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

, or Abbot of Fleuri, a Benedictine monk of the tenth century, was born in the territory of Orleans, and educated in the abbey of Fleuri, and afterwards at Paris and Rheims, where he distinguished himself in all the learning of the times, and particularly in mathematics, theology, and history. Oswald, bishop of Worcester, in 985, applied to the abbey of Fleuri to obtain a proper person to preside over the abbey of Ramsay, which he had founded, or rather re-established. Abbo was sent over to England for this purpose, and much caressed by king Ethelred and the nobility. Returning to Fleuri upon the death of the abbot, he was declared his successor. Here he experienced many vexations from some of the bishops, against whom he asserted the rights of the monastic order. His enemies charged him with some acrimony against his persecutors. In his justification, he wrote an apology, which he addressed to the kings Hugh and Robert. Some time afterwards he dedicated to the same princes a collection of canons on the duties of kings and the duties of subjects. King Robert, having sent him to Rome to appease the wrath of Gregory V. who had threatened to lay the kingdom under an interdict, the pope granted him all he requested. Abbo, on his return from this expedition, set about the reform of the abbey of Reole in Gascony. He was here slain in a quarrel that rose between the French and the Gascons, in 1004. His works are: 1. “Epitome de vitis Pontificum,” taken from Anastasius Bibliothecarius, and published with an edition of that author by Busscus, Mentz, 1602, 4to. 2. “Vita S. Edmundi Anglorum Orientalium regis & martyris,” printed in Surius’ Lives of the Saints. There is a ms. of it in the Cottonian Library. 3. “Collectio, seu epitome Canonum,” printed by Mabillon. 4. “Epistola ad abbatem Fuldensem,” in Baluze’s Miscellanies, 1678, 8vo. 5. “Letters to Hugh, king of France, to St. Bernard, Gregory,” &c. and his Apology, are inserted whole, or in fragments, in his Life by Aimonius, a monk of Fleuri, and his pupil.

Towards the close of 1616, the learned Antonio de Dominis, archbishop of Spalato, took shelter in England, from the persecution with which he was threatened by the Pope, for discovering his dislike both of the doctrine and discipline of the church of Rome, and was very kindly received by his majesty, and hospitably entertained by the archbishop. It was by his means that the archbishop got Father Paul’s History of the Council of Trent transmitted into this country. Mr. Nathaniel Brent was employed on this service, and succeeded in procuring the whole of the manuscript, although with some hazard to himself. In 1618, while lamenting the death of his brother the bishop of Salisbury, which happened in March of that year, he encountered a fresh anxiety from the king’s declaration for permitting sports and pastimes on the Lord’s day. This declaration, usually called the Book of Sports, was ordered to be read in the churches; but the archbishop, being at Croydon when it came thither, had the courage to forbid its being read.

It was during Abelard’s residence at St. Gildas, that the interesting correspondence passed between him and Heloise, which is still extant, and that he wrote the memoirs of his life which came down to the year 1134. The letters of Heloise, in this correspondence, abound with proofs of genius, learning, and taste, which might have graced a Better age. It is upon these letters that Mr. Pope formed his “Epistle from Eloisa to Abelard,” which, however, deviates in some particulars from the genuine character and story of Heloise, and is yet more seriously censurable on account of its immoral tendency. Here, too, Abelard probably wrote his “Theology,” or revised it, which again subjected him to prosecution. William, abbot of St. Thievry, the friend f Bernard, now abbot of Clairvaux, brought a formal charge against him for heresy in thirteen articles, copied from the “Theology.” Bernard, after an unsuccessful private remonstrance, accused Abelard to pope Innocent II. of noxious errors and mischievous designs. Abelard, with the concurrence of the archbishop of Sens, challenged his accuser to appear in a public assembly, shortly to be held in that city, and make good his accusation. The abbot at first declined accepting the challenge; but afterwards made his appearance, and delivered to the assembly the heads of his accusation. Abelard, instead of replying, appealed to Rome, which did not prevent the council from examining the charges, and pronouncing his opinions heretical. It was, however, judged necessary to inform the bishop of Rome of the proceedings, and to request his confirmation of the sentence. In the mean time, Bernard, by letters written to the Roman prelates, strongly urged them to silence, without delay, this dangerous innovator. His importunity succeeded; for the pope, without waiting for the arrival of Abelard, pronounced his opinions heretical, and sentenced him to perpetual silence and confinement. Immediately upon being informed of the decision, Abelard set out for Rome, in hopes of being permitted to plead his cause before his holiness. In his way he called at Cluni, a monastery on the confines of Burgundy, where he found a 2ealous friend in Peter Maurice, the abbot, and also in Reinardus, the abbot of Citeaux, who negociated a reconciliation between him and Bernard, while Peter, by his earnest remonstrances, procured his pardon at Rome, and he was permitted to end his days in the monastery of Cluni.

, a famous rabbi, was born at Lisbon in 1437,. of a family who boasted their descent from king David. He raised himself considerably at the court. of Alphonso V. king of Portugal, and was honoured with very high offices, which he enjoyed till this prince’s death; but, upon his decease, he felt a strange reverse of fortune under the new king. Abrabanei. was in his 45th year, when John II. succeeded his father Alphonso. All those who had any share in the administration of the preceding reign were discarded: and, if we give credit to our rabbi, their death was secretly resolved, under the pretext of their having formed a design to give up the crown of Portugal to the king of Spain. Abrabanei, however, suspecting nothing, in obedience to the order he received to attend his majesty, set out for Lisbon with all expedition; but having, on his journey, heard of what was plotting against his life, fled immediately to his Castilian majesty’s dominions. A party of soldiers were dispatched after him, with orders to bring him dead or alive: however, he made his escape, but his possessions were confiscated. On this occasion he lost all his books; and also the beginning of his Commentary upon the book of Deuteronomy, which he much regretted. Some writers affirm, that the cause of his disgrace at this time was wholly owing to his bad behaviour; and they are of the same opinion in regard to the other persecutions which he afterwards suffered. They affirm that he would have been treated with greater severity, had not king John contented himself with banishing him. They add that by negociating bills of exchange (which was the business he followed in Castile), he got introduced at the court of Ferdinand and Isabella: that he amassed prodigious wealth, by practising the usual tricks and frauds of the Jewish people, that he oppressed the poor, and by usury made a prey of every thing; that he had the vanity to aspire at the most illustrious titles, such as the noblest houses in Spain could hardly attain, and that being a determined enemy of the Christian religion, he was the principal cause of that storm which fell upon him and the rest of his nation. Of the truth of all this, some doubt may be entertained. That he amassed prodigious wealth seems not very probable, as immediately on his settling in Castile, he began to teach and write. In 1484, he wrote his “Commentary upon the books of Joshua, Judges, and Samuel.” Being afterwards sent for to the court of Ferdinand and Isabel, he was advanced to preferment; which he enjoyed till 1492, when the Jews were driven out of the Spanish dominions. He used his utmost endeavours to avert this dreadful storm; but all proved ineffectual; so that he and all his family were obliged to quit the kingdom, with the rest of the Jews. He retired to Naples; and, in 1493, wrote his “Commentary on the books of the Kings.” Having been bred a courtier, he did not neglect to avail himself of the knowledge he had acquired at the courts of Portugal and Arragon, so that he soon ingradated himself into the favour of Ferdinand king of Naples, and afterwards into that of Alphonso. He followed the fortune of the latter, accompanying him into Sicily, when Charles VIII. the French king, drove him from Naples. Upon the death of Alphonso he retired to the island of Corfu, where he began his “Commentary on Isaiah” in 1495; and, about this time, he had the good fortune to find what he had written on the book of Deuteronomy. The following year he returned to Italy, and went to Monopoli in Apulia, where he wrote several books. In 1496 he finished his “Commentary on Deuteronomy;” and also composed his “Sevach Pesach,” and his “Nachalath Avoth.” In the succeeding year he wrote his “Majene Hajeschua;” and in 1498 his “Maschmia Jeschua,” and his “Commentary on Isaiah.” Some time after, he went to Venice, to settle, the disputes betwixt the Venetians and Portuguese relating to the spice trade; and on this occasion he displayed so much prudence and capacity, that he acquired the favour and esteem of both those powers. In 1504 he wrote his “Commentary on Jeremiah;” and, according to some authors, his “Commentary on Ezekiel, and the twelve minor propnets.” In 1506 he composed his “Commentary on Exodus;” and died at Venice in 1508, in the 71st year of his age. Several of the Venetian nobles, and all the principal Jews, attended his funeral with great pomp. His corpse was interred at Padua, in a burial-place without the city. Abrabanel wrote several other pieces, besides what we have mentioned, the dates of which are not settled, and some have not been printed. The following list appears in the Leipsic Journal (Nov. 1686), and is probably correct: 1. “Commentaries on Genesis, Leviticus, and Numbers.” 2. “Rach Amana.” 3. “Sepher Jeschuoth Moschici, a treatise on the traditions relating to the Messiah.” 4. “Zedek Olammim, upon future rewards and punishments.” 5. “Sepher Jemoth Olam, a history from the time of Adam.” 6. “Maamer Machase Schaddai, a treatise on prophecy and the vision of Ezekiel, against rabbi Mainionides.” 7. “Sepher Atereth Sekenim.” 8. “Miphaloth Elohirn, works of God.” 9. “Sepher Schamaim Chadaschim.” 10. “Labakath Nebhiim.” His “Commentary on Haggai” was translated into Latin by Adam Sherzerus, and inserted in the Trifolium Orientale, published in Leipsic in 1663, where his “Commentary on Joshua, Judges, and Samuel,” was also printed in 1686, folio. In this same year his “Annotations on Hosea,” with a preface on the twelve minor prophets, were translated into French by Francis ab Husen, and published at Leyden. In 1683, Mr. de Veil, a converted Jew, published at London Abrabanel’s preface to Leviticus. His commentaries on the Scriptures, especially those on the prophets, are filled with so much rancour against our Saviour, the church, the pope, the cardinals, the whole clergy, and all Christians in general, but in a particular manner against the Roman catholics, that father Bartolocci was desirous the Jews should be forbid the perusal of them. And he tells us that they were accordingly not allowed to read or to keep in their houses Abrabanel’s commentaries on the latter prophets. He was a man of so great a genius, that most persons have equalled him, and some even preferred him, to the celebrated Maimonides. The Jews set a high value upon what he has written to refute the arguments and objections of the Christians; and the latter, though they hold in contempt what he has advanced upon this head, yet allow great merit in his other performances, wherein he gives many proofs of genius, learning, and penetration. He does not blindly follow the opinions of his superiors, but censures their mistakes with great freedom. The persecutions of the Jews, under which he had been a considerable sufferer, affected him to a very great degree; so that the remembrance of it worked up his indignation, and made him inveigh against the Christians in the strongest terms. There is hardly one of his books where he has omitted to shew his resentment, and desire of revenge; and whatever the subject may be, he never fails to bring in the distressed condition of the Jews. He was most assiduous in his studies, in which he would spend whole nights, and would fast for a considerable time. He had a great facility in writing; and though he discovered an implacable hatred to the Christians in his compositions, yet, when in company with them, he behaved with great politeness, and would be very cheerful in conversation.

, bishop of Caria, in the 8th century, attached himself to the party of the learned Photins, during the disputes which at that time disturbed the church at Constantinople. He undertook, with Zachary, bishop of Chalcedon, an embassy to the emperor Lewis L to present to him a book which Photius had written against pope Nicholas, and to endeavour to persuade him to shake off the pope’s yoke. On his journey he was recalled by Basil, who had usurped the empire; and soon afterwards, finding it no longer safe to support the interest of Photius, he prudently abandoned it, and, before the council of Constantinople, entreated pardon, which was granted, and he restored to his place in the council. Forty-two treatises, written by him against Jews, Mahometans, and heretics, were collected by Gretser, and published in 4to, at Ingolstadt, 1606. Andrew Arnold published another treatise by him “De Unione et Incarnatione,” Paris, 1685, 8vo, the manuscript of which, it is said, he found in the Bodleian library.

, surnamed Luscus, from his having but one eye, the disciple of Eusebius bishop of Cassarea, whom he succeeded in the year 338 or 340. Though scarce inferior to the former in erudition, eloquence, and reputation, he was deposed by the council of Sardica, together with several other bishops, who had declared themselves of his opinion; and who afterwards assembled at Philippolis, in Thrace; where, in their turn, they fulminated against Athanasius, pope Julius, and the rest of their antagonists. Acacius had also a great share in the banishment of pope Liberius, and bringing Felix into the see of Rome, he gave his name to a sect who were called Acaciani. He was a man of great genius and distinguished learning; and wrote several books before he was made a bishop, and particularly a book against Marceilus of Ancyra, of which Epiphanius has given us a fragment. Some time after he was made a bishop, he wrote the “Life of Eusebius” his predecessor; not now extant, but mentioned in Socrates’ history. St. Jerome says that he wrote 17 volumes of commentaries on Ecclesiastes, or probably a commentary in 17 books; and six volumes of miscellanies. He died in the year 365.

, patriarch of Constantinople, succeeded Gennadius in that see in the year 471. He maintained that his see ought to have the pre-eminence over those of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem; and, to compass this design, prevailed on the Emperor Leo to restore and confirm all the privileges which the churches once enjoyed, and especially that of Constantinople. He was afterwards excommunicated by pope Felix III.; and in return he erased the pope’s name out of the sacred diptics, or the list of those bishops whose names were mentioned in the public prayers: but, being supported by the emperor of the east, he enjoyed his bishoprick quietly till his death, which happened in the year 488. There are two letters of his extant in vol. 4 of the Councils; one to Peter the Fuller, or Petrus Fullo, in Gr. and Lat. the other to pope Simplicius, in Lat. respecting 1 the state of the church of Alexandria. Cave entertains a higher opinion of Acacius, than the Editors of the General Dictionary; but the account in the latter is the more copious.

, the brother of Benedetto, and usually called Francis D'Arezzo, or Aretin, from the place of his birth, was born in 1418. The celebrated Francis Philelphus was his preceptor in polite learning; after which he studied law under the ablest professors, and became himself one of their number, teaching that faculty at Bologna, Ferrara, and Sienna. He was for five years secretary to the duke of Milan, and died of the stone at the baths of Sienna, in 1483. He has been accused, but without proof, of the grossest avarice. If he left vast wealth, it was owing to the profits of his profession, of which he was acknowledged to be the ablest and most successful practitioner. A journey which he made to Rome, when Sixtus IV. was Pope, has given rise to another story, equally without proof, that he solicited to be made Cardinal, which the Pope refused, on pretence of the injury that would accrue to learning from such a promotion. Another story is recorded, more to his honour. While professor of law at Ferrara, he had occasion to lecture to his scholars on the advantages of a character known for probity and honour; and, in order to exemplify his doctrine, he went in the night, accompanied by only one servant, broke open the butchers’ stalls, and took away some pieces. The law-students were immediately suspected of the robbery, and two of them, of indifferent character, were imprisoned. The Professor then went before the Duke, demanded their release, and accused himself: having proved the fact, which was with difficulty believed, he took the opportunity to show the advantage of a good character, and the dangers of a bad one.

This writer has left an example of an author’s jealousy, and fear of being thought a plagiarist, which is too curious to be omitted. Having been accused of owing his notes on Ausonius to Fabricio Varano, bishop of Camarino, he endeavoured to clear himself by the following very solemn oath: “In the name of God and man, of truth and sincerity, I solemnly swear, and if any declaration be more binding than an oath, I in that form declare, and I desire that my declaration may be received as strictly true, that I have never read or seen any author, from which my own lucubrations have received the smallest assistance or improvement: nay, that I have even laboured, as far as possible, whenever any writer has published any observations which I myself had before made, immediately to blot them out of my own works. If in this declaration I am. foresworn, may the Pope punish my perjury; and may an evil genius attend my writings, so that whatever in them is good, or at least tolerable, may appear to the unskilful multitude exceedingly bad, and even to the learned trivial and contemptible; and may the small reputation I now possess be given to the winds, and regarded as the worthless boon of vulgar levity.” This singular protestation, which is inserted in the Testudo, has. been often quoted. In 1533, he published at Augsburgh a new edition of “Ammianus Marcellinus,” fol. more complete than the preceding edition (which is the princeps), and augmented by five books, not before known, and, as stated in the title, with the correction of above five thousand errors. In the same year and place, he published the “Letters of Cassiodorus,” and his “Treatise on the Soul.” This is the first complete collection of these letters, and, with the Treatise, is improved by many corrections. He also had made preparations for an edition of Claudian, and had corrected above seven hundred errors in that author; but this has not been published. At his leisure hours, he studied music, optics, and poetry. We have a specimen of his poetry in his “Protrepticon ad Corycium,” of eighty-seven verses, which is printed in a very rare work, entitled “Coryciana,” Rome, 1524, 4to. This Corycius, according to La Monnoie, was a German of the name of Goritz. The volume contains the poems of various Neapolitan authors, as Arisio, Tilesio, &c.

was born at Avignon, Jan. 29, 1679, of a noble and ancient family. After having embraced the ecclesiastical profession, he became not only distinguished by the excellence of his doctrines, but particularly by his charitable exertions during the plague in 1721; and his subsequent promotions had no other effect on him than to increase his zeal and his piety. Pope Clement XII. informed of his talents and conciliating spirit, employed him in the capacity of apostolic vicar, to settle the disgraceful disputes that had arisen among the missionaries of China. Achards, who was then bishop of Halicarnassus, undertook this commission; and after a tedious voyage of two years, and two years’ residence in China, where he ineffectually laboured to accomplish the object of his mission, died at Cochin, April 2, 1741, a martyr to his indefatigable and benevolent zeal. The Abbe Fab re, his secretary, published an account of this mission, entitled “Lettres edifiantes et curieusessurla visite apostolique de M. de la Baume, eveque d'Halicarnasse, a la Cochinchine,” Venice, 1746, 4to, & 1753, 3 vols. 12mo, with the translation of a funeral oration delivered on his death by a Chinese priest.

, one of the writers in the Byzantine history, was born at Constantinople in the year 1220, and brought up at the court of the emperor John Ducas, at Nice. He studied mathematics, poetry, and rhetoric under Theodorus Exapterygus, and learned logic of Nicephorus Blemmidas. In his one-and-twentieth year, he maintained a learned dispute with Nicholas the physician, concerning the eclipse of tLe sun, before the emperor John. He was at length appointed great logothete, and employed in the most important affairs of the empire. John Ducas sent him ambassador to Larissa, to establish a peace with Michael of Epirus. He was also constituted judge by this emperor, to try Michael Comnenus on a suspicion of being engaged in a conspiracy. Theodorus Lascaris, the son of John, whom he had taught logic, appointed him governor of all the western provinces of his empire. When he held this government, in the year 1255, being engaged in a war with Michael Angelus, he was taken prisoner by him. In 1260, he gained his liberty by means of the emperor Palasologus, who sent him ambassador to Constantine prince of Bulgaria. After his return, he applied himself wholly to the instruction of youth, in which employment he acquitted himself with great honour for many years; but being at last weary of the fatigue, he resigned it to Holobolus. In 1272, he sat as one of the judges upon the cause of John Vecchus, patriarch of Constantinople. The year following he was sent to pope Gregory, to settle a peace and re-union between the two churches, which was accordingly concluded; and he swore to it, in the emperor’s name, at the second council of Lyons, in 1274. He was sent ambassador to John prince of Bulgaria in 1382, and died soon after his return. His principal work is his “Historia Byzantina,” Gr. Lat. Paris, fol. 1651. This history, which he was well qualified to write, as he took an active part in public aifajrs, contains the history of about fifty-eight years; i.e. from 1203, when Baldwin, earl of Flanders, was crowned emperor, to 1261, when M. Palseologus put himself in the place of Baldwin II. A manuscript translation of it, by sir William Petty, was in Mr. Ames’s collection. The original was found in the east by Douza, and first published in 1614; but the Paris edition is superior, and now very scarce. His theological writings were never printed. His son Coustantine succeeded him as grand logothete, and was called by the Greeks, the younger Metaphrastes, from his having written the lives of some of the saints in the manner of Simeon Metaphrastes. There is little else in his history that is interesting.

, archbishop of Rheims, and chancellor of France, under the reigns of Lothaire and Louis V. was one of the most learned French prelates of the tenth century. Having attained the archbishoprick in the year 969, he called several councils for the establishment of ecclesiastical discipline, which he enforced by his example with much firmness of mind. He also induced men of learning to resort to Rheims, and gave a high renown to the schools of that city. In the year 987, he consecrated Hugh Capet, who continued him in his office of grand chancellor. He died Jan. 5, 988. Several of his letters are among those of Gerbert, afterwards pope Sylvester II.; and two of his discourses are in Moissac’s Chronicle. The cathedral of Rheims was indebted to him for the greater part of its sumptuous furniture.

