the defence and keeping out John Paston, esq. and of all others claiming by him. Anthony lord Scales, at another time, took possession of it in the name of king Edward IV. under pretence that Paston was the king’s villan (though absolutely false), all which proved a great destruction to the goods and effects in the same; but sir John Paston, through the favour and protection of king Edward IV. had afterwards possession. Another misfortune also happened to this seat or castle about the same time, owing to the negligence of a girl, who in making a bed set fire to it by her candle, and did considerable damage. Sir John Fastolff had a house at Norwich in Pokethorp opposite St. James’s church, called Fastolff’s place; in the windows of which Mr. Blomefield saw several paintings of saints and scripture worthies, and two knights fighting, which he imagined represented sir John and his French prisoner. He likewise built a splendid seat in Yarmouth, and a palace in Southwark.

, a dissenting minister, was born at Sleaford in Lincolnshire, Aug. 16, 1715, and after a religious education at home, was placed under Dr. Doddridge at Northampton, where his conduct was exemplary, and his improvement rapid. In 1741, by Doddridge’s particular recommendation, he became a preacher at Taunton; and in 1745 removed to Kidderminster, where he officiated as the pastor of a large congregation of dissenters for thirty-five years, dying in Oct. 1780. He preached thrice every Sunday, besides weekly services, lectures, visits, &c. He also carried on an extensive correspondence with his brethren in various parts of the kingdom, and found leisure to prepare hfs various publications for the press. To enable him to accomplish all this, he was a rigid reconomist of his time, and was seldom in bed after five o'clock in the morning, to which habit, and a temperate mode of living, he used to ascribe his remarkable and almost uninterrupted health and spirits until a short time before his death, when he suffered severely from the stone. It is perhaps more remarkable, that he had no fire in his study in the depth of wiuter. His flow of spirits appears to have been rather immoderate, according to Mr. Orion’s account. “I am told that after preaching twice, and administering the Lord’s Supper, he was so lively in the evening that several of the people were in pain lest he should throw himself out of the pulpit 1” In his sentiments he was what is called a Baxterian, and drew upon himself, on spome occasions, the censures of the more orthodox part of his brethren, particularly by one of his pamphlets, “Candid reflexions on the different modes of explaining the Trinity.” His other works were small pious, tracts some funeral, and occasional sermons and abridgements of Baxter’s “Saints 1 everlasting Rest,” and of some other pieces by that divine. His personal character was so consistent and amiable, that his death was lamented by persons of all persuasions at Kidderminster.

In 1761 he published by subscription a volume of “Original Poems and Translations,” by which he got more profit than fame. His subscribers amounted to nearly eight hundred, but no second edition was called for. Some other pieces by him are in Mr. Nichols’s Collection, and in the “Poetical Calendar,” a periodical selection of fugitive Verses which he published in conjunction with Mr. Woty, an indifferent poet of that time. In 1767 he published an eclogue, entitled “Partridge Shooting,” very inferior to his other productions. He was the editor also of a “Family Bible,” with notes, in 4to, which is a work of very inconsiderable merit, but to which he probably contributed only his name, a common trick among the retailers of “Complete Family Bibles.”

Amidst Mr. Fearne’s various pursuits of knowledge, he had always a particular attachment to experimental philosophy, which, both at school and at the Temple, he practised occasionally. In this employment, he fancied that he had discdvered the art of dying Morocco leather of particular colours, and after a new process. It appears that the Maroquoniers in the Levant (who are called so from dressing the skin of this goat, named the Maroquiu) keep secret the ingredients which they put into the liquor, which gives it that fine red colour. This secret, or what would answer equally as well, Fearne thought he had discovered, and, like most projectors, saw great profits arising from the discovery. It was his misfortune, however, to form a connection in this scheme, with a needy and expensive partner, which opened his eyes to the fallacy of his hopes; and at the suggestion of his friends, he reverted to his original profession, or what his father intended for such, and sat down to the study of the law with unremitting diligence. He had not been long in chambers, when his habits of study, diligence, and sobriety, were observed by an eminent attorney in the Temple, who wanted an abstract to be made of a voluminous body of papers, so as to bring the matter clearly before counsel. The papers were so intricate, and of such various references, that they required a very clear head, and a man not much taken up with other business, to arrange them. He saw Fearne answered this last description very well; and told him, “That having a great body of papers to arrange, he should be glad to employ him.” Fearne accepted the offer, and performed his task so ably, that his employer not only rewarded him handsomely for his trouble, but from that time gave him a considerable part of his business.

He now began to be known as a young man of very considerable legal erudition, and a promising increase in business encouraged him to relinquish his chambers, and take a house in Breams-buildings, Chancery-lane, where he became very successful as, what is called, a chamber counsel. Before he left the Temple, he had published his very useful “Legigraphical Chart of Landed Property,” and he now derived additional reputation from his more important treatise, entitled “An Essay on the Learning of Contingent Remainders and Executory Devises,” which, although published without his name, was soon traced to its author. Fortune, as it is usually termed, was now before him, but he had no extraordinary ambition for her favours, and, very oddly, contracted his business within a 1 certain compass, by which it might yield him an annual sum which he thought sufficient for his wants. This, estimated by his biographer at 1500l. a year, when he could with ease have acquired 3000l. he spent on a town and country-house, a carriage, &c. with an establishment on a genteel but moderate scale; and the time he denied to increase of business, he employed in his house at Hampstead on mechanical and philosophical experiments. At this retreat he was wrapt up either in some philosophical experiment, or some mechanical invention the first of which he freely communicated to men of similar pursuits and the latter, when, completed, he as liberally gave away to poor artists, or dealers in these articles; and here also he made some op? tical glasses upon a new construction, which have been reckoned improvements he likewise constructed a machine for transposing the keys in music gave many useful hints in the dyeing of cottons, and in a variety of other articles, which equally shewed the enlarged state of his mind, and the liberality of his heart. These he called his dissipations, and with some degree of truth, as they often broke jn upon his profession, and induced him to give up more hours (to bring up for lost time) than was consistent with more beneficial pursuits, or the natural strength of his constitution.

