Page:EB1911 - Volume 10.djvu/510

 impressive eloquence of Massillon. But he is always ingenious, often witty, and nobody has carried farther than he the harmony of diction, sometimes marred by an affectation of symmetry and an excessive use of antithesis. His two historical works, the histories of Theodosius and of Ximenes, are more remarkable for elegance of style than for accuracy and comprehensive insight.

The last complete edition of Fléchier’s works is by J. P. Migne (Paris, 1856); the Mémoires sur les Grands Jours was first published in 1844 by B. Gonod (2nd ed. as Mém. sur les Gr. J. d’Auvergne, with notice by Sainte-Beuve and an appendix by M. Chéruel, 1862). His chief works are: Histoire de Théodose le Grand, Oraisons funèbres, Histoire du Cardinal Ximénès, Sermons de morale, Panégyriques des saints. He left a portrait or caractère of himself, addressed to one of his friends. The Life of Theodosius has been translated into English by F. Manning (1693), and the “Funeral Oration of Marshal Turenne” in H. C. Fish’s History and Repository of Pulpit Eloquence (ii., 1857). On Fléchier generally see Antonin V. D. Fabre, La Jeunesse de Fléchier (1882), and Adolphe Fabre, Fléchier, orateur (1886); A. Delacroix, ''Hist. de Fléchier'' (1865).

FLECKEISEN, CARL FRIEDRICH WILHELM ALFRED (1820–1899), German philologist and critic, was born at Wolfenbüttel on the 23rd of September 1820. He was educated at the Helmstedt gymnasium and the university of Göttingen. After holding several educational posts, he was appointed in 1861 to the vice-principalship of the Vitzthum’sches Gymnasium at Dresden, which he held till his retirement in 1889. He died on the 7th of August 1899. Fleckeisen is chiefly known for his labours on Plautus and Terence; in the knowledge of these authors he was unrivalled, except perhaps by Ritschl, his lifelong friend and a worker in the same field. His chief works are: Exercitationes Plautinae (1842), one of the most masterly productions on the language of Plautus; “Analecta Plautina,” printed in Philologus, ii. (1847); Plauti Comoediae, i., ii. (1850–1851, unfinished), introduced by an Epistula critica ad F. Ritschelium; P. Terenti Afri Comoediae (new ed., 1898). In his editions he endeavoured to restore the text in accordance with the results of his researches on the usages of the Latin language and metre. He attached great importance to the question of orthography, and his short treatise Fünfzig Artikel (1861) is considered most valuable. Fleckeisen also contributed largely to the Jahrbücher für Philologie, of which he was for many years editor.

See obituary notice by G. Götz in C. Bursian’s Biographisches Jahrbuch für Altertumskunde (xxiii., 1901), and article by H. Usener in Allgemeine deutsche Biographie (where the date of birth is given as the 20th of September).

FLECKNOE, RICHARD (c. 1600–1678?), English dramatist and poet, the object of Dryden’s satire, was probably of English birth, although there is no corroboration of the suggestion of J. Gillow (Bibliog. Dict. of the Eng. Catholics, vol. ii., 1885), that he was a nephew of a Jesuit priest, William Flecknoe, or more properly Flexney, of Oxford. The few known facts of his life are chiefly derived from his Relation of Ten Years’ Travels in Europe, Asia, Affrique and America (1655?), consisting of letters written to friends and patrons during his travels. The first of these is dated from Ghent (1640), whither he had fled to escape the troubles of the Civil War. In Brussels he met Béatrix de Cosenza, wife of Charles IV., duke of Lorraine, who sent him to Rome to secure the legalization of her marriage. There in 1645 Andrew Marvell met him, and described his leanness and his rage for versifying in a witty satire, “Flecknoe, an English Priest at Rome.” He was probably, however, not in priest’s orders. He then travelled in the Levant, and in 1648 crossed the Atlantic to Brazil, of which country he gives a detailed description. On his return to Europe he entered the household of the duchess of Lorraine in Brussels. In 1645 he went back to England. His royalist and Catholic convictions did not prevent him from writing a book in praise of Oliver Cromwell, The Idea of His Highness Oliver (1659), dedicated to Richard Cromwell. This publication was discounted at the restoration by the Heroick Portraits (1660) of Charles II. and others of the Stuart family. John Dryden used his name as a stalking horse from behind which to assail Thomas Shadwell in Mac Flecknoe (1682). The opening lines run:—