, an eminent French sculptor, was born at Nancy, Feb. 10, 1700. He was the son of Jacob-Sigisbert Adam, also a sculptor of considerable note. At the age of eighteen, he came to Metz; but a desire to extend his reputation made him repair to Paris, where he arrived in 1719. After exercising his profession about four years, he obtained the first prize, and then went to Rome, with a royal pension, where he remained ten years. While here, he was employed by the cardinal de Polignac in restoring the twelve marble statues known as the “family of Lycomedes,” which had been discovered among the ruins of the villa of Marius, about two leagues from Rome, and acquitted himself with great success in a branch of the art which is seldom rewarded or honoured in proportion to its difficulties. He afterwards restored several antique sculptures, of which the king of Prussia had got possession, and which he conveyed to Berlin. When an intention was formed of erecting that vast monument at Rome known by the name of the “Fountain of Trevi,” he was one of the sixteen sculptors who gave in designs; but, although his was adopted by pope Clement XI I. the jealousy of the Italian artists prevented his executing it. At this time, however, advantageous offers were made by his own country, to which he returned, after being chosen a member of the academies of St. Luke, and of Bologna. His first work, after his return to France, was the groupe of the “Seine et Marne” for the cascade at St. Cloud. He was then employed at Choisi; and, in May 1737, was elected a member of the French academy, and professor. The piece he exhibited on his admission was “Neptune calming the waves,” with a Triton at his feet; and not “Prometheus chained to the rock,” as some biographers have asserted, which was the production of his brother Nicholas. He then executed the groupe of “Neptune and Amphitrite” for the bason at Versailles, on which he was employed five years, and was rewarded, besides the stipulated price, with a pension of 500 livres. One of his best works was the figure of “St. Jerome,” now at St. Roch. His other works are, a groupe of five figures and of five animals, at Versailles, in bronze; the bas-relief of the chapel of St. Elizabeth, in bronze; two groupes in bronze of hunting and fishing at Berlin; “Mars caressed by Love,” at Bellevue; and a statue representing the enthusiasm of poetry. In all these there are undoubted proofs of genius, but proofs likewise of the bad taste in sculpture which prevailed in his time, and induced him, after the example of Bernini and others, to attempt efforts which can only be successful in painting. In 1754, he published “Recueil de Sculptures antiques Græcques et Romanies,” fol. for which he made the designs. Most of these he had purchased from the heirs of cardinal de Polignac. He died of an apoplexy, May 15, 1759.

On the 2d of August 1716, he married the countess dowager of Warwick, whom he had solicited by a very long and anxious courtship. 'He is said to have first known her by becoming tutor to her son. The marriage, if uncontradieted report can be credited, made no addition to his happiness; it neither found them nor made them equal. She always remembered her own rank, and thought herself intitled to treat with very little ceremony the tutor of her son. It is certain that Addison has left behind him no encouragement for ambitious love. The year after, 1717, he rose to his highest elevation being made secretary of state but it is universally confessed that he was unequal to the duties of his place. In the House of Commons he could not speak, and therefore was useless to the defence of the government. In the office he could not issue an orjler without losing his time in quest of fine expressions. What he gained in rank he lost in credit; and finding, by experience, his own inability, was forced to solicit his dismission, with a pension of 1500l. a year. His friends palliated this relinquishment, of which both friends and enemies knew the true reason, with an account of declining health, and the necessity of recess and quiet. He now returned to his vocation, and began to plan literary occupations for his future life. He proposed a tragedy on the death of Socrates; a story of which, as Tickell remarks, the basis is narrow, and to which love perhaps could not easily have been appended. He engaged in a noble work, a defence of the Christian religion, of which part was published after his death; and he designed to have made a new poetical version of the Psalms. It is related that he had once a design to make an English dictionary, and that he considered Dr. Tillotson as the writer of highest authority. Addison, however, did not conclude his life in peaceful studies; but relapsed, when he was near his end, to a political question. It happened that, in 1719, a controversy was agitated, with great vehemence, between, those friends of long continuance, Addison and Steele. The subject of their dispute was the earl of Sunderland’s memorable act, called “The Peerage bill,” by which the number of peers should be fixed, and the king restrained from any new creation of nobility, unless when an old family should be extinct. Steele endeavoured to alarm the ration by a pamphlet called “The Plebeian:” to this an Answer was published by Addison under the title of “The Old Whig.” Steele was respectful to his old friend, though he was Mow his political adversary; but Addison could not avoid discovering a contempt of his opponent, to whom he gave the appellation of “Little Dicky.” The bill was laid aside during that session, and Addison died before the next, in which its commitment was rejected. Every reader surely must regret that these two illustrious friends, after so many years passed in confidence and endearment, in unity of interest, conformity of opinion, and fellowship of study, should finally part in acrimonious opposition. The end of this useful life was now approaching. Addison had for some time been oppressed by shortness of breath, which was now aggravated by a dropsy; and finding his danger pressing, he prepared to die conformably to his own precepts and professions. During this lingering decay, he sent, as Pope relates, a message by the earl of Warwick to Mr. Gay, desiring to see him. Gay, who had not visited him for some time before, obeyed the summons, and found himself received with great kindness. The purpose for which the interview had been solicited was theti discovered: Addison told him, that he had injured him; but that, if he recovered, he would recompense him. What the injury was he did not explain, nor did Gay ever know; but supposed that some preferment designed for him had by Addison' s intervention been withheld. Lord Warwick was a young man of very irregular life, and perhaps of loose opinions. Addison, for whom he did not want respect, had very diligently endeavoured to reclaim him; but his arguments and expostulations had no effect; one experiment, however, remained to be tried. When he found his life near its end, he directed the young lord to be called; and, when he desired, with great tenderness, to hear his last injunctions, told him, “I have sent for you that you may see how a Christian can die.” What effect this awful scene had on the earl’s behaviour is not known: he died himself in a short time. Having given directions to Mr. Tickell for the publication of his works, and dedicated them on his death-bed to his friend Mr. Craggs, he died June 17, 1719, at Holland-house, leaving no child but a daughter, who died in 1797, at Bilton, near Rugby, in Warwickshire.

Of the course of Addison‘ s familiar day, before his marriage, Pope has given a detail. He had in the house with him Budgell, and perhaps Philips. His chief companions were Steele, Budgell, ’Philips, Carey, Davenant, and col. Brett. With one or other of these he always breakfasted. He studied all morning; then dined at a tavern, and went afterwards to Button’s. From the coffee-house he went again to the tavern, where he often sat late, and drank too much wine. Dr. Johnson’s delineation of the character of Addison concludes by observing with Tickell, that he employed wit on the side of virtue and religion. He not only made the proper use of wit himself, but taught it to others; and from his time it has been generally subservient to the cause of reason and truth. He has dissipated the prejudice that had long connecte'd gaiety with vice, and easiness of manners with laxity of principles. He has restored virtue to its dignity, and taught innocence not to be ashamed. This is an elevation of literary character, “above all Greek, above all Roman fame.” No greater felicity can genius attain than that of having purified intellectual pleasure, separated mirth from indecency, and wit from licentiousness; of having taught a succession of writers to bring elegance and gaiety to the aid of goodness; and, to use expressions yet more awful, of having “turned many to righteousness.” As a describer of life and manners, he must be allowed to stand perhaps the first of the foremost rank. His humour, which, as Steele observes, is peculiar to himself, is so happily diffused as to give the grace of novelty to domestic scenes and daily occurrences. He never “outsteps the modesty of nature,” norraises merriment or wonder by the violation of truth. His figures neither divert by distortion, nor amaze by aggravation. He copies life with so much fidelity, that he can be hardly said to invent: yet his exhibitions have an air so much original, that it is difficult to suppose them not merely the product of imagination. As a teacher of wisdom he may be confidently followed. His religion has nothing in it enthusiastic or superstitious; he appears neither weakly credulous nor wantonly sceptical; his morality is neither dangerously lax, nor impracticably rigid. All the enchantment of fancy and all the cogency of argument are employed to recommend to the reader his real interest, the care of pleasing the Author of his being. Truth is shewn sometimes as the phantom of a vision, sometimes appears half-veiled in an allegory; sometimes attracts regard in the robes of fancy, and sometimes steps forth in the confidence of reason. She wears a thousand dresses, and in all is pleasing——“Mille habet ornatus, mille decenter habet.”

, the only Englishman who ever had the honour of sitting in the papal chair. His name was Nicholas Brekespere; and he was born about the end of the 11th century, at Langley, near St. Alban’s, in Hertfordshire. His father having left his family, and taken the habit of the monastery of St. Alban’s, Nicholas was obliged to submit to the lowest offices in that house for daily support. After some time he desired to take the habit in that monastery, but was rejected by the abbot Richard: “He was examined,” says Matthew Paris, “and being found insufficient, the abbot said to him, Wait, my son, and go to school a little longer, till you are better qualified.” But if the character given of young Brekespere by Pitts be a just one, the abbot was certainly to be blamed for rejecting a person who would have done great honour to his house. He was, according to that author, a handsome and comely youth, of a sharp wit and ready utterance; circumspect in all his words and actions, polite in his behaviour, neat and elegant; full of zeal for the glory of God, and that according to some degree of knowledge; so possessed of all the most valuable endowments of mind and body, that in him the gifts of heaven exceeded nature: his piety exceeded his education; and the ripeness of his judgment and his other qualifications exceeded his age. Having met however with the above repulse, he resolved to try his fortune in another country, and went to Paris; where, though in very poor circumstances, he applied himself to his studies with great assiduity, and made a wonderful proficiency. But having still a strong inclination to a religious life, he left Paris, and removed to Provence, where he became a regular clerk in the monastery of St. Rufus. He was not immediately allowed to take the habit, but passed some time by way of trial, in recommending himself to the monks by a strict attention to all their commands. This behaviour, together with the beauty of his person, and prudent conversation, rendered him so acceptable to those religious, that after some time they entreated him to take the habit of the canonical order. Here he distinguished himself so much by his learning and strict observance of the monastic discipline, that, upon the death of the abbot, he was chosen superior of that house; and we are told that he rebuilt that convent. He did not long enjoy this abbacy: for the monks, being tired of the government of a foreigner, brought accusations against him before pope Eugenius III. who, after having examined their complaint, and heard the defence of Nicholas, declared him innocent; his holiness, however, gave the monks leave to choose another superior, and, being sensible of the great merit of Nicholas, and thinking he might be serviceable to the church in a higher station, created him cardinal-bishop of Alba, in 1146.

In 1148 Eugenius sent him legate to Denmark and Norway; where, by his fervent preaching and diligent instructions, he converted those barbarous nations to the Christian faith; and we are told, that he erected the church of Upsal into an archiepiscopal see. On his return to Rome, he was received by the pope and cardinals with great marks of honour: and pope Anastatius, who succeeded Eugenius, happening to die at this time, Nicholas was unanimously chosen to the holy see, in November, 1154, and took the name of Adrian. When the news of his promotion reached England, Henry II. sent Robert, abbot of St. Alban’s, and three bishops, to Rome, to congratulate him on his election; upon which occasion Adrian granted to the monastery of St. Alban’s, the privilege of being exempt front all episcopal jurisdiction except that of Rome. Next year, king Henry having solicited the pope’s consent that he might undertake the conquest of Ireland, Adrian very readily complied, and sent him a bull for that purpose, of which the following is a translation: “Adrian, bishop, servant of the servants of God, to his most dear son in Christ, the illustrious king of England, sendeth greeting and apostolical benediction. Your magnificence is very careful to spread your glorious name in the world, and to merit an immortal crown in heaven, whilst, as a good catholic prince, you form a design of extending the bounds of the church, of instructing ignorant and barbarous people in the Christian faith, and of reforming the licentious and immoral; and the more effectually to put this design in execution, you desire the advice and assistance of the holy see. We are confident, that, by the blessing of God, the success will answer the wisdom and discretion of the undertaking. You have advertised us, dear son, of your intended expedition into Ireland, to reduce that people to the obedience of the Christian faith; and that you are willing to pay for every house a yearly acknowledgment of one penny to St. Peter, promising to maintain the rights of those churches in the fullest manner. We therefore, being willing to assist you in this pious and laudable design, and consenting to your petition, do grant you full liberty to make a descent upon that island, in order to enlarge the borders of the church, to check the progress of immorality, and to promote the spiritual happiness of the natives: and we command the people of that country to receire and acknowledge you as their sovereign lord; provided the rights of the churches be inviolably preserved, and the Peter pence duly paid: for indeed it is certain (and your highness acknowledges it) that all the islands, which are enlightened by Christ, the sun of righteousness, and have embraced the doctrines of Christianity, are unquestionably St. Peter’s right, and belong to the holy Roman church. If, therefore, you resolve to put your designs in execution, be careful to reform the manners of that people; and commit the government of the churches to able and virtuous persons, that the Christian religion may grow and flourish, and the honour of God and the preservation of souls be effectually promoted; so shall you deserve an everlasting reward in heaven, and leave a glorious name to all posterity.” His indulgence to this prince was so great, that he even consented to absolve him from the oath he had taken not to set aside any part of his father’s will. The reason of this was, that Geoffry Plantagenet, earl of Anjou, had by the empress Maud, three sons, Henry, Geoffry, and William. This prince, being sensible that his ovrn dominions would of course descend to his eldest son Henry, and that the kingdom of England and duchy of Normandy would likewise fall to him in right of his mother, thought fit to devise the earldom of Anjou to his second son Geoffry; and to render this the more valid, he exacted an oath of the bishops and nobility, not to suffer his corpse to be buried till his son Henry had sworn to fulfil every part of his will. When Henry came to attend his father’s funeral, the oath was tendered to him; but for some time he refused to swear to a writing, with the contents of which he was unacquainted. Howerer, being reproached with the scandal of letting his father lie unburied, he at last took the oath with great reluctance. But after his accession to the throne, upon a complaint to pope Adrian that the oath was forced upon him, he procured a dispensation from his holiness, absolving him from the obligation he had laid himself under: and in consequence thereof, he dispossessed his brother Geoffry of the dominions of Anjou, allowing him only a yearly pension for his maintenance.

Adrian, in the beginning of his pontificate, boldly withstood the attempts of the Roman people to recover their ancient liberty under the consuls, and obliged those magistrates to abdicate their authority, and leave the government of the city to the pope. In 1155, he drove Arnold of Bresse and his followers out of Rome. The same year he excommunicated William king of Sicily, who ravaged the territories of the church, and absolved that prince’s subjects from their allegiance. About the same time, Frederic, king of the Romans, having entered Italy with a powerful army, Adrian met him near Sutrium, and concluded a peace with him. At this interview, Frederic consented to hold the pope’s stirrup whilst he mounted on horseback. After which his holiness conducted that prince to Rome, and in St. Peter’s church placed the imperial crown on his head, to the great mortification of the Roman people, who assembled in a tumultuous manner, and killed several of the imperialists. The next year a reconciliation was brought about between the pope and the Sicilian king, that prince taking an oath to do nothing farther to the prejudice of the church, and Adrian granting him the title of king of the two Sicilies. He built and fortified several castles, and left the papal dominions in a more flourishing condition than he found them. But notwithstanding all his success, he was extremely sensible of the disquietudes attending so high a station, and complained of them to his countryman John of Salisbury. He died Sept. 1, 1159, in the fourth year and tenth month of his pontificate, and was buried in St. Peter’s church, near the tomb of his predecessor Eugenius. Besides some writings attributed to this ambitious pope, not yet printed, there are, in Labbe’s Concilia, forty-two letters; and Martene, Balusius, Usher, Marca, &c. have brought others to light, as may be seen in Fabric. Biblioth. Lat. med. setat. and Cave. The most remarkable of those letters are what contain the word beneficium. In Aventini Annal. Bajor. are letters between the emperor and the pope, the authenticity of which is still disputed; and those betwixt the bishops of Germany and the pope, and the letter of licence to Henry II. to conquer Ireland, are in Wilkins’s Concil. Britan. The famous peace with king William, which so nearly concerns the Sicilian monarchy, is in Baronius’s Annals.

, pope, who deserves some notice on account of his personal merit, was born in Utrecht, 1459, of parents reputed mean, who procured him a place among the poor scholars in the college of Louvain, where his application was such as to induce Margaret of England, the sister of Edward IV. and widow of Charles duke of Burgundy, to bear the expences of his advancement to the degree of doctor. He became successively a canon of St. Peter, professor of divinity, dean of the church of Louvain, and fastly, vice-chancellor of the university. Recollecting his own condition, he generously founded a college at Louvain, which bears his name, for the education of poor students. Afterwards Maximilian I. appointed him preceptor to his grandson Charles V. and sent him as ambassador to Ferdinand king of Spain, who gave him the bishoprick of Tortosa. In 1517 he was made cardinal, and during the infancy of Charles V. became regent; but the duties of the office were engrossed by cardinal Ximenes. On the death of Leo X. Charles V. had so much influence with the cardinals as to procure him to be chosen to the papal chair, in 1522. He was not, however, very acceptable to the college, as he had an aversion to pomp, expence, and pleasure. He refused to resent, by fire and sword, the complaints urged by Luther; but endeavoured to reform such abuses in the church as could neither be concealed or denied. To this conduct he owed the many satires written against him during his life, and the unfavourable representations made by the most learned of the Roman Catholic historians. Perhaps his partiality to the emperor Charles might increase their dislike, and occasion the suspicion that his death, which took place Sept. 24, 1523, was a violent one. For this, however, we know no other foundation, than a pasquinade stuck upon the house of his physician “To the deliverer of his country.” He is said to have composed an epitaph for himself, expressing, that the greatest misfortune of his life was his being called to govern. He has left some writings, as, 1. “Questiones et Expositiones in IV. Sententiarum,” Paris, 1512 and 1516, fol.; 1527, 8vo. In this he advanced some bold sentiments against papal infallibility. Although he wrote the work before he was pope, he reprinted it without any alteration. 2. “Questiones Quodlibeticae,” Louvain, 1515, 8vo; Paris, 1516, fol. Foppen gives a large list of his other writings. His life was written by Paulus Jovius, Onuphrius Panviuius, Gerard Moringus, a divine of Louvain, and lastly by Caspar Burman, under the title “Analecta Historica de Adriano VI. Trajectino, Papa Romano,” Utrecht, 1727, 4to.

, bishop of Bath and Wells in the reigns of Henry VII. and VIII. was descended of an obscure family at Cornetto, a small town in Tuscany; but soon distinguished himself by his learning and abilities, and procured several employments at the court of Rome. In 1448 he was appointed nuncio extraordinary to Scotland, by pope Innocent VIII. to quiet the troubles in that kingdom; but, upon his arrival in England, being informed that his presence was not necessary in Scotland, the contests there having been ended by a battle, he applied himself to execute some other commissions with which he was charged, particularly to collect the pope’s tribute, or Peter-pence, his holiness having appointed him his treasurer for that purpose. He continued some months in England, during which time he got so far into the good graces of Morton, archbishop of Canterbury, that he recommended him to the king; who appointed him his agent for English affairs at Rome; and, as a recompense for his faithful services, promoted him first to the bishoprick of Hereford, and afterwards to that of Bath and Wells. He was enthroned at Wells by his proxy Polydore Vergil, at that time the pope’s sub-collector in England, and afterwards appointed by Adrian archdeacon of Wells. Adrian let out his bishoprick to farmers, and afterwards to cardinal Wolsey, himself residing at Rome, where he built a magnificent palace, on the front of which he had the name of his benefactor Henry VII. inscribed: he left it after his decease to that prince and his successors. Alexander VI, who succeeded Innocent VIII, appointed Adrian his principal secretary, and vicar-general in spirituals and temporals; and the same pope created him a cardinal-priest, with the title of St. Chrysogonus, the 31st of May, 1503. Soon after his creation, he narrowly escaped being poisoned at a feast, to which he was invited with some other cardinals, by the pope and his son Caesar Borgia.

In the pontificate of Julius II. who succeeded Alexander, Adrian retired from Rome, having taken some disgust, or perhaps distrusting this pope, who was a declared enemy of his predecessor: nor did he return till there was a conclave held for the election of a new pope, where he probably gave his voice for Leo X. Soon after he was unfortunately privy to a conspiracy against Leo. His embarking in the plot is said to have been chiefly owing to his crediting and applying to himself the prediction of a fortune-teller, who had assured him, “that Leo would be cut off by an unnatural death, and be succeeded by an elderly man named Adrian, of obscure birth, but fa-­mous for his learning, and whose virtue and merit alone had raised him to the highest honours of the church.” Th conspiracy being discovered, Adrian was condemned to pay 12,500 ducats, and to give a solemn promise that he would not stir out of Rome. But being either unable to pay this fine, or apprehending still farther severities, he privately withdrew from Rome; and in a consistory held the 6th of July 1518, he was declared excommunicated, and deprived of all his benefices, as well as his ecclesiastical orders. About four years before, he had been removed from his office of the pope’s collector in England, at the request of king Henry VIII, and through the instigation of cardinal Wolsey. The heads of his accusation, drawn up at Rome, were, “That he had absented himself from that city in the time of Julius II. without the pope’s leave; that he had never resided, as he ought to have done^ at the church of St. Chrysogonus, from which he had his title; that he had again withdrawn himself from Rome, and had not appeared to a legal citation; and that he had engaged in the conspiracy of cardinal Petrucci, and had signed the league of Francis Maria, duke of Urbino, against the pope.” He was at Venice when he received the news of his condemnation: what becarme of him afterwards is uncertain. Aubery says, he took refuge among the Turks in Asia; but the most common opinion is, that he was murdered by one of his servants for the sake of his wealth. Polydore Vergil tells us, there is to be seen at Riva, a village in the diocese of Trent, a Latin inscription on one Polydorus Casamicus, the pope’s janitor, written by cardinal Adrian; in which he laments his own wretched condition, extolling the happiness of his friend, whose death had put an end to his miseries. Polydore Vergil gives Adrian a high character for his uncommon learning, his exquisite^ judgment in the choice of the properest words, and the truly classical style of his writings; in which he was the first, says that author, since the age of Cicero, who revived the purity of the Latin language, and taught men to draw their knowlege from the sources of the best and most learned authors. The only works of his that are published are, 1. “De Vera Philosophia;” 2. “De Sermone Latino et de Modis Latine loquendi,” 1515, Rome, fol.

