of being too partial to the English, and of bestowing upon them higher encomiums than on the French, because the latter neglected to reward his labours, whereas the former remunerated him with a handsome salary. His account of the affairs of Edward III. and his unfortunate successor Richard II. is the fullest and best extant.

His history has been abridged in Latin, by Sleidan, the German historian and political writer, who complains in his preface, that Froissart is too prolix, relating every particular at full length; and that he is particularly faulty in this respect in his descriptions of military preparations, skirmishes, single combats, storming of places, and the speeches and conversations of princes. But it is this very prolixity-this minuteness of description, which chiefly renders Froissart interesting to a modern reader. His principal historic facts, simply considered, may be read perhaps with equal advantage, and with a much less expence of time, in the compressed form of modern compilations; but here they are divested entirely of the costume of the age. Froissart lived in the age of chivalry; had imbibed its sentiments, was familiar with its manners; and

1

must have been often an eye-witness of tilts and tournaments-the sportive images of those real and terrible battles which he paints with such romantic colouring. It is this quality which made Caxton class him with the writers of romance in the passage above quoted*. In Froissart, then, we not only see the historic facts in all their copiousness of detail, but blended with those peculiar sentiments and feelings which characterised the times in which he lived. Such works must be curious and valuable, till the knowledge of past ages shall cease to be an object of curiosity.

Notwithstanding the declaration of Sleidan, that he has omitted nothing of moment, his abridgment is by no means executed with fairness and impartiality; and he has been accordingly censured by Humphry Lluid, in the following terms: Dum Gallico nomini nimium faveret, Anglorum nobilissima gesta aut silentio preterit, aut ab autore dissentiens, aliter quàm a Froissardo scriptum est, literis commendavit,

Froissart was also a poet, as well as an historian. He is even said by Pasquier, in his Recherches de la France, to have been the

* See page 245.

founder of a new species of poetry-such as the chant-royal, the ballad, the pastoral, and the rondeau*.

* See Godwin's Life of Chaucer, 4to. Vol. II. p. 351.

FISCHER,

Bishop of Rochester,

THE fate of this celebrated prelate was intimately connected with that of sir Thomas More, the subject of the succeeding article, Both were alike the victims of the tyrannic vengeance of Henry VIII. and martyrs to popery. Bishop Fischer was born in 1459, and was the son of a merchant of Beverly, in Yorkshire, He received the rudiments of his education under the tuition of a priest of the collegiate church in that town; and entered at Cambridge, in 1484, where he took his degrees in arts in 1488, and 1491. He was appointed in 1495, one of the proctors of the university, and elected master of MichaelHouse, (now Trinity-College) his own college. In 1501, he took the degree of doctor, and the

same year was elected chancellor of the university; which, however, he resigned in 1514, recommending as his successor, Wolsey, bishop of Lincoln, who was accordingly chosen. But he thinking proper to decline the honour, the university, indignant at his rejection, and bound in gratitude to Fischer, immediately chose the latter perpetual chancellor, or during life; which is the first instance of such a choice.

Prince Arthur, eldest son of Henry VII. was at this time living; and prince Henry, (afterwards Henry VIII.) being designed for an ecclesiastic, was placed under the tuition of Fischer, who hence became acquainted with Margaret, the famous countess of Richmond, and mother of Henry VII. His merit soon obtained him the office of chaplain and confessor to her ladyship, whose confidence in him was unbounded. In 1504, he was promoted to the sce of Rochester; and though it was the least valuable of the bishoprics at that time, he refused, with a disinterested magnanimity, ever to exchange it for a better.

On the 29th of June, 1509, death deprived both him and the public of their noble benefactress, whose virtues and accomplishments