While thus employed, an occasion presented itself, which called forth his talents in a new way. Lord Mansfield, when solicitor-general in 1747, having given an opinion in. the state of a case on the will of William Williams (afterwards the subject of the celebrated case of Perrin v. Blake), which Mr. Fearne, on the authority of his friend the late James Booth, esq. of Lincoln’s-inn, quoted in the first edition of his “Essay on the Learning of Contingent Remainders, &c.” his lordship afterwards disavowed that opinion on the bench, insinuating at the same time that Mr, Fearne was under some mistake in reporting it. Fearne, all alive to the delicacy of his character, and knowing the strong ground he proceeded upon (which was a copy of that opinion given him by Mr. Booth, from a manuscript collection of cases, taken from the originals), took this opportunity to publish a letter, entitled “Copies of Opinions ascribed to eminent counsel on the will which was the subject of the case of Perrin v. Blake, before the court of king’s bench, 1769, addressed to the right hon. William earl of Mansfield.” This appeared about 1780, and is said to have afforded lord Mansfield some uneasiness, who, however, took no notice of it.

In 1610, and the two following years, we find him in attendance upon sir Thomas Edmondes, the king’s minister at the court of France. Several of the sermons he preached, during this time, in the ambassador’s chapel, are collected in his “Clavis Mystica,” and those which were levelled at the errors of popery are said to have been very successful both in converting some catholics, and in confirming the opinions of those who had before embraced. the doctrines of the reformation. He had also very frequent conferences in the Cleremont with the Jesuits, and with the members of the Sorboane, but especially with fathers Sirmund and Petau, who, although they at first ridiculed his figure, for he was low of stature, yet afterwards were impressed with a regard for his controversial talents, and treated his memory with respect. His three disputations at Paris are confessed by Holden, an eminent English catholic writer, to have done more harm to the popish cause than thirtythree he had read of before. By most of the foreign universities he was held in such honour as a disputant, that in the tables of the celebrated schoolmen, whom they honoured with the epithets of resolute, subtle, angelic, &c. he was called acutissimus et acerrimus. According to Wood, he commenced B. D. in 1613, and was the preacher at the act of that year. His sermon on this occasion is said to have been No. 37. in the “Clavis Mystica;” but, according to the evidence of his nephew John Featley, he did not take that degree until 1615, and the sermon he delivered was a Latin concio ad clerum, dated March 25. In 1610 he had preached the rehearsal sermon at Oxford, and by the bishop of London’s appointment he discharged the same duty at St. Paul’s cross in 1613. By invitation from Mr. Ezekiel Ascot, who had been his pupil, he accepted the rectory of Northill in Cornwall, which he vacated on his institution to the rectory of Lambeth in 1618. a change which, if not more profitable, was certainly highly agrees ahle to him, as he became now, by the recommendation of the university, domestic chaplain to Abbot, archbishop of Canterbury.

While the ecclesiastical constitution stood, Dr. Featley was member of several of the convocations; and upon account, as is supposed, of his being a Calvinist, he was in 1642 appointed by the parliament one of the Assembly of Divines. He is said to have continued longer with them than any other member of the episcopal persuasion; but this was no longer than he discovered the drift of their proceedings. That he was not acceptable to the ruling party, appears from his becoming in the same year, a victim to their revenge. In November, the soldiers sacked his church at Acton, and at Lambeth would have murdered him, had he not made his escape. These outrages were followed Sept. 30, 1643, by his imprisonment in Peter-house, in Aldersgate-street, the seizure of his library and goods, and the sequestration of his estate. Charges were preferred against him of the most absurd and contradictory kind, which it was to little purpose to answer. He was voted out of his living. Among his pretended offences were, that he refused to assent to every clause in the solemn league and covenant, and that he corresponded with archbishop Usher, who was with the king at Oxford. During his imprisonment, he amused himself by writing his celebrated treatise, entitled “The Dippers dipt, or the Anabaptists ducked and plunged over head and ears, at a disputation in Southwark.” It is, however, a striking proof of that anarchy of sentiment which disgraced the nation at this period, that he not only dedicates this book to the parliament which had imprisoned him, but exhorts them to employ the sword of justice against “heretics and schismatics,” although himself was n'ow suffering under the latter description by that very parliament. He was better employed soon after in an able vindication of the church of England against the innovators who now bore rule; but his long confinement of eighteen months impaired his health and shortened his days. His situation appears to have been represented to his persecutors, but it was not until six weeks before his death that he obtained leave from the parliament to remove to Chelsea for the benefit of the air. Here he died April 17, 1645, on the very day that he was bound to have returned to his confinement at Peter-house. It was reported that a few hours before his deaih, he prayed for destruction to the enemies of the church and state, in expressions which have been called “irascible and resentful.” How far they were used by him seems doubtful but had he prayed only for the restoration of the constitution in church and state, it might have still, in those times, been imputed to him that the destruction of their enemies was a necessary preliminary and a fair innuendo. He was buried in the chancel of Lambeth church, where his funeral sermon was preached by Dr. Leo or Loe, who had been in habits of intimacy with him for thirty-seven years. Dr. Leo represents him as being “in his nature, meek, gracious, affable, and merciful:” as a writer he was esteemed in his time one of the ablest defenders of the doctrines of the reformation against the papists, and one of the ablest opponents of the anabaptists.