, professor of the belles lettres, and chancellor of the republic of Florence, was born in 1464, He was a very accomplished scholar in the Greek and Latin languages. Varchi, in one of his lectures, pronounces him the most eloquent man of his time. He died in 1521, in consequence of a fall from his horse. In 1518, he published a Latin translation of Dioscorides “De Materia Medica,” with a commentary. About the end of it he mentions a treatise, “De mensuris, ponderibus, et coloribus,” which he had prepared for publication, but which has not yet appeared. Mazzuchelli speaks largely of him in his “Italian Writers;” and more copious notice is taken of him by the canon Baudini, in his. “Collectio Vetcrum Monumentorum.” The translation of Dioscorides, which he dedicated to pope Leo X. procured him so much reputation, that he was called the Dioscorides of Florence.

, one of the most learned divines of the thirteenth century, entered into the Augustine order, and studied at Paris under Thomas Aquinas, where he became so eminent as to acquire the title of the Profound Doctor. He was preceptor to the son of Philip III. of France, and composed for the use of his pupil his treatise “De regimine Principum,” Rome, 1492, fol. The Venetian edition of 1498 is still in some esteem. He also taught philosophy and theology with high reputation at Paris. He was preferred by Boniface VIII. to the episcopal see of Berri, and, according to some writers was, by the same pope, created a cardinal. He was, however, elected general of his order in 1292, and assisted at the general council of Vienna in 1311. He died Dec. 22, 1316, at Avignon, leaving various works, enumerated by Cave; which afford, in our times, no very favourable opinion of his talents, although they were in high reputation during his life, and long after. One only it may be necessary to notice as a very great rarity. The title is “Tractatus brevis et utilis de Originali Peccato,” 4to, printed at Oxford, 1479, and is supposed to be the third, or second, or, as some think, the first book printed there. Dr. Clarke has described it.

, a Spanish missionary of the 17th century, who lived under the reigns of Philip III. and Philip IV. was a barefooted Augustin, and celebrated for his apostolic zeal. These religious had a principal hand in the rapid, but for the most part short-lived, progress of the Catholic faith in Japan; and converted the populous nation of the Tagalians, or Tagaleze, Malayans by descent, who inhabited Lucon, one of the Philippine islands, and who remain Christians to this day. In 1640, Aganduru was appointed by his brethren, and with the authority of Philip IV. to go to Rome and offer to the pope, Urban VIII. the homage and obedience of these new converts. He wrote a “History of Conversions in Japan and the Philippine islands, with a detail of his religious embassy:” and a “General History of the Moluccas and the Philippines,” 2 vols. from the discovery of them, to the middle of the seventeenth century.

, a native of Sorrento, in the kingdom of Naples, was celebrated in the sixteenth century for his general learning, and acquaintance with the learned languages, and for his writings on the Holy Scriptures. He was one of the inspectors of the Vatican press, where he bestowed great care in examining new editions by the best manuscripts. When he was promoted to the bishoprick of Acerno or Acerre, in the kingdom of Naples, in 1595, the learned Peter Morin complained of this transaction, in a letter addressed to cardinal Cajetan, as depriving the Vatican press of an editor of the first ability and accuracy; and begged that the cardinal would induce him, before he took possession of his bishopric, to instruct his successors in the library and press of the Vatican, and superintend such works as he had begun. What effect this had, we are not told; but he was employed by pope Gregory XIII. on the Greek edition of the Bible, Rome, 1587, fol. His original works consist of Commentaries: 1. On the “Psalms and Canticles,” fol. Rome, 1606; Cologne, 1607; and Paris, 1611. 2. “On the Lamentations,” compiled from, the Greek fathers, Rome, 1589; 4to. 3. “On the Proverbs of Solomon,” and, 4. “On the prophet Habakkuk,” Antwerp, 1697, 8vo. Le Long mentions other works of Agelius in manuscript; but his Commentary on the Psalms procured him most reputation, and has been frequently reprinted. He died at Acerno in 1608.

, or Egelnoth, or Æthelnoth, in Latin Achelnotus, archbishop of Canterbury in the reign of Canute the Great, succeeded to that see in the year 1020. This prelate, surnamed the Good, was son of earl Agilmer, and, at the time of his election, dean of Canterbury. After his promotion he went to Rome, and received his pall from pope Benedict VIII. In his way thither, as he passed through Pavia, he purchased, for an hundred talents of silver and one of gold, St. Augustine’s arm, which was kept there as a relic; and sent it over to England, as a present to Leofric, earl of Coventry. Upon his return, he is said to have raised the see of Coventry to its former lustre. He was much in favour with king Canute, and employed his interest with that monarch to good purposes. It was by his advice the king sent over large sums of money for the support of the foreign churches: and Malmsbury observes, that this prince was prompted to acts of piety, and restrained from excesses, by the regard he had for the archbishop. King Canute being dead, Agelnoth refused to crown his son Harold, alleging that the late king had enjoined him to set the crown upon none but the issue of queen Emma; that he had given the king a promise upon this head, and that he was resolved to be true to his engagement. Having declared himself with this freedom, he iaid the crown upon the altar, with an imprecation against those bishops who should venture to perform the ceremony. Harold, who was greatly chagrined at this disappointment, endeavoured, both by menaces and large offers, to prevail upon the archbishop, but in vain: and whether he was afterwards crowned by any other person is uncertain. Agelnoth, after he had held the see of Canterbury seventeen years, died Oct. 29, 1038. Three works have been attributed to him “A panegyric on the blessed Virgin Mary;” “A letter to Earl Leofric, concerning St, Augustine;” and “Letters to several persons.”

, an Italian lady of great learning, was born at Milan, March 16, 1718. Her inclinations from her earliest youth led her to the study of science, and at an age when young persons of her sex attend only to frivolous pursuits, she had made such astonishing progress in mathematics, that when in 1750 her father, professor in the university at Bologna, was unable to continue his lectures from infirm health, she obtained permission from the pope, Benedict XIV. to fill his chair. Before this, at the early age of nineteen, she had supported one hundred and ninety-one theses, which were published, in 1738, under the title “Propositiones Philosophicæ.” She was also mistress of Latin, Greek, Hebrew, French, German, and Spanish. At length she gave up her studies, and went into the monastery of the Blue Nuns, at Milan, where she died Jan. 9, 1799. In 1740 she published a discourse tending to prove “that the study of the liberal arts is not incompatible with the understandings of women,” This she had written when scarcely nine years old. Her “Instituzioni analitiche,” 1748, 2 vols. 4to, were translated in part by Antelmy, with the notes of M. Bossut, under the title of “Traites elementaires du Calcul differentiel et du Calcul integral,” 1775, 8vo: but more completely into English by that eminent judge of mathematical learning, the late rev. John Colson, M. A. F. R. S. and Lucasian professor of mathematics in the university of Cambridge. This learned and ingenious man, who had translated sir Isaac Newton’s Fluxions, with a comment, in 1736, and was well acquainted with what appeared on the same subject, in the course of fourteen years afterward, in the writings of Emerson, Maclaurin, and Simpson, found, after all, the analytical institutions of Agnesi to be so excellent, that he learned the Italian language, at an advanced age, for the sole purpose of translating that work into English, and at his death left the manuscript nearly prepared for the press. In this state it remained for some years, until Mr. Baron Maseres, with his usual liberal and active spirit, resolved to defray the whole expence of printing a handsome edition, 2 vols. 4to, 1801, which was superintended in the press by the rev. John Hellins, B. D. F. R. S. vicar of Potter’s-pury, in Northamptonshire. Her eloge was pronounced by Frisi, and translated into French by Boulard.

, an eminent antiquary, lived in the seventeenth century. Under the pontificate of Urban VIII. he resided in the court of cardinal Barberini; and afterwards pope Alexander VII. who had a great esteem for him, gave him the appointment of examiner of antiquities in the Roman territory. He published the two following works, which are now scarce, and much valued. 1. “La Sicilia di Filippo Paruta descritta con Medaglie, con la giunta di Lionardo Agostini,” Rome, 1649, folio. This isa new edition of Paruta’s Sicilian medals, which was originally published at Palermo, 1612, folio, under the title “Delia Sicilia di Filippo Paruta descritta con Medaglie, parte prima.” This first part, which has become very rare, contains only engravings of the medals, to which a description was promised, in a second. part, which never appeared. Agostini used the same plates as Paruta, and added about four hundred medals to those in Paruta’s edition, but still without explanations. After his death, Paruta’s plates having fallen into the hands of Marco Maier, a bookseller, he published at Lyons, in 1697, anew edition, in folio, entitled, “La Sicilia di Filippo Paruta descritta con Medaglie, e ristampata con aggiunta di Lionardo Agostini, hora in miglior ordine disposta da Marco Maier, arrichita d'una descrittione compendiosa di quella famosa isola.” But notwithstanding the explanations and historical additions of this editor, this edition is less valued than those of Paruta and Agostini. The best and most complete is that which Havercamp published in Latin, at Leyden, 1723, 3 vols. folio, with a commentary; these form the sixth, seventh, and eighth volumes of Grsevius’s Thesaurus. The other work of Agostini is, 2. “Le Gemme antiche figurate di Lionardo Agostini, con le annotazioni del sig. Gio. Pietro Bellori,” part I. Rome, 1636 and 1657, 4to; part II. Rome, 1670; reprinted 1686, 2 vols. 4to. In 1702, Dominique de Rossi published an enlarged edition at Rome, 2 vols. 4to; and in 1707, a fourth edition was published at the same place in four large vols. 4to, with a vast number of additions by Maflfei. The first, however, is still in highest esteem on account of the beauty of the plates, which were executed by Galestruzzi; and the editors of the Orleans gems in 1780 seem to undervalue the labours of Maffei and Gronovius, who translated this work into Latin, Amsterdam, 1685, 4to, reprinted at Franeker, 1694. Joecher, in his Dictionary of learned Men, attributes to Agostini a work entitled “Consiglier di pace,” which was written by Lionardo Agosti.

He now resolved to remove to the Low Countries; this he could not do without a passport, which he at length obtained, after many tedious delays, and arrived at Antwerp in July 1528. The duke de Vendome was the principal cause of these delays; for he, instead of signing the passport, tore it in pieces in a passion, protesting he would never sign a passport for a conjuror. In 1529, Agrippa had invitations from Henry VIII. king of England, from the chancellor of the emperor, from an Italian marquis, and from Margaret of Austria, governess of the Low Countries: he preferred the last, and accepted of being historiographer to the emperor, which was offered him by that princess. He published, by way of introduction, the “History of the Coronation of Charles V.” Soon after, Margaret of Austria died, and he spoke her funeral oration. Her death is said in some measure to have been the life of Agrippa, for great prejudices had been infused into that princess against him: “I have nothing to write you (says he in one of his letters) but that I am likely to starve here, bein entirely forsaken by the deities of the court; what the great Jupiter himself (meaning Charles V.) intends, I know not. I now understand what great danger I was in here: the monks so far influenced the princess, who was of a superstitious turn, as women generally are, that, had not her sudden death prevented it, I should undoubtedly have been tried for offences against the majesty of the cowl and the sacred honour of the monks; crimes for which I should have been accounted no less guilty, and no less punished; than if I had blasphemed the Christian religion.” His treatise, “Of the Vanity of the Sciences,” which he published in 1530, greatly enraged his enemies; and that which he soon after printed at Antwerp, “Of the Occult Philosophy,” afforded them fresh pretexts for defaming his reputation. Cardinal Campej us, the pope’s legate, however, and the cardinal de la Mark, bishop of Liege, spoke in his favour; but could not procure him his pension as historiographer, nor prevent him from being thrown into prison at Brussels, in the year 1531. When he regained his liberty, he paid a visit to the archbishop of Cologn, to whom he had dedicated his Occult Philosophy, and from whom he had received a very obliging letter in return. The inquisitors endeavoured to hinder the impression of his Occult Philosophy, when he was about to print a second edition with emendations and additions; however, notwithstanding all their opposition, he finished it in 1533. He staid at Bonne till 1535; and when he returned to Lyons, he was imprisoned for what he had written against the mother of Francis I.; but he was soon released from his confinement, at the desire of several persons, and went to Grenoble, where he died the same year. Some authors say, that he died in the hospital; but Gabriel Naude affirms, it was at the house of the receiver-general of the province of Dauphiny.

, archbishop of Amasia m Natolia, was born at Bologna, Nov. 20, 1570. He had the advantage of being educated under tfee care of Philip Sega, his uncle, who was raised on account of his distinguished merits to the rank of cardinal, by pope Innocent IX; and of Jerom Agucchio, his brother, who was made cardinal by pope Clement VIII. in 1604. His application to study mis early, rapid, and assiduous, but particularly in. the study of polite literature. This recommended him so much to cardinal Sega, that he carried him with him te France, when he went thither as legate from the pope. After the death of Sega, Agucchio was appointed secretary to cardinal Aldobrandini, nephew to pope Clement VIII. and attended him when he went legate to Henry IV. of France, of which journey he wrote a very elegant account. The cardinal, after his return, committed the management of his house to Agucchio, which province he executed till the death of pope Clement VIII. and of his brother the cardinal Agucchio, when want of health obliged him to retire from the court. But after he had recovered, and had passed some time at Rome in learned retirement, cardinal Aldobrandini brought him again into his former employment, in which he continued till the cardinal’s death. He then became secretary to Gregory XV. which place he held until the death of that pontiff. In 1624, Urban VIII. sent him as nuncio to Venice, where he became generally esteemed, although he maintained the rights of the see of Rome with the utmost rigour. The contagious distemper which ravaged Italy in 1630, obliged him to retire to Friuli, where he died in 1632. He was a man of very extensive learning, but appears in his private character to have been somewhat austere and narrow. His works are: “A treatise upon Comets and Meteors,” “The Life of Cardinal Sega, and that of Jerom Agucchio his brother,” and a letter to the canon Barthelemi Dolcini on the origin of the city of Bologna, “L'Antica fondazione e dominio della citta di Bologna,” Bologna, 1638, 4to. He left also various letters and moral treatises, not published.

In 1709, the war and famine, ^nd public distress rendered his place of much importance, and called forth the qualities of the heart as well as the head. At this critical period, Desmarets, the comptroller-general, appointed a committee of the principal magistrates, among whom was D‘Aguessean, whose zeal and knowledge animated the whole. He contrived to discover the forestallers of provisions; punished the most guilty; and re-established credit and confidence; and from this time, a sense of the value of his public services made him be often consulted on the most difficult points of administration, and employed to draw up memorials for the king. Towards the end of the reign, however, of Louis XIV. he was threatened withdisgrace for having refused to register the famous bull TJnigenitus. On this occasion it was that madame D’Aguesseau, when her husband was about to set out for Versailles, said, “Go, and before the king, forget your wife and children, and lose every thing but your honour.” D'Aguesseau, without perhaps understanding the whole of the doctrines condemned by that bull, thought he perceived, in part of its regulations, something that threatened the rights of monarchy, which he therefore had the courage to defend against the monarch himself. It was this sense of the matter which produced the spirited answer he gave to Quirini, the pope’s nuncio “Is it thus,” said Quirini, “that you manufacture arms against Rome” “No, Monsieur,” replied D'Aguesseau, “these are not arms, but shields.”

, a Scotch painter of considerable eminence, was the son of William 8 Aiktnan, of Cairney, esq. and born Oct. 24, 1682. His father intended that he should follow the law, and gave him an education suitable to these views; but the strong predilection of the son to the fine arts induced him to attach himself to painting alone. Poetry, painting, and music have, with justice, been called sister arts. Mr. Aikman was fond of poetry; and was particularly delighted with those unforced strains which, proceeding from the heart, are calculated to touch the congenial feelings of sympathetic minds. It was this propensity which attached him so warmly to Allan Ramsay, the Doric bard of Scotland. Though younger than Ramsay, Mr. Aikman, while at college, formed an intimate acquaintance with him, which constituted a principal part of his happiness at that time, and of which he always bore the tenderest recollection. It was the same delicate bias of mind which at a future period of his life attached him so warmly to Thomson, who then unknown, and unprotected, stood in need of, and obtained the warmest patronage of Aikman; who perhaps considered it as one of the most fortunate occurrences in his life that he had it in his power to introduce this young poet of nature to sir Robert Walpole, who wished to be reckoned the patron of genius, and to Arbuthnot, Swift, Pope, Gay, and the other beaux esprits of that brilliant period. Thomson could never forget this kindness; and when he had the misfortune, too soon, to lose this warm friend and kind protector, he bewailed the loss in strains distinguished by justness of thought, and genuine pathos of expression.

, or Alliacus, an eminent Romish ecclesiastic, and cardinal, was born at Compiegnein 1350, of an obscure family. He eame very young to study at P.aris, and was admitted into the college of Navarre in 1372. From this time he began to distinguish himself by his writings in philosophy, in which he fol lowed the principles of Occham, and the Nominalists; and his reputation made him be chosen to assist at the synod of Amiens, in which he made a, discourse to the priest, although he was then only a subdeacon. He received the doctor’s degree at Paris, April 11, 1380, and next year he made a discourse in the presence of the duke of Anjou, in the name of the university, to show that it was necessary to assemble a general council in order to put an end to schism. That same year he was made canon of Noyon, and continued there to the year 1384, when he was recalled to Paris, to be superior of the college of Navarre. Here he taught divinity, and acquired increased reputation by his lectures and sermons. From his school came Gerson, Clemangis, and Giles D‘Eschamps, the most famous divines of that time. The university of Paris could not find any person more capable of maintaining her cause against Monteson, at pope Clement VIL’s tribunal, than this learned doctor. She accordingly deputed him to Avignon, where he pleaded the cause of the university with so much force, that the pope and cardinals confirmed the judgment passed by that seminary. Having returned from this mission, he was honoured, in 1389, with three considerable dignities, that of chancellor of the church and university, and almoner and confessor to king Charles VI. In 1394 he was appointed treasurer of the holy chapel at Paris, and was sent by the king to Benedict XIII. to treat with him about the peace of the church. He was afterwards successively elected to two bishoprics: that of Puy, in Velay, in 1395, and that of Cam bray next year. He took possession of the latter, and laid down his charge of chancellor of the university in favour of John Gerson. After this he employed his time in extinguishing schism, as it was called, and assisted at the council of Pisa. At length pope John XXIII. made him cardinal of Chrysogonus in 1411. He assisted in that quality at the general council of Constance, and was one of those who took the greatest share in its transactions, and composed several sermons upon subjects handled there. He then returned to Cambray, where he died in 1425. He wrote many works, some of which were published after the invention of printing; as his “Commentaries on the Master of Sentences,” which are inserted in the appendix to the “Fasciculus rertim expetendarum,” 1490; a volume “of Tracts and Sermons,” about the same time. He wrote also on Astrology, in which he was a believer. His principal works, however, confirm the opinion which the Roman Catholic writers give of his learning and talents; and learning so extraordinary is to be venerated in an age of comparative darkness: but it is a great deduction from, his character that, although he possessed superior understanding and liberality to many of his contemporaries, and even is supposed to have leaned a little towards freedom of opinion, he was an implacable persecutor of schism, that is, the first beginnings of the Reformation; and was a principal agent in bringing John Huss to the stake, and in disturbing the ashes of Wickliffe.

Akenside gave early indications of genius. Several of his poems were the produce of his youth. His capital performance, The Pleasures of Imagination, was first published in 1744; and, like most extraordinary productions, it was not properly appreciated till time had matured the public judgment. I have, savs our late eminent biographer, heard Dodsley, by whom it was published, say, that when the copy was offered him, the price demanded for it being such as he was not inclined to give precipitately, he carried the work to Pope, who having looked over it, advised him not to make a niggardly offer, for this was no every-day writer.