Dryden’s aversion seems to have been caused by Flecknoe’s affectation of contempt for the players and his attacks on the immorality of the English stage. His verse, which hardly deserved his critic’s sweeping condemnation, was much of it religious, and was chiefly printed for private circulation. None of his plays was acted except Love’s Dominion, announced as a “pattern for the reformed stage” (1654), that title being altered in 1664 to Love’s Kingdom, with a Discourse of the English Stage. He amused himself, however, by adding lists of the actors whom he would have selected for the parts, had the plays been staged. Flecknoe had many connexions among English Catholics, and is said by Gerard Langbaine, to have been better acquainted with the nobility than with the muses. He died probably about 1678.

A Discourse of the English Stage, was reprinted in W. C. Hazlitt’s English Drama and Stage (Roxburghe Library, 1869); Robert Southey, in his Omniana (1812), protested against the wholesale depreciation of Flecknoe’s works. See also “Richard Flecknoe” (Leipzig, 1905, in Münchener Beiträge zur Philologie), by A. Lohr, who has given minute attention to his life and works.

FLEET, a word in all its significances, derived from the root of the verb “to fleet,” from O. Eng. fleotan, to float or flow, which ultimately derives from an Indo-European root seen in Gr. , to sail, and Lat. pluere, to rain; cf. Dutch vliessen, and Ger. fliessen. In English usage it survives in the name of many places, such as Byfleet and Northfleet, and in the Fleet, a stream in London that formerly ran into the Thames between the bottom of Ludgate Hill and the present Fleet Street. From the idea of “float” comes the application of the word to ships, when in company, and particularly to a large number of warships under the supreme command of a single officer, with the individual ships, or groups of ships, under individual and subordinate command. The distinction between a fleet and a squadron is often one of name only. In the British navy the various main divisions are or have been called fleets and squadrons indifferently. The word is also frequently used of a company of fishing vessels, and in fishing is also applied to a row of drift-nets fastened together. From the original meaning of the word “flowing” comes the adjectival use of the word, swift, or speedy; so also “fleeting,” of something evanescent or fading away, with the idea of the fast-flowing lapse of time.

FLEET PRISON, an historic London prison, formerly situated on the east side of Farringdon Street, and deriving its name from the Fleet stream, which flowed into the Thames. Concerning its early history little is known, but it certainly dated back to Norman times. It came into particular prominence from being used as a place of reception for persons committed by the Star Chamber, and, afterwards, for debtors, and persons imprisoned for contempt of court by the court of chancery. It was burnt down in the great fire of 1666; it was rebuilt, but was destroyed in the Gordon riots of 1780 and again rebuilt in 1781–1782. In pursuance of an act of parliament (5 & 6 Vict. c. 22, 1842), by which the Marshalsea, Fleet, and Queen’s Bench prisons were consolidated into one under the name of Queen’s prison, it was finally closed, and in 1844 sold to the corporation of the city of London, by whom it was pulled down. The head of the prison was termed “the warden,” who was appointed by patent. It became a frequent practice of the holder of the patent to “farm out” the prison to the highest bidder. It was this custom which made the Fleet prison long notorious for the cruelties inflicted on prisoners. One purchaser of the office was of particularly evil repute, by name Thomas Bambridge, who in 1728 paid, with another, the sum of £5000 to John Huggins for the wardenship. He was guilty of the greatest extortions upon prisoners, and, in the words of a committee of the House of Commons appointed to inquire into the state of the gaols of the kingdom, “arbitrarily and unlawfully loaded with irons, put into dungeons,