, so called, because he was born of poor parents in a cottage, near the forest of Feckenham in Worcestershire, his right name being Howmau, was the last abbot of Westminster. Discovering in his youth very good parts, and a strong propensity to learning, the priest of the parish took him under his care, instructed him some years, and then procured him admission into Evesham monastery. At eighteen, he was sent by his abbot to Gloucester-hall, Oxford; from whence, when he had sufficiently improved himself in academical learning, he was recalled to his abbey; which being dissolved Nov. 17, 1536, he had a yearly pension of an hundred florins allowed him for his life. Upon this he returned to Gloucester-hall, where he pursued his studies some years; and in 1539, took the degree of bachelor of divinity, being then chaplain to Bell bishop of Worcester. That prelate resigning his see in 1543, he became chaplain to Bonner bishop of London but Bonner being deprived of his bishopric, in 1549, by the reformers, Feckenham was committed to the Tower of London, because, as some say, he refused to administer the sacraments after the protestant manner. Soon after, he was taken from thence, to dispute on the chief points controverted between the protestants and papists, and disputed several times in public before and with some great personages.

a learned divine, was born in the parish of St. Clement Danes, London, 1594; elected student of Christ Church from Westminster school in 1601; took a master of arts degree in 1608, served the office of proctor in 1614, and the year following was admitted bachelor of divinity; and about that time became minister of Freshwater in the Isle of Wight. In May 1619, he was installed canon of Christ Church, and the same year proceeded doctor in divinity, being about that time domestic chaplain to James I. In 1626, he was made Margaret professor of divinity, and consequently had a prebend of Worcester, which was about that time annexed to the professorship. He was then a Calvinist, but at length, renouncing the opinions so called, he was, through Laud’s interest, made dean of Lichfield in 1637; and the year following, dean of Christ Church. In 1645, he was appointed vice-chancellor, which office he served also in 1647, in contempt of the parliamentary visitors, who at length ejected him from that and his deanery, and their minions were so exasperated at him for his loyalty to the king, and zeal for the church, that they actually sought his life: and being threatened to be murdered, he was forced to abscond. He died broken-hearted, Feb. 1, 1648-9; that being the very day he was made acquainted with the murder of his royal master king Charles. He was buried in the chancel of Sunning-well church, near Abingdon, in Berkshire (where he had been rector, and built the front of the parsonage-house) with only this short memorial, on a small lozenge of marble laid over his grave, “Depositum S. F. February 1648.” He was a public-spirited man, and had the character of a scholar. Wood, though he supposes there were more, only mentions these two Small productions of his; viz. “Primitiae; sive Oratio habita Oxoniae in Schola TheologiiE, 9 Nov. 1626,” and, “Concio Latina ad Baccalaureos die cinerum in Coloss. ii. 8.” They were both printed at Oxford in 1627. He contributed very largely to Christ Church college, completing most of the improvements begun by his predecessor, Dr. Duppa, and would have done more had not the rebellion prevented him.

A.fter the restoration he was made prebendary of Chichester, and canon of Christ Church, in which last place he was installed July 27, 1660; and in Nov. following was made dean, being then D. D. and chaplain in ordinary to the king. As soon as he was fixed, he earnestly applied himself to purge the college of all remains of hypocrisy and nonsense, so prevalent in the late times of confusion, and to improve it in all sorts of learning as well as true religion. Nor was he more diligent in restoring its discipline, than in adorning it with magnificent buildings, towards which he contributed very great sums. By his own benefactions, and what he procured from others, he completed the north side of the great quadrangle, which had remained unfinished from Wolsey’s time, and in which his father had made some progress when interrupted by the rebellion. He rebuilt also part of the lodgings of the canon of the second stall, the east side of the chaplain’s quadrangle, the buildings adjoining fronting the meadows, the lodgings belonging to the canon of the third stall, and the handsome tower over the principal gate of the college; into which, in 1683, he caused to be removed out of the steeple in the cathedral, the bell called “Great Tom of Christ Church,” feaid to have been brought thither with the other bells from Oseney-abbey, which he had re-cast with additional metal, so that it is now one of the largest bells in England. Round it is this inscription: “Magnus Thomas Clusius Oxoniensis, renatus April viii. MDCLXXX. regnante Carolo Secundo, Decano Johanne Oxon. Episcopo, Subdecano Gulielmo Jane S. S. Theol. Professore, Thesaurario Henrico Smith S. S. Theol. Professore, cura et arte Christopher! Hodson.” Sixteen men are required to ring it; and it was first rung out on May 29, 1684. From that time to this it has been tolled every night, as a signal to all scholars to repair to their respective colleges and halls; and so it used to be before its removal.

, 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.

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.

He was now induced to trust to his abilities for a subsistence, but whatever his difficulties or discouragements, he kept his name unsullied, and never descended to any mean or dishonourable shifts. Indeed, whoever mentioned him, mentioned him with honour, in every period of his life. His first employ he owed to a recommendation to Charles earl of Orrery, whom he accompanied to Flanders, in quality of secretary, and returned with his lordship to England in 1705. Being then out of employment, he became assistant in the school of Mr. Bonwicke, (see Bo?7­Wicki:), at Headley, near Leatherhead, in Surrey; after which he was invited to the mastership of the free grammar school at Sevenoaks, in Kent, and in a few years brought that seminary into much reputation, while he enjoyed the advantage of making easy and frequent excursions to visit his friends in London. In 1710 he was prevailed upon by Mr. St. John (lord Bolingbrokt ) to give up what was called the drudgery of a school, for the worse drudgery of dependence on a political patron, from whom, after all, he derived no advantage. When Steele resigned his place of commissioner in the stamp-office, Fenton applied to his patron, who told him that it was beneath his merit, and promised him a superior appointment; but this, the subsequent change of administration prevented him from fulfilling, and left Fenton disappointed, and in debt. Not long after, however, his old friend the earl of Orrery appointed him tutor to his son, lord Broghill, a boy of seven years old, whom he taught English and Latin until he was thirteen. About the time this engagement was about to expire, Craggs, secretary of state, feeling his own want of literature, desired Pope to procure him an instructor, by whose help he might supply the deficiencies of his education. Pope recommended Fenton, but Craggs’s sudden death disappointed the pleasing expectations formed from this connection.