Alan therefore, having overstepped the bounds of religious controversy, was now determined to measures of more open hostility. The celebrated Parsons, the Jesuit, who was his great friend and counsellor, is supposed to have suggested to him the project of invading England. For many years there had been differences, discontents, and even injuries committed between the English and Spaniards; and now Alan, and some fugitive English noblemen, persuaded Philip II. to undertake the conquest of England. To facilitate this, the pope, Sixtus V. renewed the excommunication thundered against queen Elizabeth by his predecessor Pius V. While this was in agitation, sir William Stanley, commander of the English and Irish garrison at Daventer, betrayed it to the Spaniards, and went into their service with 1200 men; and Rowland York, who had been intrusted with a strong fort in the same country, performed the same act of treachery. Alan, no longer the conscientious controversialist, wrote a defence of this base proceeding, and sent several priests to Stanley, in order to instruct those he had drawn over to the king of Spain’s service. Alan’s defence, which appeared the year after these transactions, 1588, was first printed in English in the form of a letter, and afterwards in Latin, under the title of “Epistola de Daventrise ditione,” Cracov. His only argument, if it deserve the name, was, that sir William Stanley was no traitor, because he had only delivered to the king of Spain a city which was his own before; and he exhorts all Englishmen, in the service of the states, to follow his example.

Such writings, however, were too valuable to the popish cause, to go unrewarded. Accordingly on July 28, 1587, Alan was created cardinal by the title of St. Martin in Montibus; and soon after, the king of Spain gave him an abbey of great value in the kingdom of Naples, with assurances of greater preferment. In April 1588, he composed that work, entitled The Admonition, which rendered him most famous abroad, and infamous at home. It consisted of two parts; the first explaining the pope’s bull for the excommunication and deprivation of queen Elizabeth; the second, exhorting the nobility and people of England to desert her, and take up arms in favour of the Spaniards. It contains the grossest abuse of the queen, and threatens the nobility with judgments from heaven, and devastation by the Spaniards, unless they joined the forces of Philip; it boasts of the vast strength of these forces, and asserts that they had more good captains than Elizabeth had soldiers; that the saints in heaven all prayed for victory, and that the holy angels guarded them. Of this libel, well calculated at that time to effect its purpose, many thousand copies were printed at Antwerp, in order to have been put on board the Armada, and circulated in England. But the Armada, it is well known, completely failed, and covered its projectors with disgrace and destruction; and these books were so carefully destroyed, that a genuine copy waa scarcely to be found.

No part of the failure of this vast enterprize, however, was attributed to Alan, to whom the king of Spain now gave the archbishopric of Mecklin, and would have had reside there, as a place where he might more effectually promote the popish and Spanish interests in England; but the pope had too high an opinion of his merit to suffer him to leave Rome, where, therefore, he continued to labour in the service of his countrymen, and in promoting the Catholic faith. Some have asserted, that he and sir Francis Inglefield assisted Parsons, the Jesuit, in composing-his treasonable work concerning the succession, which he published under the name of Doleman, in 1593, and which was reckoned of such dangerous consequence, that it was made capital by law for any person to have it in his custody. Others, however, maintain that he had no hand in it, and that he even objected to it, because of its tendency to promote those dissentions which had for so many years distracted his native country; and this last opinion is probable, if what we have been told be true, that towards the close of his life he had changed his sentiments, as to government, and professed his sorrow for the pains he had taken in promoting the invasion of England. It is even asserted, by a very eminent popish writer (Watson), that when he perceived that the Jesuits intended nothing but desolating and destroying his native land, he wept bitterly, not knowing how to remedy it, much less how to curb their insolence. Such conduct, it is added, drew upon him the ill-will of that powerful society, who chose now to represent him as a man of slender abilities, and of little political consequence. On his death-bed, he was very desirous of speaking to the English students then at Rome, which the Jesuits prevented, lest he should have persuaded them to a loyal respect for their prince, and a tender regard for their country. He is generally said to have died of a retention of urine; but, as the Jesuits had shown so much dislike, they have been accused of poisoning him. Of this, however, there is no proof. He died Oct. 6, 1594, in the sixty-third year of his age; and was buried with great pomp in the chapel of the English college at Rome, where a monument was erected to his memory, with an inscription setting forth his titles and merits. What these merits were, the reader has been told. We have seen cardinal Alan in three characters: that of a zealous propagandist; of apolitical traitor to his country; and lastly, repenting the violence of his endeavours to ruin his country on pretence of bringing her back to popery. In the first of these characters he seems to have acted from the impulse of a mind firmly persuaded that every deviation from popery was dangerous heresy; and the only weapons he employed were those of controversy. As a writer, the popish party justly considered him as the first champion of his age; and both his learning and eloquence were certainly of a superior stamp. But in his worst character, as a traitor, there is every reason to think him influenced by the Jesuits, who at that time, and ever while a society, had little scruple as to the means by which they effected their purposes. Yet even their persuasions were not sufficient to inspire him with permanent hostility towards the political existence of his country. Some writers, not sufficiently attending to his history, have called him a Jesuit; but in all controversies between the Jesuits and the secular priests, the latter always gloried in cardinal Alan, as a man to whom no Jesuit could be compared, in any respect.

Of his works, besides those already mentioned, there are extant, 1. “A defence of the lawful power and authority of the Priesthood to remit Sins,” with two other tracts on Confession and Indulgences, Louvain, 1567, 8vo. ?. “De Sacramentis in genere, de sacramento Eucharistice, et de Missae Sacrificio, libri tres,” Antwerp, 1576, 4to, and Doway, 1605. 3. “A true, sincere, and modest defence of English Catholics,” without place, 1583. This was an answer to the “Execution of Justice in England,” written by lord Burleigh, the original of which, Strype says, is yet preserved. It is esteemed the best of Alan’s works. 4. “An apology and true declaration of the institution and endeavours of the two English colleges, the one in Home, the other now resident in Rheims, against certain sinister insinuations given up against the same,” Mons, 1581. Besides these, he wrote some other small treatises, without his name, of which we have nowhere seen a correct account. That in the Athenae is perhaps the best. Foppen, on the authority of Possevin in his “Apparatus Sac.” says, that he translated the English Bible printed at Rheims, in conjunction with Gregory Martin and Richard Bristow, two English divines; and that he wrote a letter to the bishop of Liege, “de miserabili statu et calamitate r'egni Anglise, fervente schismate,” which is printed in the “Gesta Episcoporum Leodiensium,” vol. III. p. 588. Le Long, who also mentions his translation of the Bible, adds, that he was employed by pope Gregory XIV. in reforming the Vulgate.

We may presume our barrister shone as an advocate with meridian lustre, since the celebrated Pope has recorded his name, by prefixing it to his Imitation of Horace, Sat. II. 1. and distinguished his legal abilities, by asking his opinion, as to libels, in the following lines:

Sir John, in his preliminary remarks to the work of his great ancestor, proves himself to be a distinguished proficient in Saxon literature. He lived also in habits of intimacy with Pope and his associates; and many of Pope’s letters to him are published in Mr. Bowles’s edition of the works of that Poet. Mr. Fortescue also furnished Pope with the admirable burlesque of “Stradling vtrsus Styles” in vol. VI.

, nephew to the preceding, and heir to his taste and munificence, was born in Rome, 1720, and educated for the church, in which he was speedily promoted to the highest honours, being advanced to the purple, soon after he entered the priesthood, in 1747, and not long afterwards appointed arch-priest of the Basilic of St. Maria Maggiore, and bishop of Porto, one of the seven suburban sees which depend on the pope as on their immediate metropolitan. He derived more lustre, however, from following the example of his uncle in patronizing learning and learned men, and in adding to those rare and valuable monuments of art, which so long rendered the villa Albani the resort of the virtuosi of Europe.

During this devastation, the cardinal took refuge, first, in a Camaidolese convent on the southern frontiers of the Roman state; but, it being intimated that he could not be safe there, he went to Naples; and, on the approach of the French, to Messina. In 1800 he was present at Venice, at the election of the reigning pope; and when the Austrian and Neapolitan troops reconquered the Roman territory, he returned to Rome, where he took private lodgings, but never had strength of mind to view either his palace or villa, nor could they be mentioned in his presence without throwing him into the deepest sorrow. Here he died, in 1803, in the eighty-fourth year of his age. He was handsome in person, sprightly and eloquent; sincere, cordial, unassuming, and affable; and both from his intellectual and moral qualifications, he was justly considered as one of the most accomplished characters of the age.

, of the same family with the preceding, born in 1504, at Bergamo, was the son of count Francis Albani, and intended by his father for the army, but preferred the study of the civil and canon law, in which, as well as in polite literature, he attained great eminence. At first, however, he bore arms in the Venetian army, and afterwards went into the church. Pope Pius V. was no sooner raised to that dignity, than he made Albani a cardinal, in 1570. It is even said that after the death of Gregory XIII. the conclave would have elected him pope, but he was then a widower and had children, a circumstance which interfered with their intentions. He died April 25, 1591. His principal works are: 1. “De Immunitate ecclesiarum,” 1553. 2. “De potestate Papæ et concilii,” Lyons, 1558; Venice, 1561, 4to. 3. “De Cardinalibus, et de douatione Constantini,” 1584, fol. Moreri gives an account of a lawyer of Bergamo, who wrote on these subjects, and is evidently the same person.

The cardinal’s disgrace happened in 1720, and he retired to Parma for some time, till he was summoned by the pope to attend a consistory, in which his conduct was to be examined by some of the members of the sacred college, respecting a correspondence he was supposed to have kept up with the Grand Signior; and he was sentenced to be confined one year in the Jesuits college at Rome. After this, he returned to Parma, near which city he founded, at a very great expence, an establishment for the instruction of young men destined for the priesthood. In the disastrous campaign of 1746, the buildings of this academy were destroyed by the three armies that were in the neighbourhood: and as the cardinal was not supposed to have been over delicate in procuring the means by which his establishment was to have been supported, his countrymen, did not appear to express much dissatisfaction at the demolition of it. He soon after this went to Rome, and was made legate of Romana by pope Clement XII. He died at Rome in 1752, at the age of 87 years, having preserved entire to the last, the powers of his mind and of his body. In the account given of his old age, by the editor of the Dictionnaire Historique, he is said to have been very chatty in conversation, and talked in so lively and so agreeable a manner, that it made even the verv curious facts he had to tell more interesting to those who heard them. His stories were interlarded with French, Spanish, or Italian, as the circumstances required. He was continually applying some maxim of Tacitus, in Latin, to corroborate his own observations, or to support those of others. His general topics of conversation were, the campaigns in which he attended M. de Vendome, his ministry in Spain, or the common political events of the day. He was rather impatient of contradiction, and expected that in argument or in narration the company should defer to him.

When he was legate of Romagna, and at the age of seventy, he endeavoured to bring the little republic of San Marino, which was near his government, under the dominion of the pope. He had intrigued so successfully with some of the principal inhabitants, that the day was fixed on which these republicans were to swear allegiance to the sovereign under whose protection they had put themselves, On the day appointed, Alberoni rode up to the mountain with his suite, and was received at the door of the principal church by the priests and the chief inhabitants of the place, and conducted to his seat under a canopy, to hear high mass and Te Deum sung (a ceremony usual in all Catholic countries upon similar occasions). Unluckily, however, for him, the mass began, as probably is usual in that republic, with the word Libertas (liberty). This word had such an effect upon the minds of the hearers, who began then, for the first time perhaps, to recollect that they were about to lose the thing itself, that they fell upon the cardinal and his attendants, drove them out of the church, and made them descend the very steep mountain of San Marino with great rapidity; and the popes ever after left the inhabitants of San Marino to their old form of government. This singular event took place in the year 1740, and was communicated to Mr. Seward by general Paoli. A bon mot of Benedict XIV. on the occasion was current in every mouth.“Alberoni is like a glutton, who, after having eaten a large salmon, cannot help casting a wistful eye at a minnow.” The “Testament Politique” of cardinal Alberoni, collected from his memoirs and letters, was published at Lausanne in 1753, but is a compilation of no authority, and was written by Maubert de Gouvest. His life, to the year 1719, was published by John Rousset, translated from the Spanish into French, and in the same year was translated into English, and published in London.

, brother of the above, was born near Florence in 1558, and received his early instructioa from his father, but afterwards went to Rome, where he studied geometry, and also the works of Buonaroti, and other great masters. He devoted his principal attention to perspective, in which branch he arrived at eminence, and gave a demonstrative proof of his great abilities in one of the pope’s palaces, having painted a design in that style which procured him much fame. The chief nobility at Rome were solicitous to employ him, and he worked in many of the chapels and convents with general approbation, for he recommended himself to all persons of taste by the elegance of his composition, the firmness and delicacy of his pencil, the grandeur of his thoughts, the judicious distribution of the parts, and by the spirit visible throughout the whole.

, an ecclesiastic of Florence, and an able antiquary, flourished in the beginning of the sixteenth century. He published, 1. “De mirabilibus novae etveteris urbis Romae,” a work divided into three books, and dedicated to pope Julius II. Rome, 1505, 4to; reprinted 1510, 1515, 1519, and 1520; and although more able works have been published on the same subject since, this of Albertini still enjoys its reputation. 2. “Tractatus brevis de laudibus Florentias et Saonse,” written in 1509, and added to the third edition of the preceding. 3. In Italian, “Memoriale di molte Statue, e Picture sono mellinclita Cipta di Florentia per mano di Sculptori, et Pictori excellenti moderni, ed antiqui.” Florence, 1510, 4to.

, called also Albertus Teutonicus, Frater Albertus de Colonia, Albertus Ratisbonensis, and Albertus Grotus, of the family of the counts of Bollstrcdt, was born, according to some, in 1193, and according to others, in 1205, at Lavingen in Suabia. It has been supposed that the epithet of Great, which was certainly conferred upon him by his contemporaries, in whose eyes he appeared a prodigy of learning and genius, was the family name Grsot, but none of the counts of Bollstcedt ever bore such a name. He received his early education at Pavia, where he surpassed all his schoolfellows, and that every circumstance belonging to him might have an air of miracle, it is said that he owed his rapid progress to a vision in which the holy Virgin appeared to him, and promised that he should be one of the greatest luminaries of the church. By the advice of one of his masters, the celebrated dominican Jordanus, he resolved to enter into that order in 1221. After having for some time taught the scholars of the society, he went to Paris, and gave lectures on Aristotle with great applause. As the Aristotelian philosophy had been just before forbidden by a papal bull, some of the biographers of Albertus have questioned his lecturing on the subject at Paris; but the fact is recorded by all the ancient writers on his history, and it is even probable that he was the means of having the bull rescinded as he was permitted publicly to comment on Aristotle’s physics. In 1254, his reputation was such among the Dominicans, that he was raised to the dignity of provincial in Germany. In this character he took up his residence at Cologn, a city at that time preferable to most others for a man so addicted to study, and for which he entertained so strong a predilection, that neither the invitation of pope Alexander IV. to come to Rome, nor his promotion to the bishopric of Ratisbon, in 1260, were inducements sufficient to draw him from Cologn for any considerable time. It was at Cologn probably, that he is said to have constructed an automaton, capable of moving and speaking, which his disciple, the celebrated Thomas Aquinas, broke in pieces, from a notion that it was an agent of the devil. This city is likewise said to have been the site of another of his miracles, that of raising flowers in winter to please William, count of Holland. Such tricks, or such reports of his ingenuity, procured him the reputation of a magician, in an age in which he probably had attained only a superior knowledge of mechanics. What he really did, or how far he was indebted to the arts of deception, in these and other performances, it is difficult to determine; but we know that the most common tricks, which now would only make a company of illiterate villagers stare, were then sufficient to astonish a whole nation.

In 1274, after he had preached the crusades in Germany and Bohemia, by order of the pope, he assisted at a general council held at Lyons, and returned thence to his favourite residence at Cologn, where he died in 1280, leaving a greater number of works than any philosopher before his time had ever written. Peter Jammi, a dominican, collected as many as he could procure, and published them in 1651, Lyons, 21 vols. fol. We have nowhere a complete catalogue of his works. The largest is in the first volume of the “Scriptores ordinis Priedicatorum,” by Quetif and Echard, and extends to twelve folio pages. Many pieces which have been erroneously attributed to him, have no doubt swelled this catalogue, but when these are deducted, enough remains to prove the vast fertility or his pen. In the greater part of his works he is merely a commentator on Aristotle, and a compiler from the Arabian writers, yet he every where introduces original discussions and observations, some of which may yet be thought judicious. He treats on philosophy in all its branches, and although he does not erect a system of his own, a very complete body of the Aristotelian doctrines maybe found in his writings, which of late have been studied and analysed by Brucker, in his “History of Philosophy;” by Buhle in his “Lehrbuch der Gesch. der Philosophic,” vol. V.; and especially by Tiedman, who gives a very luminous and complete analysis of Albert’s system, in his “History of Speculative Philosophy,” vol. V. Albert was a very bad Greek scholar, and read Aristotle, &c. only in the Latin translations, but he was better acquainted with the Arabian writers and rabbis. In divinity, Peter Lombard was his guide and model. His wish was to reconcile the Nominalists with the Realists, but he had not the good fortune to please either. His treatises on speculative science are written in the abstract and subtle manner of the age, but those on natural subjects contain some gems, which would perhaps, even in the present age, repay the trouble of searching for them. It is remarked by Brucker, that the second age of the scholastic philosophy, in which Aristotelian metaphysics, obscured by passing through the Arabian channel, were applied with wonderful subtlety to the elucidation of Christian doctrine, began with Albert and ended with Durand.

, a learned Spanish rabbi, a native of Soria, in Old Castille, assisted in 1412 at a famous dispute on religion between the Christians and Jews, held in the presence of the anti-pope Benedict XIII. He wrote in 1425, under the title of “Sepher Hikkarim,” the foundation of the faith, against the Christian religion, with a view to bring back those whom the above dispute had induced to doubt the Jewish persuasion. Of this work there have been several editions, the first published by Soncino in 1486; and according to Wolfius, it has been translated into Latin. In the more modern editions, the 23th chap, of the 3d book, which is particularly directed against the Christians, has been omitted.

, an eminent Spanish statesman and cardinal, of the fourteenth century, descended from the royal families of Leon and Arragon, was born at Cuen^a, and educated at Toulouse. Alphon­$us XI. appointed him, in succession, almoner of his court, and archdeacon of Calatrava; and lastly, although he was then very young, promoted him to the archbishopric of Toledo. He accompanied the king of Castille in his expedition against the Moors of Andalusia, in which his rank of archbishop did not prevent him from carrying arms; and he first displayed his bravery in saving the king’s life m the hottest onset of the battle of Tarifa. Alphonsus, in return, knighted him, and in 1343 gave him the command at the siege of Algesiras; but on the death of this prince, he lost his influence with his successor, Peter the cruel, whom he reproved for his irregularities, and who would have sacrificed him to the resentment of his mistress Maria de Padilla, if he had not made his escape to Avignon. Here the pope Clement VI. admitted him of his council, and made him a cardinal; on which he resigned his archbishopric, saying, that he should be as much to blame in keeping a wife with whom he could not live, as Peter king of Castille, in forsaking his wife for a mistress. Innocent VI. the successor of Clement, sent him to Italy in 1353, both as pope’s legate and as general, to reconquer the ecclesiastical states which had revolted from the popes during the residence of the latter at Avignon. This commission Albornos executed in the most satisfactory manner, either by force or intrigue; but in the midst of his career, he was recalled in 1357, and another commander sent on the expedition. He, however, having been unfortunate, the pope saw his error, and again appointed Albornos, who completed the work by securing the temporal power of the popes over those parts of Italy which have been, down to the present times, known by the name of the Ecclesiastical States. Having thus achieved his conquest, Albornos, as a minister of state, rendered himself for many years very popular. To Bologna he gave a new constitution, and founded in that city the magnificent Spanish college; and for the other parts of the ecclesiastical dominions, he enacted laws which remained in force for four centuries after. At length he announced to pope Urban V. that he might now enter and reign at Rome without fear, and was receiving him in pomp at Viterbo, when the pope, forgetting for a moment the services Albornos had rendered to the holy see, demanded an account of his expenditure during his legation. Albornos immediately desired him to look into the court-yard of the palace, where was a carriage full of keys, telling him that with the money intrusted to him, he had made the pope master of all the cities and castles of which he now saw the keys. The pope on this embraced and thanked him. He then accompanied Urban to Rome, but returned afterwards to Viterbo, where he died August 24, 1367, regretted by the people, and by the pope; who, finding himself embarrassed with new cares, more than ever wanted his advice. Albornos’s body was removed to Toledo, at his own request, and interred with great pomp. He wrote a book on the constitutions of the Roman church, which was printed at Jesi, in 1475, and is very rare. His will also was printed, with this injunction, characteristic of the man and the age he lived in, that the monks should say 60,000 masses for his soul. His political life was written by Sepulveda, under the title “Historia de hello administrate in Italia per annos 15, et confecto abÆg. Albornotio,” Bologna, 1623, fol.

, a celebrated and learned lawyer, was the son of a rich merchant of Milan, according to Pancirolus, and born in that city in 1492. After having studied the liberal sciences under Janus Parrhasius at Milan, he attended the law-lectures of Jason at Pavia, and those of Charles Ruinus at Bologna. Then taking a degree in law in his twenty-second year, he followed his profession at the bar, in the city of Milan, till he was called to the law-chair by the university of Avignon. He discharged his office with so much capacity, that Francis I. thought he would be a very proper person to promote the knowledge of the law in the university of Bourges, and accordingly prevailed on him to remove thither in 1529; and the next year he doubled his salary, which before was six hundred crowns. Alciati acquired here great fame and reputation; he interspei’sed much polite learning in his explication of the law, and abolished that barbarous language, which had hitherto prevailed in the lectures and writings of the lawyers. Francis Sforza, duke of Milan, thought himself obliged to bring back to his native country a man who could do it so much honour; and this he compassed at last, by giving him a large salary and the dignity of a senator. Alciati accordingly went to teach the law at Pavia, but soon after removed to the university of Bologna, where he continued four years, and then returned to Pavia; from whence he went to Ferrara, being solicited thither by duke Hercules d'Este, who was desirous to render his university famous. It resumed its reputation under a professor so much followed; but at the end of four years Alciati left it, and returned to Pavia. Paul III. gave him an honourable reception as he passed by Ferrara, and offered him ecclesiastical preferment; but Alciati was contented with that of prothonotary, and would not give up his profession of the law. He seems to rejoice that he had refused Paul’s offers, in a letter to Paulus Jovius, whom the pope had a long time amused with fallacious promises: “I am very glad,” says he, “that I did not suffer myself to be deceived by this pope’s offers, who, under the promise of a great recompense, wanted to draw me to Rome.” The emperor created Alciati a count-palatin and a senator; and Philip, afterwards king of Spain, presented him with a golden chain as he passed by Pavia.

, a native of Rome, and a Jesuit of great reputation for learning. Urban VIII. who highly esteemed him, thought him worthy of the rank of cardinal, but he died before that honour was conferred upon him, in 1651, leaving some curious materials for a history of the council of Trent, to which he gave the title of “Historic concilii Tridentini a veritatis hostibus evulgatae elenchus.” His object, which was countenanced by the pope, was to refute or answer father Paul Sarpi’s history of that celebrated council; and his collections were made use of, after his death, in a new history of the same by cardinal Pallavicino.

In 1517, he aspired to the professor’s chair, which his master Marcus Musurus held, but was rejected on account of his youth. In 1521, however, he went from Venice to Florence, where he obtained, by the interest of the cardinal Julius de Medicis, the Greek professorship of that university, and, besides his’ salary, had ten ducats a month from the cardinal de Medicis, to translate Galen “De partibus animalium.” As soon as he understood that this cardinal was created pope, he asked leave of the Florentines to depart; and though he was refused, he went nevertheless to Rome, in great hopes of raising himself there. He lost all his fortune during the troubles the Columnas raised in Rome; and some time after, when the emperor’s troops took the city, in 1527, he received a wound when flying for shelter to the castle of St. Angelo: but got thither, notwithstanding he was pursued by the soldiers, and joined Clement VII. He was afterwards guilty of base ingratitude towards this pope; for, as soon as the siege was raised, he deserted him, and went over to cardinal Pompeius Colutnna, at whose house he fell sick, and died a few months after, in his fortieth year. Alcyonius might have made greater advances in learning, had he not been too much influenced by vanity and self-conceit, which hindered him from taking the advice of his friends. He was likewise too much addicted to detraction and abuse, which raised him many enemies. Menckenius reprinted his treatise “De Exilio,” in 1707, 12mo, Leipsic, with those of Valerianus and Tollius on the misfortunes of men of letters, and other pieces on the same subject, under the title of “Analecta de calamitate Literatorum.” The treatise “De Exilio” was first printed at the Aldine press, 1522, 4to. The only other original works which he left are, his orations on the taking of Rome, and on the knights who died at the siege of Rhodes; which we cannot find to have been published, but which had merit enough to prove him capable of writing the treatise on exile.

, two brothers, natives of Malaga, whose history has not been separated by their biographers. They studied the belles lettres, antiquities, and civil law, with equal ardour and equal reputation. They both became ecclesiastics, and even in their persons there was a very close resemblance. Joseph obtained a prebend of Cordova, which he resigned in favour of Bernard, that he might enter among the Jesuits. He afterwards became rector of the college of Granada. While among the Jesuits, he published a work on the “Exemption of the regular Orders,” Seville, 1605, 4to; and another entitled “De religiosa disciplina tuenda,” ibid. 4to, 1615. Bernard, his brother, was appointed grand vicar by the archbishop of Seville, don Pedro de Castro, but obtained permission to reside at Cordova. He was one of the most learned and high esteemed of the Spanish literati of his time, and eminent for his knowledge of the Greek, Hebrew, and Oriental languages and antiquities. He has left two works, in Spanish: 1. “Origen de la lengua Castellana,” Rome, 1606, 4to; 1682, fol.; to which he acknowledges his brother Joseph contributed liberally. 2. “Varias antiguedades de Espana Africa y otras provincias,” Antwerp, 1614, 4to. He also wrote a letter to pope Urban VIII. on the relics of certain martyrs, Cordova, 1630, fol., and a collection of letters on the sacrament. He had composed a “Boe'tia illustrata,” the loss of which is regretted by the Spanish antiquaries. Joseph was born in 1560, and died in 1616; but the dates of the birth and death of Bernard are not known.

, an English divine, was bishop of Shireburn in the time of the Saxon heptarchy, and in the eighth century. William of Malmesbury says that he was the son of Kenred, or Kenter, brother of Ina king of the West-Saxons. He was born at Caer Bladon, now Malmesbury, in Wiltshire. He had part of his education abroad in France and Italy, and part at home under Maildulphus, an Irish Scot, who had built a little monastery where Malmesbury now stands. Upon the death of Maildulphus, Aldhelm, by the help of Eleutherius bishop of Winchester, built a stately monastery there, and was himself the first abbot. When Hedda, bishop of the WestSaxons, died, the kingdom was divided into two dioceses; viz. Winchester and Shireburn, and king Ina promoted Aldhelm to the latter, comprehending Dorsetshire, Wiltshire, Devonshire, and Cornwall: he was consecrated at Rome by pope Sergius I. and Godwin tells us that he had the courage to reprove his holiness for having a bastard. Aldhelm, by the directions of a diocesan synod, wrote a book against the mistake of the Britons concerning the celebration of Easter, which brought over many of them to the catholic usage in that point. He likewise wrote a piece, partly in prose and partly in nexameter verse, in praise of virginity, dedicated to Ethelburga abbess of Barking, and published amongst Bede’s Opuscula, besides several other treatises, which are mentioned by Bale and William of Malmesbury, the latter of whom gives him the following character as a writer: “The language of the Greeks,” says he, “is close and concise, that of the Romans splendid, and that of the English pompous and swelling as for Aldhelm, he is moderate in his style; seldom makes use of foreign terms, and never without necessity; his catholic meaning is clothed with eloquence, and his most vehement assertions adorned with the colours of rhetoric: if you read him with attention, you would take him for a Grecian by his acuteness, a Roman by his elegance, and an Englishman by the pomp of his language.” He is said to have been the first Englishman who ever wrote in Latin; and, as he himself tells us in one of his treatises on metre, the first who introduced poetry into England “These things,” says he, “have I written concerning the kinds and measures of verse, collected with much labour, but whether useful I know not; though I am conscious to myself I have a right to boast as Virgil did:

, abbot of Tavistock, was promoted to the bishopric of Worcester in 1046. He was so much in favour with king Edward the Confessor, and had so much power over his mind, that he obliged him to be reconciled with the worst of his enemies, particularly with Swane, son of the earl Godwin, who had revolted against him, and came with an army to invade the kingdom. Aldred also restored the union and friendship between king Edward and Griffith king of Wales. He took afterwards a journey to Rome; and being returned into England in the year 1054, he was sent ambassador to the emperor Henry It staid a whole year in Germany, and was very honourably entertained by Herman archbishop of Cologn, from whom he learned many things relative to ecclesiastical discipline, which on his return he established in his own diocese. In 10.58, he went to Jerusalem, which no archbishop or bishop of England had ever done before him. Two years after, he returned to England; and Kinsius, archbishop York, dying the 22d of December, 1060, Aldred was elected in his stead on Christmas day following, and thought fit to keep his bishopric of Worcester with the archbishopric of Canterbury, as some of his predecessors had done. Aldred went soon after to Rome, in order to receive the pallium from the pope; he was attenc.ed by Toston, earl of Northumberland, Giso, bishop of Wells and Walter, bishop of Hereford. The pope received Joston very honourably, and made him sit by him in the synod which he held against the Simonists. He wanted to Giso and Walter their request, because they were tolerably well learned, and not accused of simony. But Aldred being by his answers found ignorant, and guilty of simony, the pope deprived him very indignantly of all his honours; so that he was obliged to return without the pallium. On his way home, he and his fellow-travellers were attacked by some robbers, who took from them all that they had. This obliged them to return to Rome; and the pope, either out of compassion, or by the threatenings of the earl of Northumberland, gave Aldred the pallium; but he was obliged to resign his bishopric of Worcester. However, as the archbishop of York had been almost entirely ruined by the many invasions of foreigners, king Edward gave the new archbishop leave to keep twelve villages or manors which belonged to the bishopric of Worcester. Edward the Confessor dying in 1066, Aldred crowned Harold his successor. He also crowned William the Conqueror, after he had made him take the following oath, viz That he would protect the holy church of God and its eaders: that he would establish and observe righteous that he would entirely prohibit and suppress all rapines and unjust judgments. He was so much in favour with the conqueror, that this prince looked upon him as a father; and, though imperious in regard to everybody else, he yet submitted to obey this archbishop; John Brompton gives us an instance of the king’s submission, which at the same time shews the prelate’s haughtiness. It happened one day, as the archbishop was at York, that the deputy-governor or lord-lieutenant going out of the city with a great number of people, met the archbishop’s servants, who came to town with several carts and horses loaded with provisions. The governor asked to whom they belonged; and they having answered they were Aldred’s servants, the governor ordered that all these provisions should be carried to the king’s store-house. The archbishop sent immediately some of his clergy to the governor, commanding him to deliver the provisions, and to make satisfaction to St. Peter, and to him the saint’s vicar, for the injury he had done them; adding, that if he refused to comply, the archbishop would make use of his apostolic authority against him (intimating that he would excommunicate him.) The governor, offended at this proud message, insulted the persons whom the archbishop had sent, and returned an answer as haughty as the message. Aldred fhen went to London to make his complaint to the king; but even here he acted with his wonted insolence; for meeting the king in the church of St. Peter at Westminster, he spoke to him in these words “Hearken, Q William when thou wast but a foreigner, and God, tQ punish the sins of this nation, permitted thee to become master of it, after having shed a great deal of blood, I consecrated thee, and put the crown upon thy head with blessings; but now, because thou hast deserved it, I pronounce a curse over thee, instead of a blessing, since thou art become the persecutor of God’s church, and of his ministers, and hast broken the promises and oaths which thou madestto me before St. Peter’s altar.” The king, terrified at this discourse, fell upon his knees, and humbly begged the prelate to tell him, by what crime he had deserved so severe a sentence. The noblemen, who were present, were enraged against the archbishop, and loudly cried out, he deserved death, or at least banishment, for having offered such an insult to his sovereign; and they pressed him with threatenings to raise the king from the ground. But the prelate, unmoved at all 'this, answered calmly, “Good men, let him lie there, for he is not at Aldred’s but at St. Peter’s feet; let him feel St. Peter’s power, since he dared to injure his vicegerent.” Having thus reproved the nobles by his episcopal authority, he vouchsafed to take the king by the hand, and to tell him the ground of his complaint. The king humbly excused himself, by saying he had been ignorant of the whole matter; and oegged of the noblemen to entreat the prelate, that he might take off the curse he had pronounced, and change it into a blessing. Aldred was at last prevailed upon to favour the king thus far; but not without the promise of several presents and favours, and only after the king had granted him to take such a revenge on the governor as he thought fit. Since that time (adds the historian) none of the noblemen ever dared to offer the least injury. The Danes having made an invasion in the north of England in 1068, under the command of Harold and Canute the sons of king Swane, Aldred was so much afflicted at it, that he died of grief on the llth of September in that same year, having besought God that he might not see the desolation of his church and country.

, a Roman cardinal, and one of the most determined enemies to the reformation, was the son of Francis Aleander, a physician at Motta in the duchy of Concordia, and descended from the ancient counts of Laodno. He was born in 1480, and at thirteen years of age went to Venice for education, which was interrupted by a dangerous illness; but on his recovery, he went for some time to the academy at Pordenoue, and afterwards again to Venice. Returning to his native place, Motta, he had the courage to attack and prove the ignorance of the public teacher of that place, and was elected in his room. Such was his growing reputation afterwards, both at Venice and Padua, that Alexander VI. determined to invite him to Rome, and appoint him secretary to his son Caesar Borgia, butanother illness obliged Aleander to return to Venice, after he had set out; and the pope dying soon afterwards, he returned to his studies, and in his twenty-fourth year was reputed one of the most learned men of his age. He knew Latin, Greek, and some of the oriental languages intimately. About this time Aldus Manutius dedicated to him Homer’s Iliad, as to a man whose acquirements were superior to those of any person with whom he was acquainted. At Venice, Aleander formed an intimacy with Erasmus, and assisted him in the new edition of his Adagia, which was printed at the Aldine press in 1508, and is the most correct. Erasmus for some time kept up this intimacy, but took a different part in the progress of the reformation; and although he speaks respectt'uJly of Aleander’s learning, frequently alludes to his want of veracity and principle, accusations of which Luther has borne the blame almost exclusively in all the popish accounts of ALeander.

In the above year Aleander was invited by Louis XI L king of France, to a professor’s chair in the university of Paris, notwithstanding the statutes which excluded foreign­$rs from that honour; but, after residing there some years, he was alarmed by the appearance of the plague, and went into the country of France, and gave lectures on the Greek language at Orleans, Blois, and other places. At length be took up his residence at Liege, was preferred to a canonry of the cathedral, and to the chancellorship of the diocese, and here also he gave his lectures on the Greek tongue, for two years, with distinguished success. In 1517, the prince bishop sent him to Rome, where he soon recommended himself to Leo X. who requested the princebishop that Aleander might he permitted to quit his service, and enter into that of the Roman church. The bishop, who was then anxious to be made a cardinal, and hoped that Aleander might promote that favourite object, readily consented: and Aleander was first appointed secretary to Julio de Medici, an office at that time of the highest trust; and in 1519, was made librarian of the Vatican. In 1521, he was sent as nuncio to the imperial diet at Worms, where he harangued against the doctrines of Luther for three hours, and with great success, as Luther was not present to answer him; but afterwards, when Luther was permitted to speak, Aleander refused to dispute with him; and yet, with the tyranny and cowardice of a genuine persecutor, obtained an order that his books should be burnt, and his person proscribed, and himself drew up the edict against him. On this occasion, his conduct drew upon him the just censure, not only of the decided reformers, but of his friend Erasmus, who condemned the violence of his zeal with great asperity. He did not, however, become the less acceptable to the church of Rome. After pope Leo’s death, Clement VII. gave him the archbishopric of Brindisi and Oria, and he was appointed apostolic nuncio to Francis I. whom he attended at the battle of Pavia in 1525, where he was made prisoner along with the king by the Spaniards. After his release, he was employed in several embassies, and in 1538, he was promoted to the rank of cardinal by Paul III. and was intended to be president at the council of Trent; but his death, which took place Feb. 1, 1542, prevented this important appointment. His death is said to have been accelerated by a too frequent use of medicine. His library, a very considerable one, he bequeathed to the monastery of S. Maria del Orto in Venice; and it was afterwards transferred to the canons of S. Georgio, and from them to the library of S. Marco at Venice.

, a Flemish Jesuit, born at Brussels the 22d of January 1592, was trained in polite literature in his own country. He went afterwards to Spain, and entered into the service of the duke of Ossuna, whom he attended to Sicily, when the duke went there as viceroy. Alegambe, being inclined to a religious life, took the habit of a Jesuit at Palermo, the 7th of September 1613, where he went through his probation, and read his course of philosophy. He pursued the study of divinity at Rome, whence he was sent to Austria, to teach philosophy in the university of Gratz. Havhig discharged th duties of this function to the satisfaction of his superiors, he was chosen professor of school-divinity, and promoted in form to the doctorship in 1629. About this time the prince of Eggemberg, who was in high favour with the emperor Ferdinand II. having resolved that his son should travel, and being desirous he should be attended by some learned and prudent Jesuit, Alegambe was judged a proper person; and he accordingly travelled with him five years, visiting Germany, France, Spain, Portugal, and Italy. In 1638, the young prince with whom he travelled, being appointed by the emperor Ferdinand III. ambassador of obedience to the pope, invited Alegambe to go with him, who accordingly accompanied him to Rome, in quality of his confessor. After he had discharged this office, the general of the Jesuits retained him as secretary of the Latin dispatches for Germany. Alegambe, having spent four years in the discharge of this laborious office, was obliged to resign it, the continual application to writing having considerably weakened his sight. He was now appointed president of spiritual affairs in the professed house, and had the office also of hearing confessions in the church, in which capacity he acquitted himself with reputation. He died of the dropsy, at Rome, the 6th of September 1652. He is now principally known by hi 1. “Bibliotheca scriptorum societatis Jesu,” Antwerpise, 1643, fol. 2. “Vita P. Joannis Cardin. Lusitani, ex societate Jesu,” Romae, 1649, 12mo. 3. “Heroes et victims charitatis societatis Jesu,” Romse, 1658, 4to; continued by Nadasi from 1647 to 1657. These “victims” were such as lost their lives in attending persons who died of the plague. 4. “Mortes illustres et gesta eorum de societate Jesu, qui in odium fidei ab hsreticis vel aliis occisi sunt,” Romse, 1657, fol.

, an antiquary of great learning, was born of Greek parents, Jan. 12, 1583, and educated in the Greek college founded by pope Gregory XIII. where he made a vast progress in learning, and was no less esteemed for the integrity of his morals. He afterwards entered into holy orders. He probably at first intended to settle in Greece, and applied to a.' Greek bishop, who ordained him a sub-deacon; but he afterwards changed his mind, and received the other sacred orders from the hands of the bishops of the Romish church. Erythneus, in his “Pinacotheca,” although a zealous Roman Catholic, insinuates, that in this change Alemanni was influenced by the prospect of interest. His fortune, however, being still inconsiderable, he employed himself in teaching the Greek language to several persons of distinguished rank, and gained the friendship of Scipio Cobellutius, who was at that time secretary of the briefs to pope Paul V. This paved the way for his obtaining the post of secretary to cardinal Borghese, which, however, he did not fill to the entire satisfaction of his employer, from his being more intimately conversant in Greek than Latin, and mixing Greek words in his letters. He was afterwards made keeper of the Vatican library, for which he was considered as amply qualified. He died July 24, 1626. His death is said to have been occasioned by too close an attendance on the erection of the great altar of the church of St. Peter at Rome. It was necessary for him to watch that no person should carry away any part of the earth dug up, which had been sprinkled with the blood of the martyrs, and in his care he contracted some distemper, arising from the vapours, which soon ended his days. He published “Procopii Historic Arcana, Gr. et Lat. Nic. Alernanno interprete, cum ejus et Maltreti notis,” Paris, 1663, fol. and a “Description of St. John de Lateran,” 1665.

, an Italian architect, who died in 1630, was born of parents so poor that in his youth he was obliged to carry bricks and mortar to the workmen; but having a natural turn for architecture, by hearing others talk, he learned all the rules of it, as well as those of geometry; and was even able to publish works in those sciences. He took great part in those famous controversies that arose concerning the three provinces, Ferrara, Bologna, and the Romagna, which were much exposed to inundations in the commencement of the seventeenth century, and published a plan for stopping their progress. Pope Clement VII. employed him to build the citadel of Ferrara, and at Mantua, Modena, Parma, and Venice, are several monuments after his designs. The only work we have seen of his on the subject of the inundations is entitled “Difesa per riparare alia sommersione del Polesine,” Ferrara, 1601, fol.

, bishop of Alexandria, succeeded St. Achillas in the year 313. Arius, who had pretensions to this see, resented the preference given to Alexander by attacking his opinions, which were strictly orthodox, and substituting his own, which were at that time new: The bishop at first opposed him only by mild exhortations and persuasions; but, being unable to prevail, he cited him before an assembly or synod of the clergy at Alexandria, and on his refusing to recant his errors, excommunicated him and his followers. This sentence was confirmed by above an hundred bishops in the council of Alexandria, in the year 320; and Alexander signified the same by a circular letter to pope Sylvester, and all the catholic bishops; and his conduct was approved by Osius., who had been employed by the emperor Constantine to inquire into the matter. Alexander afterwards assisted at the council of Nice, to which he was accompanied by St. Athanasius, then only a deacon, and died Feb. 26, 326, appointing Athanasius for his successor. Of his numerous epistles, written against the Arian heresy, two only remain; one, the circular letter already mentioned, in Socrates, lib. I.e. 6; and in Gelasius Cyzicus’ history of the council of Nice, lib. 2. c. 3. The other, addressed to Alexander of Byzantium, is in Theodoret, lib. I. c. 4. In the Bibl. Vindob. Cod. Theol. is a very short letter of his to the presbyters and deacons of Alexandria; this is also in Cotelerius: and he wrote an epistle against the Arians, of which are two fragments in S. Maximus Opus. Theol. et Polem. vol. II. 152, 155.