The work of Ferdusi remains entire, a glorious monument of eastern genius and learning; which, if ever it should be understood in its original language, will contest the merit of invention with Homer himself, whatever be thought of its subject, or the arrangement of the incidents. The whole collection of his works is called “Shahnama,” and contains the history of Persia, from the earliest times to the invasion of the Arabs, in a series of very noble poems; the longest and most regular of which is an heroic poem of one great and interesting action, namely the delivery of Persia by Cyrus from the oppressions of Afrasiab, king of the Transoxan Tartary, who, being assisted by the emperors of India and China, had carried his conquests very far, and had become exceeding formidable to the Persians. The poem is longer than the Iliad the characters in it are various and striking the figures bold and animated; and the diction every where sonorous, yet noble; polished, yet full of fire. Of Ferdusi’s satire against the sultan, there is a translation in a “Treatise on Oriental Poetry,” added to the Life of Nader-Shah in French. Sir William Jones said it is not unlike the XagiTts of Theocritus, who, like the impetuous Ferdusi, had dared to expose the vices of a low-minded king.

This continual study drew upon him a long fit of sickness, which obliged him to leave Paris. On his recovery he returned thither with a design to study physic; but before he applied himself entirely to it, he taught philosophy in the college of St. Barbara. After this, he spent four years in the study of physic; and taking a doctor’s degree, confined himself to his closet, in order to read the best authors, and to improve himself in mathematics, as far as the business of his profession would suffer him; and to gain time, he used to rise at four o‘clock in the morning, and studied until the hour when he was obliged either to read lectures pr to visit patients. Coming home to dine, he shut himself up among his books, until called down to table; and after dinner, he returned to his study, which he did not leave without necessary occasions. Coming home at night, he followed the same course he remained among his books until called to supper returned to them the moment he had supped and did not leave them till eleven o’clock, when he went to bed.

In 1598 he was sent to Euborn school, where in Latin, Greek, and logic, he soon became the first scholar of his years. He strengthened his memory by daily exercise; he was a great proficient in writing and arithmetic, and attained such excellence in short-hand as to be able to take accurately a sermon or speech on any occasion. He was also well skilled both in the theory and practice of vocal and instrumental music. Thus accomplished, in his fourteenth year, his master, Mr. Brooks, prevailed with his parents to send him to Cambridge, whither he himself attended him, and admitted him of Clare-hall, presenting him, with due commendation of his uncommon abilities, to Mr. Augustin Lindsell, the tutor, and Dr. William Smith, then master of the college. His parents thought proper, notwithstanding the remonstrance of some friends against it, to admit him a pensioner for the first year, as they conceived it more for his good to rise by 'merit gradually to honour. In this situation, by excellent demeanour and diligent application to his studies, he gained the affections and applause of all who knew him, performing all his exercises with distinguished approbation. His attention and diligence were such, that it was observed his chamber might be known by the candle that was last put out at night, and the first lighted in the morning. Nor was he less diligent In his attendance at chapel, so that his piety and learning went on hand in hand together. In his second year he became fellow-commoner. In 1610 he took his degree of B. A. At this time he was appointed to make the speech on the king’s coronation day, (July 25) in the college hall; and the same year he was elected fellow of that society, His constitution was of a feminine delicacy, and he was very subject to aguish disorders; yet he bore them out in a great measure by his temperance, and by a peculiar courageousness of spirit which was natural to him. His favourite sister, married to Mr. Collet, lived at Bourn Bridge, near Cambridge, and as the air of Cambridge was found not well to agree with him, he made frequent exctirsioas to her house, where he passed his time in the pursuit of his studies, and in the instruction of his sister’s children. But his tutor, Mr. Lindsell, Mr. Ruggle (author of the Latin comedy called Ignoramus), and others of the fellows, having now apprehension of his health, carried him to Dr. Butler, the celebrated physician of Cambridge, who conceived a great affection for him, but finding the disorder baffled all his skill, could only recommend a spare diet and great temperance; and upon his relapsing, in the autumn of 1612, the doctor prescribed as the last re^ medy, that in the spring he should travel.

Four of Mr. Collet’s eldest daughters being grown up to woman’s estate, to perfect them in the practice of good housewifery, Mr. Ferrar appointed them, in rotation, to take the whole charge of the domestic ceconomy. Each had this care for a month, when her accounts were regularly passed, allowed, and delivered over to the next in succession. There was also the same care and regularity required with respect to the surgeon’s chest, and the due provision of medicines, and all things necessary for those who were sick, or hurt by any misfortune. A convenient apartment was provided for those of the family who chanced to be indisposed, called the infirmary, where they might be attended, and properly taken care of, without disturbance from any part of the numerous family. A large room was also set apart for the reception of the medicines, and of those who were brought in sick or hurt, and wanted immediate assistance. The young ladies were required to dress the wounds of those who were hurt, in order to give them readiness and skill in this employment, and to habituate them to the virtues of humility and tenderness of heart. The office relative to pharmacy, the weekly inspection, the prescription, and administration of medicines, Mr. Ferrar reserved to himself, being an excellent physician; as he had for many years attentively studied the theory and practice of medicine, both when physic fellow at Clare Hall, and under the celebrated professors at Padua. In this way was a considerable part of their income disposed of.

In order to give some variety to this system of education, he formed the family into a sort of collegiate institution, of which one was considered as the founder, another guardian, a third as moderator, and himself as visitor of this little academy. The seven virgin daughters, his nieces, formed the junior part of this society, were called the sisters, and assumed the names of, 1st, the chief; 2d. the patient; 3d, the chearful 4th, the affectionate; 5th, the submiss 6th, the obedient; 7th, the moderate. These all had their respective characters to sustain, and exercises to perform suited to those characters. For the Christmas season of 1631 he composed twelve excellent discourses, five suited to the festivals within the twelve days, and seven to the assumed name and character of the sisters. These were enlivened by hymns and odes composed by Mr. Ferrar, and set to music by the music-master of the family, who accompanied the voices with the viol or the lute.

This extraordinary course of life pursued at Gidding, the strictness of their rules, their prayers, literally without ceasing, their abstinence, mortifications, nightly watchings, and various other peculiarities, gave birth to censure in some, and inflamed the malevolence of others, but excited the wonder and curiosity of all. So that they were frequently visited with different views by persons of all denominations, and of opposite opinions. They received all who came with courteous civility; and from those who were inquisitive they concealed nothing, as indeed there was not any thing either in their opinions, or their practice, in the least degree necessary to be concealed. Notwithstanding this, they were by some abused as Papists, by others as Puritans. Mr. Ferrar himself, though possessed of uncommon patience and resignation, yet in anguish of spirit complained to his friends, that the perpetual obloquy he endured was a sort of unceasing martyrdom. Added to all this, violent invectives and inflammatory pamphlets were published against them. Amongst others, not long after M. Ferrar' s death, a treatise was addressed to the parliament, entitled, “The Arminian Nunnery, or a brief description and relation of the late erected monastical place, called the Arminian Nunnery at Little Gidding in Huntingdonshire: humbly addressed to the wise consideration of the present parliament. The foundation is by a company of Ferrars at Gidding,” printed by Thomas Underhill, 1641.

Among other articles of instruction and amusement in this monastery, Mr. Ferrar engaged a bookbinder who taught his art to the whole family, females as well as males, and what they called pasting-printing, by the use of the rolling-press. By this assistance he composed a full harjnony or concordance of the evangelists, adorned with many beautiful pictures, which required more than a year for the composition, and was divided into 150 heads or chapters. This book was so neatly done by pieces pasted together from different copies of the same type, as to have the appearance of having been printed in the ordinary way. The employment of the monks, in transcribing books, before the aera of printing, must have surely given rise to such a waste of time, as any printing-press could have executed in a month, what cost a year’s labour in this patch-work way. The book, however, was so much admired that the king desired to see it, and had another made like it, which, we are told, was bound by Mary Collett, one of Ferrar’s nieces, “all wrought in gold, in a new and most elegant fashion.”

How long this strange institution might have lasted, if left to itself, cannot be ascertained. In 1635 old Mrs. Ferrar, who was a sort of lady abbess, died, and her son, the founder, on Dec. 2, 1637. The third day before his death, he ordered a place to be marked out for his grave, and being told that the place was accordingly marked, he requested his brother, before all the family, to take out of his study three large hampers full of books, which had been there locked up many years and said, “They are comedies, tragedies, heroic poems, and romances let them be immediately burnt upon the place marked out for my grave, and when you shall have so done, come back and inform me.” When information was brought him that they were all consumed, he desired that this act might be considered as the testimony of his disapprobation of all such productions, as tending to corrupt the mind of man, and improper for the perusal of erery good and sincere Christian. Soon after his death, certain soldiers of the parliament resolved to plunder the house at Gidding. The family being informed of their hasty approach, thought it prudent to fly; while these military zealots, in the rage of what they called reformation, ransacked both the church and the house; in doing which, they expressed a particular spite against the organ. This they broke in pieces, of which they made a large fire, and at it roasted several of Mr. Ferrar’s sheep, which they had killed in his grounds. This done, they seized all the plate, furniture, and provision, which they could conveniently carry away. And in this general devastation perished the works which Mr. Ferrar had compiled for the use of his household, in the way we have already described, consisting chiefly of harmonies of the Old and New Testament.

, the martyred bishop of St. David’s in the sixteenth century, was an ancestor of the preceding, and born in Halifax parish, Yorkshire, probably at Ewood. He became, when a young man, a canon regular of the order of St. Austin, but in what priory or abbey is uncertain. Having partly received his academical education in Cambridge, he retired to a nursery for the canons of St. Austin, i.t Oxford, called St. Mary’s-college (where Erasmus had before studied), and here we find him in 1526, and also in Oct. 1533, when as a member of the said college, he was admitted to the reading of the sentences, having a little before been opponent in divinity. About the same time he became chaplain to archbishop Cranmer, after whose example he married, a practice at that time disallowed among the popish clergy, and in the time of queen Mary, made the ground of a criminal charge. Dodd, who treats him with more respect than some protestant biographers, adopts from Wood the account, that he was among the first of the university of Oxford that received a tincture of Lutheranism, in which he was confirmed by Thomas Garret, curate of Honey-lane in London, who provided him with books for that purpose, and that in the year above-mentioned he was chosen prior of a monastery of his order, called Nostel, or St. Oswald’s, in Yorkshire, which he surrendered to the commissioners upon the dissolution in 1540, being gratified with a pension of 100l. per annum.