, bishop of Lincoln in the reigns of Henry I. and Stephen, was a Norman by birth, and nephew of the famous Roger, bishop of Salisbury, who first made him archdeacon of Salisbury, and afterwards, by his interest with the king, raised him to the mitre. Alexander was consecrated at Canterbury July 22, 1123. Having received his education under his uncle the bishop of Salisbury, and been accustomed to a splendid way of living, he affected show and state more than was suitable to his character, or consistent with his fortunes; but, tbis failing excepted, he was a man of worth and honour, and every way qualified for his station. The year after his consecration, his cathedral church at Lincoln having been accidentally burnt down, he rebuilt it, and secured it against the like accident for the future by 'a stone roof. He also increased the number of prebends in his church, and augmented its revenues with several manors and estates. In imitation of the barons and some of the bishops, particularly his uncle the bishop of Salisbury, he built three castles; one at Banbury, another at Sleaford, and a third at Newark. He likewise founded two monasteries; one at Haverholm, for regular canons and nuns together, the other at Tame, for White-friars. He went twice to Rome in the years 1142 and 1144. The first time, he came back in quality of the pope’s legate, for the calling a synod, in which he published several wholesome and necessary canons. In August 1147 he took a third journey to the pope, who was then in France; where he fell sick through the excessive heat of the weather, and returning with great difficulty to England, he died in the 24th year of his prelacy.

, a learned ecclesiastical writer of the 17th century, born at Roan in Normandy, Jan. 19, 1639. After finishing his studies at Roan, he entered into the order of Dominican friars, and was professed there in 1655. Soon after he went to Paris, to go through a course of philosophy and divinity in the great convent, where he so distinguished himself, that he was appointed to teach philosophy there, which he did for twelve years. This however did not so much engage his attention as to make him neglect preaching, which is the chief business of the order he professed. His sermons were elegant and solid: but as he had not that ease and fluency of speech requisite in a preacher, he soon forsook the pulpit; and his superiors being of opinion that he should apply himself wholly to the study of the scriptures and ecclesiastical history, he followed their advice, and was created a doctor of the Sorbonne in 1675. Mr. Colbert shewed him many marks of his esteem; and being determined to omit nothing to complete the education of his son, afterwards archbishop of Roan, he formed an assembly of the most learned persons, whose conferences upon, ecclesiastical history might be of advantage to him. Father Alexander was invited to this assembly, where he exerted himself with so much genius and ability, that he gained the particular friendship of young Colbert, who shewed him the utmost regard as long as he lived. These conferences gave rise to Alexander’s design of writing an ecclesiastical history; for, being desired to reduce what was material in these conferences to writing, he did it with so much accuracy, that the learned men who composed this assembly advised him to undertake a complete body of church-history. This he executed with great assiduity, collecting and digesting the materials himself, and writing even the tables with his own hand. His first work is that wherein he endeavours to prove, against Ai. de Launoi, that St. Thomas Aquinas is the real author of the Sum, ascribed to him: it was printed in Paris 1675, in 8vo. The year following he published the first volume of a large work in Latin, upon the principal points of ecclesiastical history: this contains 26 volumes in 8vo. The first volume treats of the history of the first ages of the church, and relates the persecutions which it suffered, the succession of popes, the heresies which arose, the councils which condemned them, the writers in favour of Christianity, and the kings and emperors who reigned during the first century: to this are subjoined dissertations upon such points as have been the occasion of dispute in history, chronology, criticism, or doctrine. The history of the second century, with some dissertations, was published in two volumes in the year 1677. The third century came out in 1678; in this he treats largely of public penance, and examines into the origin and progress of the famous dispute between pope Stephen and St. Cyprian, concerning the rebaptizing of those who had been baptized by heretics; and he has added three dissertations, wherein he has collected what relates to the life, manners, errors, and Defenders of St. Cyprian. The history of the fourth century is so very extensive, that Alexander has found matter for three volumes and forty-five dissertations; they were printed at Paris in 1679. In the three following years he published his history of the fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth centuries; and that of the eleventh and twelfth centuries in 1683; in these volumes are several Dissertations against Mr. Daille; and in some of them he treats of the disputes between the princes and popes in. such a manner, that a decree from Rome was issued out Against his writings in 1684. However, he published the same year the history of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, in which he continued to defend the rights of kings against the pretensions of that court. He at last completed his work in 1686, by publishing four volumes, which contained the history of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. Jn 1689 he published a work, in the same method, upon the Old Testament, in six volumes 8vo. In 1678 he published three dissertations: the first concerning the superiority of bishops over presbyters, against Blondel; the second concerning the celibacy of the clergy, and reconciling the history of Paphnutius with the canon of the council of Nice; and the third concerning the Vulgate. The same year he printed a dissertation concerning sacramental confession, against Mr. Daille“, in 8vo. In 1682 he wrote an apology for his dissertation upon the Vulgate, against Claudius Frassen. He published likewise about this time, or some time before, three dissertations in defence of St. Thomas Aquinas; the first against Henschenius and Papebroch, to shew that the office of the holy sacrament was written by him; the second was in form of a dialogue between a Dominican and a Franciscan, to con fute the common opinion that Alexander of Hales was St. Thomas Aquinas’s master: and that the latter borrowed his” Secunda Secundse“from the former: the third is a panegyric upon Aquinas. In 1693 he published his” Theologia dogmatica,“in five books, or” Positive and Moral Divinity, according to the order of the catechism of the council of Trent.“This Latin work, consisting of ten octavo volumes, was printed at Paris and at Venice in 1698; in 1701 he added another volume; and they were all printed together at Paris, in two volumes folio, in 1703, with a collection of Latin letters, which had been printed separately. In 1703 he published tf A commentary upon the four Gospels,” in folio; and in 1710, he published another at Roan, upon St. Paul’s and the seven canonical epistles. He wrote also a commentary upon the prophets Jsaiah, Jeremiah, and Baruch, which was never printed. The following works are also enumerated by his biographers. 1. “Statuta facultatis artium Thomistiæe collegio Parisiensi fratrum prsedicatorum instituta,” Paris, 1683, 12mo. 2. “Institutio concionatorum tripartita, seu praecepta et regula ad praedicatores informandos, cum ideis seu rudimentis concionum per totum annum.” 3. “Abre‘ge’ de la foy et de la morale de l‘eglise, tiree de l’ecriture sainte,” Paris, 1676, 12rno. 4. “Eclaircissement des prétendues difficultés proposeés a mons. l'archevêque de Rouen, sur plusieurs points importans de la morale de Jesus Christ,” 1697, 12mo. 5. “A Letter to a Doctor of Sorbonne, upon the dispute concerning Probability, and the Errors of a Thesis in Divinity maintained by the Jesuits in their college at Lyons, the 26th of August,” printed at Mons, 1697, 12mo. 6. “A second letter upon the same subject,” 1697, 12mo. 7. “An apology for the Dominican Missionaries in China, or an Answer to a book of father Tellier the Jesuit, entitled a Defence of the new Christians; and to an Explanation published by father Gobien, of the same society, concerning the honours which the Chinese pay to Confucius and to the dead,” printed at Cologn, 1699, 12mo. 8. “Documenta controversiarum missionariorum apostolicorum imperii Sinici de cultu praejiertim Confueii philosophi et progenitoruin defunctorum spectantia, ac apologiam Dominica norum missiones Sinicae ministrorum adversus Hr. Pp. le Tellier et le Gobien societatis Jesu confirmantia.” 9. “A Treatise on the conformity between the Chinese ceremonies and the Greek and Roman idolatry, in order to confirm the apology of the Dominican Missionaries in China,” 1700, 12 mo. Translated into Italian, and printed at Cologn, 8vo. He wrote likewise seven letters to the Jesuits Le Comte and Dez, upon the same subject. In 1706 he was made a provincial for the province ofParis. Towards the latter part of his life, he was afflicted with the loss of his sight, a most inexpressible misfortune to one whose whole pleasure was in study; yet he bore it with great patience and resignation. He died at Paris, merely of a decay of nature, August 21, 1724, in the 86th year of his age. His piety, humility, and disinterestedness rendered him the object of general esteem; and he was honoured with thfe friendship of the most learned prelates of France. His opinion was always considered as of great weight upon the most important subjects which were debated in the Sorbonne. He was likewise highly valued at Rome: the learned cardinals N orris and Aguirre distinguished him upon several occasions.

, the youngest son of Æthelwolf king of the West Saxons, was born in the year 849, at Wannating, or Wanading, which is supposed to be Wantage in Berkshire. Æthelwolf, having a great regard for religion, and being extremely devoted to the see of Rome, sent Alfred to that city at five years of age; where pope Leo IV. adopted and anointed him, as some think, with a regal unction, though others are of opinion he was only confirmed. Soon after his return, his father, being in the decline of life, and going to visit the holy see, took his favourite son with him; where he had an opportunity of seeing and hearing many things, which made snch strong impressions on him, as remained during his whole life, Æthelwolf had five sons, and a daughter; of whom Æthelstan, the eldest, was king of Kent in his father’s life-time, and died before him. Æthelbald, the second son, raised a rebellion against his father, when he returned from Rome; who, to avoid any effusion of blood, consented to divide his dominions with him. Æthelwolf did not long survive this; but, before his death, he, by a full and distinct testamerit, endeavoured to settle all the claims of his children. By this will Æthelbalcl and Æthelbert had his kingdoms divided betwixt them; and he left his private estate, with all the money in his coffers, to his younger sons Æthelred and Alfred. Æthelwolf died in the year 858, and was succeeded by Æthelbald, who reigned but two years and a half. On his demise JLthelbert seized the crown, which he held for five years, and died in the year 866. He was succeeded by his brother Æthelred; who, while he was a private man, had solemnly promised Alfred to do him that justice which had been denied by the two former kings, by giving him what his father had bequeathed him. On his accession Alfred demanded a performance of his promise; but the king excused himself on account of the troublesome times, and assured him that at his death he would leave him all. Alfred having given proofs of his courage in the former king’s reign, Æthelred would never part with him, but employed him as his first minister and general of his armies.

, a sculptor and architect of Bologna, was the disciple of Louis Carrache, and the friend of Dominic, who brought him to Rome, where he died in 1654. In the church of St. Peter of the Vatican is a bas-relief of his representing St. Leon before Attila, in great estimation by connoisseurs: and at Bologna is an admirable groupe of his, the beheading of St. Paul. His other works are, the statue of St. Philippa de Neri; all the fountains and decorations of the villa Pamphili, the faade of the church of St. Ignatius, and the great altar of the church of St. Nicholas Tolentine, which is a chefd'ceuvre. Algardi revived sculpture from the neglect into which it had fallen previously to his time, and became the founder of a school of eminent artists, who owe their high reputation to following his steps. Pope Innocent XI. gave him six thousand Roman crowns for the bas-relief of St. Leon, and presented him with a gold chain which he ordered him to wear all his life. His epitaph in the church of St. John and Petrona, very justly remaiks, that his works wanted nothing but age to place them on a footing with the most perfect specimens of antiquity. Milizia bestows high praise on Algardi in his “Memorie de gli architetti,” Bassan. 1785. His private character appears to have been Tery excellent.

Algarottihad also studied the fine arts, and produced many excellent specimens of painting and engraving. In particular he designed and engraved several plates of heads in groupes, one of which, containing thirteen in the antique style, is dated Feb. 15, 1744. He travelled likewise over Italy, with a painter and draftsman in his suite; and what he has published on the arts discovers extensive knowledge and taste. Frederick II. who had become acquainted with his talents when prince-royal, no sooner mounted the throne, than he invited him to Berlin. Algarotti was then in London, and, complying with his majesty’s wish, remained at Berlin many years. Frederick conferred on him the title of count of the kingdom of Prussia, with reversion to his brother and descendants. He made him also his chamberlain, and knight of the order of Merit, bestowing on him at the same time many valuable presents, and other marks of his esteem; and after Algarotti left Berlin, the king corresponded with him for twenty-five years. The king of Poland, Augustus III. also had him for some time at his court, and gave him the title of privy-­counselloir of war. Nor was he held in less esteem by the sovereigns of Italy, particularly pope Benedict XIV. the duke of Savoy, and the duke of Parma. The excellence of his character, the purity of his morals, his elegant manners, and the eclat which surrounds a rich amateur of the arts, contributed to his celebrity perhaps as much as the superiority of his talents, and his acknowledged taste. Wherever he travelled he was respected equally by the rich, and the learned, by men of letters, by artists, and by men of the world. The climate of Germany having sensibly injured his health, he returned first to Venice, and afterwards to Bologna, where he had determined to reside, but his disorder, a consumption of the lungs, gained ground rapidly, and put an end to his life, at Pisa, March 3, 1764. He is said to have met death with composure, or, as his biographer terms it, with philosophical resignation. In his latter days he passed his mornings with Maurino (the artist who used to accompany him in his travels), engaged in the study of painting, architecture, and the fine arts. After dinner he had his works read to him, then printing at Leghorn, and revised and corrected the sheets: in the evening he had a musical party. The epitaph he wrote for himself is taken from Horace’s non omnis moriar, and contains only the few words, “Hicjacet Fr. Algarottus non omnis” The king of Prussia was at the expense of a magnificent monument in the Campo Santo of Pisa; on which, in addition to the inscription which Algarotti wrote, he ordered the following, “Algarotto Ovidii emulo, Newtoni discipulo, Fredericus rex,” and Algarotti’s heirs added only “Fredericus Magnus.” The works of Algarotti were published at Leghorn, 1765, 4 vols. 8vo; at Berlin, 1772, 8 vols. 8vo; and at Venice, 17 vols. 8vo, 1791--1794. This last, the most complete and correct edition, is ornamented with vignettes, the greater part of which were taken from the author’s designs. These volumes contain 1. Memoirs of his life and writings, and his poetry. 2. An analysis of the Newtonian system. 3. Pieces on architecture, painting, the opera, essays on vario is languages, on history, philology, on Des Cartes, Horace, &c. 4 and 5. Essays on the military art, and on the writers on that subject. 6. His travels in Russia, preceded by an Essay on the metals of that empire: the congress of Cytherea, the life of Pallavicini, the Italian poet; and a humorous piece against the abuse of learning. 7. Thoughts on different subjects of philosophy and philology. 8. Letters on painting and architecture. 9 and 10. Letters on the sciences. 11 to 16. His correspondence, not before published, with the literati of Italy, England, and France. 17. An unfinished critical essay on the triumvirate of Crassus, Pompey, and Gassar. Among his correspondents we find the names of the Italians, Manfredi and Zanotti, his first masters, Fabri of Bologna, Metastasio, Frugoni, Bettinelli, Frisi the celebrated mathematician and physician, Mazzuchelli, Paradisi, &c.; the Prussians, Frederic II. several princes of the same family, and Form ey, &c.; the English, lords Chesterfield and Hervey, Mr. Hollis, lady Montague, &c.; jand the French, Voltaire, Maupercuis, du Chastellet, mad. du Boccage,; &c. His Essays on painting, on the opera, his Letters to lord Hervey and the marquis Maffei, and his Letters, military and political, have been translated and published in English. His biographers have generally handed down his character without a blemish; aiui Fabroni, on whom ive mostly rely, is equally lavish in his praises. Wiule we take his personal merits from these authorities, we have evident proof from his works that he was an universal scholar, and wrote with facility and originality on every subject he took in hand. They present a greater variety of reading and thought than almost any scholar of the eighteenth century; but they are not without redundancy, and sometimes affectation. His fame is said to be fixed on a more solid basis in his own country, than in those where he has been viewed only througn the medium of translations.

, a very celebrated lithotomist, of Florence, was born Sept. 17, 1669, and died Sept. 24, 1713, of an accident while shooting, his piece having burst, which carried off his left hand. He applied himself chiefly to operations for the stone, which he frequently performed with great success, particularly in the case of one of his patients, pope Clement XI. He published “Lithotomia, overo del cavar la Pietra,” Firenza, 1707, fol. This discovers a great knowledge of the art he professed, and the cures recorded are undeniable proofs of his ability. His opinion, in this work, is that the stone is seldom or never formed in the bladder, but that it falls into it from the kidneys, or some neighbouring part, and that it grows there by several incrustations.

, a French writer of considerable spirit, was born at Dole in 1600, appointed abbe of St. Paul at Besancon in 1632, and afterwards canon of the church of St. John in the same place. He defended the rights of his chapter, in the election of archbishops, with much firmness, against pope Alexander VII. and published several pieces on that subject about the year 1672. His “Dialogue entre Porte Noire et la Pillori,” a facetious composition, was censured by father Dominic Vernerey, inquisitor of Besancon; and this produced an answer from Alix, entitled “Eponge pour effacer la censure du P. Dom. Vernerey.” This, as well as Alix’s other works, is very scarce. Le Long, in his historical library of France, attributes to him the “History of the abb ay of St. Paul,” but it is doubted whether his talents lay in that direction. He had, however, studied mathematics, and left some manuscripts on that subject, which have been lost. He died July 6, 1676.

, keeper of the Vatican library, and a celebrated popish writer of the 17th century, was born in the isle of Chios, of Greek parents, 1586. At nine years of age he was removed from his native country to Calabria; bat some time after sent to Rome, and admitted into the Greek college, where he applied himself to the study of polite learning, philosophy, and divinity, and embraced the Roman Catholic religion. From thence he went to Naples, and was chosen great vicar to Bernard Justiniani, bishop of Anglona. From Naples he returned to his own country, but went soon from thence to Rome, where he studied physic under Julius Caesar Lagalla, and took a degree in that profession. He afterwards made the belles lettres his object, and taught in the Greek college at Rome. Pope Gregory XV. sent him to Germany, in 1622, in order to get the elector Palatine’s library removed to Rome; but hy the death of Gregory, he lost the reward he might have expected for his trouble in that affair. He lived some time after with cardinal Bichi, and then with cardinal Francis Barberini; and was at last, by pope Alexander VII. appointed keeper of the Vatican library. Allatius was of great service to the gentlemen of Port Royal in the controversy they had with Mr. Claude, concerning the belief of the Greeks on the subject of die Eucharist: Mr. Claude often calls him Mr. Arnaud’s great author, and gives him a character, by no means favourable, although in general very just. “Allatius,” says he, “was a Greek, who had renounced his own religion to embrace that of Rome; a Greek whom the pope had chosen his librarian: a man the most devoted to the interests of the court of Rome; a man extremely outrageous in his disposition. He shews his attachment to the court of Rome in the very beginning of his book `De perpetua consensione,‘ where he writes in favour of the pope thus: `The Roman pontiff,’ says he, `is quite independent, judges the world without being liable to be judged; we are bound to obey his commands, even when he governs unjustly; he gives laws without receiving any; he changes them as he thinks fit; appoints magistrates; decides all questions as to matters of faith, and orders all affairs of importance in the church as seems to him good. He cannot err, being out of the power of all heresy and illusion; and as he is armed with the authority of Christ, not even an angel from heaven could make him alter his opinion'.” No Latin ever shewed himself more incensed against the Greek schismatics than Allatius, or more devoted to the see of Rome. One singularity in his character is, that he never engaged in matrimony, nor was he ever in orders; and pope Alexander having asked him one day, why he did not enter into orders? “Because,” answered he, “I would be free to marry.” “But if so,” replied the pope, “why don't you marry ?” “Because I would be at liberty,” answered Allatius, “to take orders.” If we may believe Joannes Patricius, Allatius had a very extraordinary pen, with which, and no other, he wrote Greek for 40 years; and we need not be surprised that when he lost it he was so grieved that he shed tears. He wrote so fast that he copied, in one night, the “Diarium Romanorum Pontiftcium,” which a Cistertian monk had lent to him. Niceron gives him the character of a man laborious and indefatigable, of a vast memory, and acquainted with every kind of learning; but adds, that in his writings there is a display of more reading than judgment, and, that biographer might have added, than of candour or urbanity of style, at least in his controversial pieces. He died Jan. 1669, aged eighty-three, after founding several colleges or schools in the island of Chios, his native place. His principal works were, 1. “De Ecclesiæ Occidentalis et Orientalis perpetua consensione,” Cologn, 1648, 4to; which is regarded by the most impartial writers among the Protestants, as the production of a disingenuous and insidious mind. His object is, to prove that Latin and Greek churches always concurred in the same faith; and the Catholics look upon this as his ablest performance. 2. “De utriusque ecclesiæ, &c. in dogmate de purgatorio eonsensione,” Rome, 1655, 8vo. 3. “De libris ecclesiasticis Graecorum,” Paris, 1645, 8vo. 4. “De Templis Grsecorumrecentioribus,” Cologn, 1645, 8vo. 5. “Græcioe orthodoxae scriptores,” Rome, 1652 and 1657, 2 vols. 4 to. 6. “Philo Byzantinus de septem orbis spectaculis, Gr. et Lat. cum notis,” Rome, 1640, 8vo. 7. “Eustathius Antiochenus in hexameron, et de Engastrimytho,” Lyons, 1629, 4to. 8. “Symmichta, et Symmiha, sive opusculorum Græcorum ac Latinorum vetustiorum ac recentiorum libri duo,” Cologn, 1653, fol. 9. “De Mensura temporum antiquorum et proecipue Græcorupi,” Cologn, 1645, 8vo. 10. “Apes Urbanæ,” Rome, 1633, 8vo, a title borrowed from the Bees in pope Urban VIII.'s arms; the book gives an account of all the learned men who flourished at Rome from 1630 to the end of 1632, with a catalogue of their works. Fabricius printed an edition of it at Hamburgh, 1711, 8vo. 11. “Dramaturgia,” in Italian, an alphabetical collection of all the Italian dramatic works published in his time. This was reprinted at Venice, 4to, with considerable additions, and brought down to 1755. 12. “Poeti antichi raccolti da Codici manuscriti della Bibliotheca Vaticana e Barberina,” Naples, 1661, 8 vo, a very scarce work, containing the productions of many ancient Italian poets, not before published, but, according to Ginguene, full of errors. Moreri and Niceron mentions other works by Aliutius, which show the variety of his studies, and the rapidity with which he could pass from one subject to another.­Of his tediousnessan'd digressive powers, M. de Sallo complains with some humour in the Journal des Savans. After noticing a lamentation of the virgin Mary, as a remarkable piece inserted in one of Allatius’s works, he adds: “This lamentation was composed by Metaphrast, and that, was sufficient for Allatius to insert a panegyric upon Metaphrast, written by Psellus. As Metaphrast’s name was Simeon, he thence took an opportunity of making a long dis+ sertation upon the lives and works of such celebrated men. as had borne the same name. From the Simeons he passes to the Simons, from them to the Simonideses, and lastly to the Simonactides.”