, an eminent artist of Valdugia, was born in 1484. He is by Vasari called “Gaudenzio Milanese.” Some have supposed him a scholar of Perugino, but Lomazzo, who was a nurseling of his school, names Scotto and Luini as his masters. His juvenile works prove what Vasari says, that he had profited by those of Lionardo da Vinci. He went young to Rome^ and is said to have been employed in the Vatican by Raffaello; and there, it is probable, that he acquired that style of design and tone of colour which eclipsed what before him had been done in Lombardy. He possessed a portentous feracity of ideas, equal to that of Giulio, but far different; instead of licentious excursions over the wilds of mythology, he attached himself to sacred lore, to represent the majesty of Divine Being, the mysteries of religion, and emotions of piety, and succeeded to a degree which acquired him the name of “eximie pius” from a Novarese synod. Strength was his element, which he expressed less by muscles forcibly marked, than by fierce and terrible attitudes, as in the Passion of Christ, at the grazie of Mu Jano, where he had Titian for a competitor; and in the Fall of Paul, at the conventuals of Vercelli, which approaches that of M. Angelo, at the Paolina; in the expression of character and mind, he is inferior perhaps only to Raffaelo; and at St. Cristoforo of Vercelli has shewn himself master of angelic grace, With a full and genial vein of colour, Gaudenzio unites an evidence which admits of no hesitation, and attracts the eye in the midst of other works. His tone is determined by the subject, as his carnations by character; but his draperies and parerga are commended more by caprice and novelty, than simplicity and grandeur. Whether it were modesty, situation, ignorance, or envy, that defrauded powers so eminent, of the celebrity often lavished on minor talents, is not now to be determined. Ferrari was little known, and less favoured by Vasari, whom the blind herd of dilettanti on either side of the Alps generally follow in their search of excellence in art. He is supposed to have died in 1550. There was another of the name John Andrew Ferrari, or De Ferrara, who was born at Genoa, in 1599, and was a disciple of Bernard Castelli; but, in order to obtain a more extensive knowledge in his profession, he studied afterwards for some time under Bernardo Strozzi. His application was attended with success, for he at last attained to such a degree of excellence, that he was equally expert in painting history, landscape, fruit, animals, and flowers; and those subjects he finished in a small size, but with extraordinary beauty and exactness, so that few of the princes or nobility of his time were satisfied without possessing some of his compositions. Benedetto Castiglioue was his disciple. He died in 1669.

, an eminent lawyer, called sometimes the Cato of France, was born at Toulouse in 1506. He was admitted a doctor of law at Padua; and from a professor in the university of Toulouse, was raised to be a counsellor in the parliament of the same city. It is remarkable of him, that though he was a protestant in his heart for a good part of his life, he did not profess himself to be so till a little before his death. He had indeed often discovered that he was no bigotted papist; and was so strongly suspected of heresy in 1559, that he would have been imprisoned if he had not made his escape. He harangued, in 1562, in the council of Trent, whither he was sent ambassador by the French king; and he expressed himself in so bold a manner in favour of the interests of France, that the Italian priests were highly offended at him. He went afterwards ambassador to Venice, where he continued several years; and took occasion to assist father Paul in collecting materials for his “History of the Council of Trent.” On his return from Venice, Du Plessis Mornay, who knew his thoughts, pressed him so earnestly to declare the truth, that Ferrier openly professed himself a protestant, and the king of Navarre made him his chancellor. He was about seventy-six years old at the time of his renouncing popery; and he only lived to seventy-nine. He died in 1585. It has been said that he conspired with the chancellor de l'Hospital to break the knot which united the French king with the holy see; to assemble a national council, in which the king of France, after the example of the king of England, should be declared head of the Gallican church; and to usurp all the estates of the church of France. He was reckoned among the greatest men in Europe, and was the author of some literary works.

, of Villebrune, where he was born in 1732, was a man of considerable classical learning, and the author of many useful translations into the French language. Of his personal history we are only told, that he was a doctor of medicine, professor of oriental languages in the French college, one of the forty members of the French academy, and keeper of the national library, in which he succeeded Chamfort. He was not much attached to the principles which occasioned the French revolution, and was proscribed by the French directory for having written a pamphlet in which he maintained that France ought to be governed by a single chief. After residing occasionally in several places, he was made professor of natural history at la Cbarente; and when the central school, as it was called, was shut up, he taught mathematics and humanity in the college. The iast ten yearsof his life were spent at Angouleme, where he died Oct. 7, 1809. His character was lively, and his temper sometimes impetuous and unguarded, which made him many enemies in the literary world. He was, however, a man of indefatigable study, and was a master of fourteen languages ancient and modern. His reading was most extensive, but not well digested, and such was his love of variety, that he seldom adhered to any one subject long enough to produce a work in which it was completely discussed. He was, however, a valuable assistant to scholars employed on any arduous undertaking; and among others, is said to have contributed to the two editions of Strabo lately printed at Utrecht and Oxford, by examining manuscripts for the editors. Among his translations are, a valuable one of Athenreus, and the only one France can boast of since that of the abbd Marolles fell into disrepute. He translated also Hippocrates’ s Aphorisms; Epictetus Cebes’s Table; “Silius Italicus,” of whom also he published an edition of the original, in 1781, containing various readings from four Mss. and from Laver’s edition of 1471, never before collated by any editor. Yet in this he is sometimes rash in his conjectures, and pettishly intemperate in noticing his predecessors. Le Fevre’s other translations are, the “Memoirs of Ulloa,” and “Cervantes’s Tales,” from the Spanish “Carli’s American Letters” from the Italian Zimmerman “On Experience,” and on the “Epidemic Dysentery,” &c. from the German “Rosen’s treatise on Infants,” from the Swedish and the works of Armstrong and Underwood on the same subject, from the English. He published some other works relative to the arts, sciences, and politics, the titles of which are not given in our authority; and left complete, or nearly so, a translation of Aretseas, which he undertook at the request of the School of health of Paris.

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.

But here one folly only took place of another, and family pride now brought on him all the inconveniences in one place, that youthful dissipation and libertinism had done in another. Fond of shew and magnificence, he encumbered himself with a large retinue or servants; and led by natural disposition to enjoy society and convivial mirth, he threw open his gates for hospitality, and suffered his whole patrimony to be devoured up by hounds, horses, and entertainments. Thus, in less than three years, he dissipated his whole property; and from the mere passion of beingesteemed a man of great fortune, reduced himself to the unpleasant situation of having no fortune at all. He had thus, at the age of thirty, undermined his own supports, and had now no dependence but on his abilities. Not discouraged, however, he determined to exert his talents vigorously, applied himself closely to the study of the law, and, after the customary time of probation at the Temple, was called to the bar, and made no inconsiderable figure in Westminster-hall.

To the practice of the law Fielding now adhered with great assiduity, both in the courts in London, and on the circuits, as long as his health permitted, and it is probable would have risen to a considerable degree of eminence in it, had not the intemperances of his early life put a check, by their consequences, to the progress of his success. Though but a young man, he began now to be molested with such violent attacks from the gout as rendered it impossible for him to give such constant attendance at the bar as the laboriousness of that profession requires. Under these united severities of pain and want; he pursued his researches with an eagerness peculiar to him; and, as a proof of the degree of eminence to which he might have risen, he left two ms volumes, in folio, on the crown law, to which branch he had most assiduously applied. It gives us an idea of the great force and vigour of his mind, if we consider him pursuing so arduous a study under the exigencies of family distress, with a wife and children, whom he tenderly loved, looking up to him for subsistence, with a body torn by the acutest pains, and a mind distracted by a thousand avocations, yet obliged, for immediate supply, to produce almost extempore, a play, a farce, a pamphlet, or a newspaper. A large number of fugitive political tracts, which had their value when the incidents were actually passing on the great scene of business, came from his pen. The periodical paper, called “The Champion,” owed its chief support to his abilities. A poetical epistle to the right honourable sir Robert Walpole, written in 1730, shews at once his acquaintance with distress, and the firmness of mind with which he supported it. Such other works as were produced before his genius was come to its full growth were, “An Essay on Conversation” “An Essay on the knowledge and characters of Men” “A Journey from this World to the next” “The History of Jonathan Wild the Great;” &c. The two last mentioned are satires of a peculiar texture, and entirely original.

But his genius is seen in full and vigorous exertion, first in “Joseph Andrews,” and more completely in his “Tom Jones;” which are too well known, and too justly admired, to leave any room for expatiating on their merits. Soon after the publication of “Joseph Andrews,” his last comedy was exhibited on the stage, entitled “The Wedding-Day,” which was attended with but an indifferent share of success. The repeated shocks of illness more and more disqualified him from pursuing the law: from business, therefore, he derived little or no supplies, and his prospect grew every day more gloomy and melancholy. To these discouraging circumstances, if we add the infirmity of his wife, and the agonies he felt on her account, the measure of his affliction may be considered as nearly full. That fortitude of mind, with which he met all the other calamities of life, deserted him on this most trying occasion; and her death, which happened about this time, brought on such a vehemence of grief, that his friends began to think him in danger of losing his reason. At length, when the first emotions of sorrow were abated, philosophy administered her aid, his resolution returned, and he began again to struggle with his fortune. He engaged in two periodical papers successively, with a laudable and spirited design of rendering service to his country. The first of these was called “The True Patriot,” which was undertaken during the rebellion of 1745. Precarious, however, as such means of subsistence unavoidably must be, it was scarcely possible he should be thus enabled to recover his shattered fortunes, and was therefore at length obliged to accept of the office of an acting magistrate in the commission of the peace for the county of Middlesex, in which station he continued till near the time of his death. This office, however, seldom fails of being hateful to the populace, and of course is liable to many infamous and unjust imputations, particularly that of venality; a charge which the ill-natured world, not unacquainted with Fielding’s want of œconomy, and passion for expence, were but too ready to cast upon him. From this charge Mr. Murphy, in the life of this author, prefixed to the first edition of his works, has taken great pains to exculpate him; as likewise has Fielding himself, in his “Voyage to Lisbon,” which may, with some degree of propriety, be considered as the last words of a dying man. Amidst all the laborious duties of his office, his invention could not lie still, but he found leisure to amuse himself, and afterwards the world, with “The History of Tom Jones.” His “Amelia” was entirely planned and executed while he was distracted by a multiplicity of avocations which surround a public magistrate; and his constitution, now greatly impaired and enfeebled, was labouring under severer attacks of the gout than he had before felt; yet the activity of his mind was not to be subdued. At length, however, his whole frame was so entirely shattered by continual inroads of complicated disorders, and the incessant fatigue of business in his office, that, by the advice of his physicians, as a last effort to preserve life, and support a broken constitution, he set out for Lisbon. Even in this distressful condition, his imagination still continued making the strongest efforts to display itself; and the last gleams of his wit and humour sparkled in the “Journal” he left behind him of his “Voyage” to that place > which was published in 1755, at London, in 12mo. In 17 54-, about two months after his arrival at Lisbon, he died Oct. 8, in his forty -eighth year. His works have been published in several sizes, witli “An Essay on the Life and Genius of the Author, by Arthur Murphy, esq.”

There are not so many anecdotes preserved concerning Fielding as might perhaps have been expected, considering the eccentricity of his disposition, and his talents for conversation. But when he died, the passion for collecting the memorabilia of literary men was little felt. In the Gent. Mag. for 1786, however, we have an anecdote which is too characteristic to be omitted. Some parochial taxes for Fielding’s house in Beaufort Buildings being unpaid, and for which demands had been made again and again, he was at length told by the collector, who had an esteem for him, that no longer procrastination could be admitted. In this dilemma he had recourse to Jacob Tonson, the bookseller, and mortgaging the future sheets of some work he had in hand, received the sum he wanted, about ten or twelve guineas. When he was near his own house, he met with an old college chum, whom he had not seen for many years, and Fielding finding that he had been unfortunate in life, immediately gave him up the whole money that he had obtained from Mr. Tonson. Returning home in the full enjoyment of his benevolent disposition and conduct, he was told that the collector had called twice for the taxes. Fielding’s reply was laconic, but memorable: “Friendship has called for the money, and had it; let the collector call again.” The reader will be glad to hear that a second application to Jacob Tonson enabled him to satisfy the parish demands. Another anecdote affords one of those happy turns of wit which do not often occur. Being once in company with the earl of Denbigh, and it being noticed that Fielding was of the Denbigh family, the earl asked the reason why they spelt their name? differently; the earl’s family spelling it with the e first, (Feilding), and Mr. Henry Fielding with the i first, (Fielding) “I cannot tell, my lord,” said our author, “except it be that my branch of the family were the first that knew how to spell”