, a Romish ecclesiastic, whose reputation is founded on his talents as a musical composer, was a pupil of Nanini, and admitted, in 1629, as a singer into the pope’s chapel. Among his most celebrated productions is a “Miserere,” which was performed during passion-week at the Sixtine chapel, and so highly esteemed that it was forbidden to be copied, under pain of excommunication. Mozart, however, after hearing it twice, was enabled to make out a copy, thought to be equal to the original. In 1773, the pope presented a complete one to George III. It had been previously engraven in London, about 1771. Allegri was of the same family with Corregio, and died Feb. 16, 1640. He was a man of a devout and benevolent disposition, and was frequent in his charitable visits to prisoners, and other persons in distress.

, archbishop of Dublin in the reign of Henry VIII. was first educated at Oxford, whence he removed to Cambridge, and took the degree of master of arts; or, as Wood rather thinks, that of bachelor of laws. He was afterwards sent to Rome to the pope, by Warham, archbishop of Canterbury, to manage some affairs relating to the church. He continued there about nine years, and was created doctor of laws in some Italian university. On his return he was made chaplain to cardinal Wolsey, and commissary or judge of his court, when he was legate a latere, but he was accused of great dishonesty in the execution of that office. He assisted the cardinal in first visiting and afterwards dissolving forty small monasteries, for the erection of his colleges at Oxford and Ipswich. His church-preferment was considerable. Archbishop Warham gave him Aldyngton, with the chapel annexed, March 6, 1510, in which he was succeeded by Erasmus; and in the following year his grace presented him to Riseburgh, in the deanery of Riseburgh. In 1524 he was presented to the perpetual vicarage of Alborne, and he had, by the favour of Wolsey, the church of Dalby on the Would sin Leicestershire, though it belonged to the master and brethren of the hospital of Burton Lazars. In the latter end of the year 1525, he was incorporated doctor of laws of the university of Oxford; and March 13, 1528, upon the death of Dr. Hugh Inge, he was consecrated archbishop of Dublin, and about the same time was made chancellor of Ireland. In 1534 he was barbarously murdered in an insurrection, by Thomas Fitz-gerald, eldest son of the earl of Kildare, in the fiftieth year of his age. He wrote some treatises on ecclesiastical affairs, which remain in manuscript.

, professor of divinity in the college of Navarre, at Paris, and one of the most able scholastic writers of his time, was a native of Sens, and died young at Paris in 1515. During his short life, he published a considerable number of works, on logic, physics, morality, and divinity. The two which procured him most fame are, 1. “De autoritate Ecclesise, &c.” Paris, 1512, 4to, in which he defends the doctrine of the council of Pisa, against Cajetan, who had raised the pope’s authority above that of the councils. 2. “De potestate ecclesiastica et laicali contra Ockam.” These are both in the edition of his works, published at Paris, 1517, fol.; but in that edition we do not meet with his “Moralia,” Paris, 1525, 8vo.

, an eminent Neapolitan philosopher, physician, and professor of medicine of the sixteenth century, was born at Naples, was one of the most learned medical writers of his time, and enjoyed very high reputation, it being only objected to him that he was too servile a copyist of Galen. We know little else of his history, unless that he had certain enemies who obliged him to take refuge in Rome, and that he did not venture to return to Naples until he had obtained the protection of pope Paul IV. to whom he had dedicated one of his works. Most of them were published separately, as appears by a catalogue in Man get and Haller; but the whole were collected and published in folio at Lyons, 1565 and 1597; at Naples in 1573; Venice, 1561, 1574, and 1600. So many editions of so large a volume are no inconsiderable testimony of the esteem in which this writer was held. He is said to have died in 1556.

, a Portuguese priest, born at Coimbra, about the end of the fifteenth century, was chaplain to Emanuel king of Portugal, and ambassador from that prince to David king of Ethiopia or Abyssinia. David had sent an ambassador to Emanuel, who in return thought proper to send Alvares and Galvanus to David, but the latter died before he arrived in Æthiopia. Alvares continued six years in this country; and, when he returned, brought letters to king John, who succeeded Emanuel, and to pope Clement VII. to whom he gave an account of his embassy at Bologna in January 1533, in the presence of the emperor Charles V. Alvares died in 1540; and left behind him, in Portuguese, an account of his embassy, with a description of the manners and customs of the Æthiopians. It was printed at Lisbon the same year in which the author died, and was translated into French, and published at Antwerp in 1558. The work was abridged by Ramusius. Bodinus says, that Alvares was the first who gave a true and accurate account of Æthiopia, and that it was approved by the best writers, and read with the greatest satisfaction.

, bishop of Tagasta, a city in Africa, of which he was probably a native, was the friend of St. Augustine, and baptized with him at IVJilan in 388. He vyas promoted to the bishopric of Tagasta in the year 3iH, and in the year 403 was present at the council of Carthage, where it was endeavoured to bring the Donatists to unity. In the year 411 he was the only one of the seven Catholic prelates who disputed with seven Catholic bishops, in the famous conference held at the same place. In the year 419 he was deputed by the African churches to Honorius, and pope Bonifaqe received him with great friendship, and employed him in confuting the Pelagians, in which he was not a little assisted by the secular arm. St. Augustine bestows very high praise on this bishop, and seems to have intended to write his life. The time of his death is generally fixed at 430.

, a historian, or rather biographer, of the fourteenth century, wrote and dedicated to pope Urban V. a history of the popes, ending at pope John XXII. which he entitled “Chronicum Pontificale,” and which, he says, he compiled from above two hundred authors. From the preface he appears to have been of the order of St. Augustine, but his work has not been printed.

, the youngest of the Amalthei, has left a few Latin poems, which serve to manifest the conformity of his taste and talents with those of his learned brothers. He probably died in the prime of life, and some accounts fix the decease of all the three brothers in the same year. But these, according to the editor of the General Dictionary, must not be confounded with Amaltheus Attilius, archbishop of Athens, who was born of a family in Italy eminent for producing men of the greatest merit and learning. He lived in the sixteenth century, and made a considerable progress in the study of the civil and canon law, and in that of divinity, he was a man of a noble, generous, and disinterested spirit, was raised to the see of Athens by pope V. and sent to Cologne in the character of nuncio, which office he discharged with much applause; and died about 1600.

, the son of Gregory Amaseo, Latin professor at Venice, was one of the most celebrated Italian scholars of the sixteenth century. He was born at Udina in 1489, and educated at first by his father and uncle, but finished his studies at Padua, and in 1508 had begun to teach the belles lettres there, when the war, occasioned by the league at Cambray, obliged him to leave the place. He then went to Bologna, continued to teach, and married, and had children, and was so much respected that the city admitted him as a citizen, an honour which his ancestors had also enjoyed. In 1530, he was appointed first secretary to the senate, and was chosen by pope Clement VII. to pronounce before him and Charles V. a Latin harangue on the subject of the peace concluded at Bologna between the two sovereigns. This he accordingly performed, with great applause, in the church of St. Petrona, before a numerous audience of the first rank. He continued to teach at Bologna, with increasing popularity, until 1543, when he was invited to Rome by pope Paul III. and his nephew cardinal Alexander Farnese. The pope employed him in many political missions to the court of the emperor, those of the German princes, and that of the king of Poland; and in 1550, after the death of his wife, pope Julius III. appointed him secretary of the briefs, a place which he did not long enjoy, as he died in 1552. He wrote Latin translations of “Xenophon’s Cyrus,” Bologna, 1533, fol. and of “Pausanias,” Rome, 1547, 4to; and a volume entitled “Orationes,” consisting of eighteen Latin speeches on various occasions, Bonon. 1580, 4to. His contemporaries bestow the highest praises on his learning and eloAlienee. His son Pompilio had perhaps less reputation, but he too distinguished himself as Greek professor at Bologna, where he died in 1584. He translated two fragments of Polybius, Bologna, 1543, and wrote a history of his own time in Latin, which has not been published.

, a Portuguese physician, and medical writer, of Jewish origin, was born in 1511 at Castel-bianco. He studied medicine at Salamanca, and afterwards travelled through France, the Netherlands, Germany, and Italy, and taught medicine with success in Ferrara and Ancona. His attachment to the Jewish persuasion having rendered him suspected by the catholics, he narrowly escaped the inquisition, by retiring to Pesaro in 1555, from which he removed to Itagusa, and afterwards to Thessalonica. From the year 1561 we hear no more of him, nor has the time or place of his death been ascertained, but it is said that when he went to Thessalonica, he avowed Judaism openly. His works, although few, give proofs of extensive learning in his profession. 1. “Exegemata in priores duos Dioscoridis de materia medica libros,” Antwerp, 1536, 4to. The second edition greatly enlarged, with learned notes by Constantin, was published under the title “Enarrationes in Dioscoridem,” Venice, 1553, 8vo, Strasburgh, 1554, and Lyons, 1557. There is much information in this work respecting exotics used in medicine, and some plants described for the first time, but it is not free from errors; and the author having imprudently attacked Mathiolus, the latter retorted on him in his “Apologia adversus Amatum,” Venice, 1557, fol. declaring him an apostate and a Christian only in appearance; but what connexion this had with the errors in his book, is not so easy to discover. Amatus, however, intended to have answered him in the notes prepared for a complete edition of Dioscorides, which he did not live to publish. 2. “Curationum medicinalium centuriae septem,” published separately, and reprinted, at Florence, Venice, Ancona, Rome, Ragusa, Thessalonica, &c. In this work, are many useful facts and observations, but not entirely unmixed with cases which are thought to have been fictitious. Few books, however, were at one time more popular, for besides the separate editions of the Centuries, they were collected and published at Lyons, 1580, 12 mo, Paris, 1613, 1620, 4to, and Francfort, 1646, fol. Amatus had also made some progress in a commentary on Avicenna, but lost his manuscripts in the hurry of his escape from Ancona, where pope Paul IV. had ordered him to be apprehended. Antonio in his Bibl. Hisp. attributes to him a Spanish translation of Eutropius, but it does not appear to have been ever published.

, or more commonly Amalric or Almeric (de Chartres), professor of logic and theology at Paris, in the thirteenth century, was a nadve of Bene in the diocese of Chartres, and rendered himself famous for the singularity of his opinions, and the multitudes who became his followers, and suffered for their adherence. Adopting the metaphysics of Aristotle, he formed to himself a new system of religion, which has been thus explained. Aristotle supposes that all beings are composed of matter, which has in itself neither form nor shape: this he calls the first matter. This Amauri called God, because it is a necessary and infinite being. He acknowledged in God, three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, to whom he attributed the empire of the world, and whom he regarded as the object of religious worship. But as this matter was endowed with a property of continual motion, it necessarily followed that this world must some time have an end, and that all the beings therein must return to that first matter, which was the supreme of all beings the first existing, and the only one eternal. Religion, according to Amauri’s opinion, had three epochas, which bore a similitude to the reign of the three persons in the Trinity. The reign of God had existed as long as the law of Moses. The reign of the Son would not always last; the ceremonies and sacrifices, which according to Amauri constituted the essence of it, would not be eternal. A time would come when the sacraments should cease, and then the religion of the Holy Ghost would begin, in which men would have no need of sacraments, and would render a spiritual worship to the Supreme Being. This epocha was the reign of the Holy Ghost, which according to Amauri was foretold by the scripture, and which would succeed to the Christian religion, as the Christian religion had succeeded to that of Moses. The Christian religion therefore was the reign of Jesus Christ in the world, and every man under that law ought to look on himself as one of the members of Jesus Christ. Amauri had many proselytes, but his opinions were condemned by pope Innocent III. His disciples added that the sacraments were useless, and that no action dictated by charity could be bad. They were condemned by the council of Paris in 1209, and many of them burned. Amauri appealed to the pope, who also condemned his doctrines; but for fear of a rigorous punishment he retracted his opinions, retired to St. Martin des Champs, and died there of chagrin and disappointment. His bones were afterwards dug up and burnt by order of the council of Paris. As there is much confusion in the accounts given of Amauri’s system, it may be necessary to add, that Spanheim, Fleury, and others, are of opinion that most of the heresies imputed to him, are without foundation, and represent him as having only taught that every Christian ought to believe himself a member of Jesus Christ, otherwise they cannot be saved, and that Dinant and his other disciples fell into those errors which he was accused of having taught. It seems not improbable that his inveighing against the worship of saints and images would in that age form the principal article against him; and it is certain that many of his disciples were men of distinguished piety, remarkable for the gravity and austerity of their lives, and for suffering death, in all its dreadful forms, with the utmost resolution.

a French cardinal and statesman of the illustrious house of Amboise in France, so called from their possessing the seignory of that name, was born in 1460. Being destined at a very early age for the church, he was elected bishop of Montauban when only fourteen. He was afterwards made one of the almoners to Lewis XI. to whom he behaved with great prudence. After the death of this prince in 1480, he entered into some of the intrigues of the court with a design to favour the duke of Orleans, with whom he was closely connected; but those intrigues being discovered, d‘Aniboise and his protector were both imprisoned. The duke of Orleans was at last restored to his liberty; and this prince having negotiated the marriage of the king with the princess Anne of Britanny, acquired great reputation and credit at court. Of this his favourite d’Amboise felt the happy effect as, soon after, the archbishopric of Narbonne was bestowed on him; but being at too great a distance from the court, he changed it for that of Rouen, to which the chapter elected him in 1493. As soon as he had taken possession of his new see, the duke of Orleans, who was governor of Normandy, made him lieutenant-general, with the same power as if he had been governor in cbief. This province was at that time in great disorder: the noblesse oppressed the people, the judges were all corrupted or intimidated; the soldiers, who had been licentious since the late wars, infested the high-ways, plundering and assassinating all travellers they met; but in less-than a year, d‘Amboise by his care and prudence established public tranquillity. The king dying in 1498, the duke of Orleans ascended the throne, by the name of Lewis XII. and d’Amboise became his prime minister. By his first operation in that office, he conciliated the affection of the whole nation. It had been a custom when a new monarch ascended the throne, to lay an extraordinary tax on the people, to defray the expences of the coronation, but by the counsel of d‘Amboise this tax was not levied, and the imposts were soon reduced one tenth. His virtues coinciding with his knowledge, he made the French nation happy, and endeavoured to preserve the glory they had acquired. By his advice Lewis XII. undertook the conquest of the Milanese in 1499. Lewis the Moor, uncle and vassal of Maximilian, was then in possession of that province. It revolted soon after the conquest, but d’Amboise brought it back to its duty. Some time after he was received at Paris with great magnificence, in quality of legate from the pope. During his legation, he laboured to reform many of the religious orders, as the jacobins, the cordeliers, and those of St. Germain des Pres. His disinterestedness was equal to his zeal. He never possessed more than one benefice, two thirds of which he employed for the relief of the poor and the support of the churches. Contenting himself with his archbishopric of Rouen and his cardinal’s hat, he was not, like his contemporaries, desirous to add abbeys to it. A gentleman of Normandy having offered to sell him an estate at a very low price, in order to portion his daughter, he made him a present of a sum sufficient for that purpose, and left him the estate. He obtained the purple after the dissolution of the marriage between Lewis XII. and Joan of France, to which he greatly contributed: and, on having procured for Caesar Borgia, son of pope Alexander VI. the duchy of Valentinois, with a considerable pension, his ambition was to be pope, with a view to the reform of abuses, and the correction of manners. After the death of Pius III. he might have succeeded in his wishes, and took measures to procure the tiara, but cardinal Julian de Rovera (afterwards Julius II.) found means to circumvent him; and the Venetians having contributed to his exclusion, he took the first opportunity to excite Lewis XII. to make war on them, a circumstance which seems not a little to detract from his character. This celebrated cardinal died in 15 10, in the convent of the Celestines at Lyons, of the gout in his stomach, aged 50 years. It is reported that he often repeated to the friar who attended him in his illness, “Brother John, why have I not during my whole life been brother John?” This minister has been greatly praised for having laboured for the happiness of France; but he has been equally censured for having advised his master to sign the treaty of Blois in 1504, by which France ran the risk of being dismembered. He governed both the king and the state; laborious, kind, honest, he possessed good sense, firmness, and experience, but he was not a great genius, nor were his views extensive. The desire he had to ease the people in their taxes, procured him during his life, but much more after his death, the title of father of the people. He merited this title still more, by the care he took to reform the administration of justice. Most of the judges were venal, and the poor, and those who had no support, could never obtain justice, when their opposers were either powerful or rich. Another evil not less enormous troubled the kingdom; law-suits were spun out to such a length, were so expensive, and accompanied by so much trick and chicanery, that most people rather chose to abandon their rights than engage in the recovery of them by suits which had no prospect of coming to an end. D‘Amboise resolved to remedy this abuse. He called to his assistance many lawyers and civilians, the most learned and of the greatest integrity; and charged them to form a plan, by which justice might be administered without partiality, the duration of lawsuits abridged and rendered less ruinous, and the corruption of the judges prevented. When these commissioners had made their report, d’Amboise undertook the laborious task of examining into the changes they had proposed in the old laws, and the new regulations they designed to establish; and after having made some changes, these new regulations were published throughout the kingdom. As he was governor of Normandy, he made a progress through that province for the express purpose of seeing his new code properly established.

, a learned Italian orientalist, was born in 1469, a descendant of the noble family of the counts of Albanese. At fifteen months he is said to have spoken his native language with facility, and at fifteen years, to have spoken and written Greek and Latin with a promptitude equal to the best scholars of his time. He entered young into the order of regular canons of St. John of Lateran, but did not come to Rome until 1512, at the opening of the fifth session of the Lateran council. The great number of ecclesiastics from Syria, Ethiopia, and other parts of the East, who attended that council, afforded him an opportunity of prosecuting his studies with advantage: and at the request of the cardinal Santa Croce, he was employed as the person best qualified to translate from the Chaldean into Latin the liturgy of the eastern clergy, previously to the use of it being expressly sanctioned by the pope. After having been employed by Leo X. for two years in giving instructions in Latin to the subdeacon Elias, a legate from Syria to the council, whom the pope wished to retain in his court, and from whom Ambrogio received in return instructions in the Syrian tongue, he was appointed by the pontiff to a professor’s chair in the university of Bologna, where he delivered instructions in the Syriac and Chaldaic languages for the first time that they had been publicly taught in Italy. He is said to have understood no less than eighteen languages, many of which he spoke with the ease and fluency of a native; but from the letter quoted by Mazzuchelli, it appears more probable that he was master of at least ten languages, and understood many others partially. In the commotions which devastated Italy after the death of Leo X. he was despoiled in 1527 of the numerous and valuable eastern manuscripts, Chaldean, Hebrew, and Greek, which he had collected by the industry of many years, and of the types and apparatus which he had prepared for an edition of the Psalter in the Chaldean, accompanied with a dissertation on that language. He afterwards, however, came to Venice, in the prosecution of this object; and, in 15.39, published at Pavia, his “Introduction to the Chaldean, Syrian, Armenian, and ten other tongues, with the alphabetical characters of about forty different languages,” 4to, which is considered by the Italians themselves as the earliest attempt made in Italy towards a systematic acquaintance with the literature of the East. He died the year following.