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

, second son of lord Say just mentioned, was born at Broughton in Oxfordshire in 1608; and, like his father, after a proper education at Winchester school, was admitted of New College in Oxford, and also made fellow in right of kinship to the founder. After passing some years there, he travelled to Geneva, and among the Cantons of Switzerland, where he increased that disaffection to the church which he had been too much taught in his infancy. From his travels he returned through Scotland, at the time when the Rebellion was beginning; and, in 1640, was elected to sit in parliament for Banbury, when it was quickly discovered, that he was ready to join in all his father’s intemperate measures. Afterwards he became colonel of horse under the earl of Essex, and was made governor of Bristol, when first taken for the use of the parliament; but, surrendering it too easily to prince Rupert, in July 1643, he was tried by a council of war, and sentenced to lose his head. The onl) witnesses against him on this occasion were the celebrated Clement Walker, and Pry line. He had afterwards, by the interest of his father, a pardon granted him for life, but he could not continue any longer in the army; and the shame of it affected him so much, that he went for some time abroad, “retaining still,” says Clarendon, “the same full disaffection to the government of the church and state, and only grieved that he had a less capacity left to do hurt to either.” When the Presbyterians were turned out of parliament, he became an independent, took the engagement, was intimate with Cromwell; and when Cromwell declared himself Protector, was made one of his privy-council, lord privy-seal in 1655, and a member of his house of lords. Though he had sufficiently shewn his aversion to monarchical government, yet when he saw what Oliver aimed at, he became extremely fond of it, and in 1660, he published a book with this title, “Monarchy asserted to be the best, most ancient, and legal form of government, in a conference held at Whitehall with Oliver Lord Protector, and Committee of Parliament, &c. in April 1657.” He published also several speeches and pamphlets, some of which were a defence of his own conduct at Bristol. Walker informs us that he was the author of a historical tract called “Anglia Rediviva,” published under the name of Sprigge. After the restoration, he retired to Newton Tony, near Salisbury in Wiltshire, where he had an estate that came to him by his second wife; and here continued much neglected, and in. great obscurity, until his death, Dec. 16, 1669. Clarendon has spoken of his abilities in very high terms. “Colonel Fiennes,” says he, “besides the credit and reputation of his father, had a very good stock of estimation in the house of commons upon his own score for truly he had very good parts of learning and nature, and was privy to, and a great manager in, the most secret designs from the beginning; and if he had not incumbered himself with command in the army, to which men thought his nature not so well disposed, he had sure been second to none in those councils, after Mr. Hampden’s death.”

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

, a 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

, 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.

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

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

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

, 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.

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

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

, 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.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

, 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.

In 1757 he married miss Leray de Charmont, an accomplished and higlily amiable lady, who by the mildness of her character brightened the evening of his meritorious life, and in some measure indemnified him for the disappointments he had experienced in what is called “le grand monde.” The leisure he enjoyed in his peaceful retreat was employed in agricultural and literary pursuits. To the journal edited by Dupontof Nemours, he contributed several interesting memoirs signed The Old Man of the Sarthe. He also published, in 1789, “Prospectus sur les Finances, dedie” aux bons Francois,“and some time after his” Observations succintes sur remission de deux milliards d'assignats." At the beginning of the revolution he performed the functions of president of the district of Mamers, and also obtained the distinction of his name being inserted in the list of candidates for the office of tutor to the prince royal, son of Louis XVI.

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

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

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

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

We know nothing further of his life, which probably was spent in retirement in the country, free from the cares, and remote from the dangers of a court. Neither is there any distinct account preserved of his jdeath; we are only told in general, that he was then near ninety years of age, which the circumstances of his life rendered very probable. His remains were interred in the church of Ebburton in Gloucestershire, where he had purchased an, estate; and where one of his descendants, in 1677, caused a monument to he repaired, upon which was the figure of this venerable person in his robes, and added an inscription to his memory. It was truly said by his editor, Mr. Fortescue Aland, that “all good men and lovers of the English constitution speak of him with honour; and that he still lives, in the opinion of all true Englishmen, in as high esteem and reputation as any judge that ever sat in Westminster hall. He was a man acquainted with all sorts of learning, besides his knowledge in the law, in which he was exceeded by none; as will appear by the many judgements he gave when on the bench, in the year-book of Henry VI. His character in history is that of pious, loyal, and learned: and he had the honour to be called the chief counsellor of the king. He was a great courtier, and yet a great lover of his country.”

, a Venetian historian, was born in 1628. He is principally known as the continnator of the History of Venice written by Naui. His history was published in 1692, in 4to, and makes the tenth volume of the collection of Venetian historians, published in 1718, 4to, a collection badly printed, but containing only good authors. Foscarini was a senator, and filled several important posts in the republic. He died in 1692. He was employed by the state to write his history, and is supposed to have been furnished with the most authentic documents. Two novels by him are extant in an Italian collection, called “Novelle degli Academici incogniti,” 1651, 4to.

, 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.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Du Cange, as he is more commonly called, died in 1688, aged seventy-eight; and left four children, on whom Louis XIV. settled good pensions, in consideration of their father’s merit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

In 1582, Dr. Fulke, with other learned divines, was engaged in a public disputation with certain Roman catholics, in the Tower, and had to contend again with his old school-fellow Campian, but was more successful. He died in the month of August, 1589, and was buried in the chancel of the church at Kedington, where is an inscription to his memory, partly in Latin, and partly in English. He was married, and had a large family, to whom he appears by his will to have been able to bequeath considerable property. To Pembroke-hall he bequeathed a piece of plate, to be called Dr. Fulke’s cup, and used only at commencements and solemn feasts.

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

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