In his general conduct he was distinguished for his sincerity, charity, and piety, but he could not withstand all the superstitious practices of his time. His encomiums on virginity were certainly extravagant and pernicious. This has been attributed to the little acquaintance he had with the scriptures before his ordination, and to the influence of his sister Marcellina, a zealous devotee, to whom he was affectionately attached, and who had received the veil from the hands of pope Liberius. He wrote several treatises on this subject, and attempted to reduce the rules of it to a kind of system, and probably induced many young women, who might otherwise have been ornaments of society, to become the victims of solitary restraint, and fanciful continence. In other respects he inculcated the essentials of Christianity with fervour and success, and uniformly practised its virtues. When the ravages of the Goths afforded him an opportunity to exercise his liberality, he scrupled not to apply the vessels of the church to redeem captives, and vindicated himself against those who censured his conduct. In the instruction of catechumens, he was remarkably indefatigable, and his character rose to such estimation, that his person was supposed to be sacredly guarded. Some stories to this effect are related in his life by Paulinus, which perhaps may not now obtain credit. On one occasion, when a woman insulted him, he told her that “she ought to fear the judgment of God,” and she died next day. On another occasion, when two Arians, of the court of Gratian, intended to pass a ridicule upon him, they were both thrown from their horses, and died before they could accomplish their purpose. These stories, questionable or not, at least show the veneration paid to his character, while a modern reader is left to draw what other inference he pleases.

, a monk, and general of the monks of Camalduli, was born in 1373, at Portico in the Romagna. Eugene IV. sent him to the council of Basil, where he much distinguished himself, as well as at those of Ferrara and Florence. He acquired a high degree of reputation by his profound knowledge of the Greek language, by his uncommon acquaintance with Grecian literature, by the zeal and industry he discovered in the attempts he made to effectuate a reconciliation between the Greek and Latin churches. He was no less admired for his candid and liberal spirit, and placid and serene temper. Having failed in an attempt to reconcile those literary rivals Poggius and Valla, he told them that men who made use of abusive language could not be supposed to possess either the charity of Christians, nor the politeness of men of letters. His talents would have recommended him to the purple, which the pope intended, but this was prevented by his death, Oct. 23, 1439. He was employed, by order of pope Eugenius IV. to reform several convents of both sexes, which had become irregular; and he has described the result of his labours in this difficult work in his “Hodseporicon,” which contains particulars of the behaviour of the inhabitants of those convents, which he found it necessary to express in Greek. This was printed at Florence, 1431 and 1432, 4to, both scarce editions, and 1678, 8vo. The other works of this learned monk were Latin translations from the fathers. Martenne, in his “Collectio amplissima,” has published twenty books of his letters, which contain many curious particulars of the history of his time. He also translated Diogenes Laertiusinto Latin, which was printed at Venice, 1475, and is a book of great price, as being prior in date by nearly sixty years to any edition of that author.

, called by some Abraham Nicholas, but, according to Niceron, Nicholas only appears in his baptismal register, was born February. 1634, at Orleans. He was much esteemed at the court of France, and appointed secretary of an embassy which that court sent to the commonwealth of Venice, as appears by the title of his translation of father Paul’s history of the council of Trent; but he afterwards published writings which gave such offence, that he was imprisoned in the Bastile. The first works he printed were the “History of the Government of Venice, and that of the Uscocks, a people of Croatia:” in 1683, he published also translations into French of Machiavel’s Prince, and father Paul’s history of the council of Trent, and political discourses of his own upon Tacitus. These performances were well received by the public, but he did not prefix his own name to the two last mentioned works, but concealed himself under that of La Mothe Josseval. His translation of father Paul was attacked by the partisans of the pope’s unbounded power and authority. In France, however, it met with great success; all the advocates for the liberty of the Gallican church promoting the success of it to the utmost of their power; though at the same time there were three memorials presented to have it suppressed. When the second edition of this translation was published, it was violently attacked by the abbé St. Real, in a letter he wrote to Mr. Bayle, dated October 17, 1685, and Amelot defended himself, in a letter to that author. In 1684, he printed, at Paris, a French translation of Baltasar Gracian’s Oraculo manual, with the title of “l'Homme de Cour.” In his preface he defends Gracian against father Bouhours’ critique, and gives his reasons why he ascribes this book to Baltasar and not to Laurence Gracian. He also mentions that he had altered the title, because it appeared too ostentatious and hyperbolical; that of “l'Homme de Cour,” the Courtier, being more proper to express the subject of the book, which contains a collection of the finest maxims for regulating a court-life. In 1686, he printed “La Morale de Tacite;” in which he collected several particular facts and maxims, that represent in a strong light the artifices of court-flatteries, and the mischievous effect of their conversations. In 1690, he published at Paris a French translation of the first six books of Tacitus’s annals, with his historical and political remarks, some of which, according to Mr. Gordon, are pertinent and useful, but many of them insipid and trifling. Amelot having employed his peri for several years on historical and political subjects, began now to try his genius on religious matters; and in 1691 printed at Paris a translation of “Palafox’s theological and moral Homilies upon the passion of our Lord.” Frederic Leonard, a bookseller at Paris, having proposed, in the year 1692, to print a collection of all the treaties of peace between the kings of France and all the other princes of Europe, since the reign of Charles VII. to the year 1690, Amelot published a small volume in duodecimo, containing a preliminary discourse upon these treaties; wherein he endeavours to show the insincerity of courts in matters of negociation. He published also an edition of. cardinal d'Ossat’s letters in 1697, with several observations of his own; which, as he tells us in his advertisement, may serve as a supplement to the history of the reigns of Henry III. and Henry IV. of France. Amelot died at Paris, Dec. 8, 1706, being then almost 73 years of age, and left several other works enumerated by Niceron, who objects to his style, but praises his fidelity. The freedom with which he wrote on political subjects appears to have procured for him a temporary fame, unaccompanied with any other advantages. Although he was admired for his learning and political knowledge, he was frequently in most indigent circumstances, and indebted to the bounty of his friends.

, a celebrated architect and sculptor, was born at Florence in 1511, and was at first the scholar of Baccio Bandinelli, and then of Sansovino at Venice; but on his return to his own country, he studied with much enthusiasm the sculptures of Michael Angelo in the chapel of St. Laurence. His first works are at Pisa; for Florence he executed a Leda, and about the same time, for Naples, the three figures, large as life, on the tomb of the poet Sannazarius. Meeting with some unpleasant circumstances here, he returned to Venice, and made the colossal Neptune, which is in St. Mark’s place. At Padua he made another colossal statue, of Hercules, which is still in the Montava palace, and has been engraved. He then went to Rome to study the antique, and pope Julius III. employed him in works of sculpture in the capitol. Some time after, in conjunction withVasari, he erected the tomb of cardinal de Monti, which added very considerably to his fame. Besides these, he executed a great number of works for Rome, Florence, and other places. The porticoes of the court of the palace Pitti are by him, as well as the bridge of the Trinity, one of the finest structures that have been raised since the revival of the arts, the facade of the Roman college, and the palace Rupsoli on the Corso. This architect composed a large work, entitled “La Cita,” comprising designs for all the public edifices necessary to a great city. This book, after having passed successively through several hands, was presented some time in the eighteenth century to prince Ferdinand of Tuscany, and it is now among the collection of designs in the gallery of Florence, after having been long inquired after, and supposed to be lost. After the death of his wife, he devoted the greater part of his wealth to pious purposes, and died himself in 1592. His wife, Laura Battiferri, an Italian lady of distinguished genius and learning, was the daughter of John. Antony Battiferri, and was born at Urbino in 1513. She spent her whole life in the study of philosophy and polite literature, and is esteemed one of the best Italian poets of the sixteenth century. The principal merit of her poems, “L'Opere Toscane,” 1560, consists in a noble elevation, their being filled with excellent morals, and their breathing a spirit of piety. The academy of Intronati, at Sienna, chose her one of their members. She died in November 1589, at seventy-six years of age.

Marcellus Marcini being chosen pope in 1555, under the name of Marcellus II. Ammirato, who knew that Nicolao Majorano, bishop of Molfetta, a city near Barri, had been formerly a friend of the pope’s, persuaded him to go to Rome, and congratulate him upon his election, with a view, by attending the bishop in his journey, to procure some place under the nephews of that pope; but, as they were preparing for this journey, the death of Marcellus put a stop to their intended scheme, and destroyed their hopes; upon which Ammirato retired to a country-seat of his father’s, where he applied himself closely to his studies. At last he was determined to return to Naples, in order to engage again in the study of the law, and to take his degrees in it; his relish for this profession was not in the least increased, but he thought the title he might procure would be of advantage to him. He had not, however, been six months at Naples, before he grew weary of it, and entered successively into the service of several noblemen as secretary. Upon his return to Lucca, he was appointed by this city to go and present a petition to pope Pius IV. in their favour, which office he discharged with success. Upon his return to Lucca, he was appointed by the city of Naples to settle there, and write the history of that kingdom; but the cold reception he met with from the governors who had sent for him, disgusted him so much, that he left the city with a resolution to return no more, and although they repented afterwards of their neglect of him, and used all possible means to bring him back, he continued inflexible. He then went to Rome, where he procured a great many friends; and, having travelled over part of Italy, visited Florence, where he resolved to settle, being engaged by the kind reception which the Grand Duke gave to men of letters. He was appointed to write the history of Florence, and received many instances of that prince’s bounty, which he increased after this publication, by presenting him with a canonry in the cathedral of Florence. This easy situation now gave him an opportunity of applying himself more vigorously to his studies, and writing the greatest part of his works. He died at Florence the 30th of January, 1601, in the 69th year of his age. His works are as follow: 1. “Arguments,” in Italian verse, of the cantos of Ariosto’s Orlando Furioso, which were first published in the edition of that poem at Venice, in 1548, in 4to. 2. “II Decalione dialogo del poeta,” Naples, 1560, 8vo. 3. “Istorie Florentine dopo la fondatione di Fierenze insino all' anno 1574,” printed at Florence, 1600, in 2 vols. folio. 4. “Discorsi sopra Cornelio Tacito,” Florence, 1598, 4to. 5. “Delle famiglie nobili Napolitane,” part I. at Florence, 1580, in folio; part II. at Florence, 1651, folio. 6. “Discorsi delle famiglie Paladina et PAntoglietta,” Florence, 1605, in 4to. 7. “Albero et storia della famiglia de conte Guidi, coll' agiunte de Scipione Ammirato Giovane,” Florence, 1640 and 1650. 8. “Delle famiglie Florentine,” Florence, 1615, folio. 9. “Vescovi de Fiesoli di Volterra, e d‘Arezzo, con l’aggiiinta di Scipione Ammirato il Giovane,” Florence, 1637, 4to. 10. “Opuscoli varii,” Florence, 1583, in 8vo. 11. “Rime varie,” printed in a collection of poems by different authors. Venice, 1553, in 8vo. 12. “Poesi Spirituali,” Venice, 1634, in 4to, 13. “Annotazioni sopra la seconde parte de Sonetti di Bernardino Rota fatti in morte di Porzia Capece sua moglia,” Naples, 1560, in 4to. He left a manuscript life of himself, which is said to have been deposited in the library of the hospital of St. Mary. He made his secretary, Dei Bianco, his heir, on condition of taking his name, who accordingly called himself Scipio Ammirato the younger. He was editor of some of his benefactor’s works, particularly of his history of Florence, a performance of great accuracy and credit.

, a native of Lucca, born in 1477, was educated in all the polite literature of Italy, and became apostolic notary, and collector for the pope Jn England. Here he spent the latter years of his life, in the society and intimacy of the most eminent scholars of that time, as Colet, Grocyn, Erasmus, &c. and studied with them at Oxford. He was also Latin secretary, and in much favour with Adrian de Castello, bishop of Bath and Wells, who is said to have made such interest as procured him the secretaryship to Henry VIII. He was also made prebendary of Compton-Dunden in the church of Wells, and, as some report, rector of Dychiat in the same diocese. By the recommendation of the king he was also made a prebendary of Salisbury, and in all probability, would have soon attained higher preferment, had he not been cut off by the sweating sickness, in the prime of life, 1517. Erasmus, with whom he corresponded, lamented his death in most affectionate terms. He is mentioned as a writer of poetry, but his poems do not exist either in print or manuscript, except one short piece in the “Bucolicorum auctores,” Basil, 1546, 8vo. There are some of his letters in Erasmus’s works. According to Wood he was buried in St. Stephen’s chapel, Westminster.

Counsellor Amory, the grandfather of the doctor, and father of our author, was the youngest brother of Amory, or Darner, the miser, whom Pope calls the wealthy and the wise; from whom came lord Milton, &c. He married the daughter of Fitz Maurice, earl of Kerry; sir William Petty, another daughter; and the grandfather of the duke of Leinster, a third. He died at the age of 97, in 1789.

In 1631, he was sent deputy to the national council at Charenton; and by this assembly was appointed to address the king, and lay before his majesty their complaints concerning the infraction of the edicts.: he was particularly charged not to deliver his speech upon his knees, as the deputies of the former national synod had done. He managed this affair with so much address, that he was introduced to the king according to the ancient custom, and in the manner that was agreeable to the assembly: and it was on this occasion that he became acquainted with cardinal Richelieu, who conceived a great esteem for him, and imparted to him the design he had formed of re-uniting the two churches. The Jesuit who conferred with Mr. Amyraut upon this subject was father Audebert. Mr. de Villeneuve, lord lieutenant of Saumur, having invited them both to dinner, took care they should confer in private, but Mr. Amyraut protested, that he could not forbear imparting to his colleagues all that should pass between them. The Jesuit told him he was sent by the king and his eminence, to propose an agreement in point of religion; that the Roman catholics were ready to sacrifice to the public truicjuilJity the invocation of saints, purgatory, and the merit of good works; that they would set bounds to the pope’s power, and in case they met with opposition from the court of Rome, they would lay hold on that occasion to create a patriarch; that the laity should be allowed the communion in both kinds; and that they would give up several other points, provided they found in the Protestants a sincere desire of peace and union. But he declared, when Mr. Amyraut touched upon the doctrines of the eucharist, that no alteration would be admitted there; and Amyraut immediately answered, that then they could come to no aoreement. This conference lasted about four hours: the Jesuit still required secrecy but Mr. Amyraut protested, according to the declaration he had made first to Mr. Villeneuve, that he would communicate the whole matter to his colleagues, and that he would be answerable for their prudence and discretion. About this time he published a piece, in which he explained the mystery of predestination and grace, according to the hypothesis of Camero, which occasioned a kind of civil war amongst the protestant divines of France. Those who disliked the hypothesis, derided it as a novelty, especially when they saw themselves joined by the great du Moulin, who accused Amyraut of Arianism. The authority of this famous divine, to whom the people paid a great respect and veneration on account of the many books of controversy he had published, made so deep an impression in the minds of many ministers, that, though Amyraut had published a piece, wherein he maintained Calvin to have held universal grace, yet many deputies at the national synod of Alengon came charged with instructions against him, and some were even for deposing him. The deputies of the provinces beyond the Loire were the most violent against him; but the synod, after having heard Amyraut explain his opinion, in several sessions, and answer the objections, honourably acquitted him, and enjoined silence in respect to questions of this nature. This, however, was not strictly observed by either side; for complaints were made against Amyraut, in the national synod of Charenton, for having acted contrary to the regulations concerning that silence; and he, in his turn, complained of infractions of the same nature. The assembly, by a kind of amnesty, suppressed these mutual complaints; and having renewed the injunction of silence, sent back Amyraut to his employment, permitting him to oppose foreigners who should attack him, in what manner the synod of Anjou should think proper, and this synod allowed him to publish an answer to the three volumes of Spanhemius upon universal grace, which occasioned the writing of several others.

, or Andradius, a learned Portuguese, was born in 1528, at Coimbra, and distinguished himself at the council of Trent, where king Sebastian sent him as one of his divines. He pveached before the assembly the second Sunday after Easter in 1562: nor was he contented with the service he did in explaining those points upon which he was consulted, but he employed his pen in defence of the canons of the council, in a treatise entitled “Orthodoxarum explicationum, lib. x.” Venice, 1564, 4to, a very rare edition, and more correct than that of Cologn of the same date. It forms a reply to a book published by Chemnitius, against the doctrine of the Jesuits before the close of the council of Trent; and as Chemnitius took this opportunity of writing a very large work, entitled “Examen concilii Tridentini,” Andrada thought himself obliged to defend his first piece against this learned adversary. He composed therefore a book, which his two brothers published after his death, at Lisbon, in 1578, 4to, entitled “Defensio Tridentinse fidei catholicse quinque libris comprehensa, adversus ha^reticorum calumnias, et praesertim Martini Chernnitii.” This work is likewise very difficult to be met with. There is scarce any catholic author who has been more quoted by the protestants than he, because he maintained the opinions of Zuinglius, Erasmus, &c. concerning the salvation of the heathens. Andrada was esteemed an excellent preacher: his sermons were published in three parts, the second of which was translated into Spanish by Benedict de Alarcon. The Bibliotheque of the Spanish writers does not mention all his works; the book he wrote concerning the pope’s authority, during the council (“De conciliorum autoritate,”) in 1562, is omitted. The pope’s legates being very well pleased with this work, sent it to cardinal Borromeo; the court of Rome also approved it extremely, and the pope returned the author thanks in a very obliging manner; from which circumstances it will not be difficult to appreciate its merits. He stands indeed very high among popish writers, and many encomiums have been bestowed upon him: Osorius, in his preface to the “Ort&odox explanations of Andradius,” gives him the character of a man of wit, vast application, great knowledge in the languages, with all the zeal and eloquence necessary to a good preacher; and Rosweidus says, that he brought to the council of Trent the understanding of a most profound divine, and the eloquence of a consummate orator.

Andreas had a beautiful daughter, named Novella, whom he is said to have instructed so well in all parts of learning, that when he was engaged in any affair, which hindered him from reading lectures to his scholars, he sent his daughter in his room; when, lest her beauty should prevent the attention of the hearers, she had a little curtain drawn before her. To perpetuate the memory of this daughter, he entitled his commentary upon the Decretals of Gregory X. “the Novelloe.” He married her to John Calderinus, a learned canonist. The first work of Andreas was his Gloss upon the sixth book of the Decretals, Rome 1476, and five editions afterwards at Pavia, Basil, and Venice. This work he wrote when he was very young. He wrote also Glosses upon the Clementines, Strasburgh, 147 I, and Mentz, Rome, and Basil, four times; and a Commentary in Regulas Sexti, which he entitled “Mercuriales,” because he either engaged in it on Wednesdays, diebus Mercurii, or because he inserted his Wednesday’s disputes in it. He enlarged the Speculum of Durant, in the year 1347, but this is taken literally from Ostradus. Andreas died of the plague at Bologna in 1348, after he had been a professor forty-five years, and was buried in the church of the Dominicans. Many eulogiums have been bestowed upon him: he was called archidoctor decretorum; in his epitaph he has the title of “Rabbi doctorum, lux, censor, normaque morum;” or, rabbi of the doctors, the light, censor, and rule of manners; and it is said that pope Boniface called him “lumen mundi,” the light of the world. Bayle objects, that Andreas followed the method of the Pyrrhonists too much; that he proved his own opinion very solidly when he chose, but that he often rather related the sentiments of others, and left his readers to form their own determination.

, author of several pieces relating to the history of literature, was born the 14th of October 1675, at Lecce, the capital of Otranto in the kingdom of Naples, of one of the noblest and most considerable families in that city. He began his studies at Lecce, and at seventeen years of age went to finish them at Naples, where he applied very closely to the Greek language and geometry. He went afterwards to Macerata, where he was admitted LL. D. His desire of improvement; induced him also to travel into France and Spain, where he acquired great reputation. Several academies of Italy were ambitious of procuring him as a member, in consequence of which we find his name not only amongst those of the Transformati and Spioni of Lecce, but also in that of the Investiganti of Naples, in the academy of Florence, and in that of the Arcadians at Rome, into the last of which he was admitted the 8th of August 1698. $Ie went into orders very early, and was afterwards canon aftd grand penitentiary of the church of Lecce, vicar general of Viesti, Gallipoli, and Gragnano, first chaplain of the troops of the kingdom of Naples and of the pope, auditor of M. Nicholas Negroni, and afterwards of the cardinal his uncle. Whilst Philip V. of Spain was master of the kingdom of Naples, he was honoured with the title of principal historiographer, which had likewise been given him when he was in France, by Louis XIV.; and he afterwards became secretary to the duke of Gravina. He died at Lecce the 9th of August 1719, and was interred in the cathedral of that city; or, according to another authority, Aug. 7, 1718. His works are, 1. “Dissertazione intorna alia patria di Ennio,” Rome, 1701, Florence in the title, but really at Naples, 1712. In this he endeavours to prove that Ennius was born at Rudia, two miles from Lecce, and not Rudia near Tarento. 2. “Vita di rnonsignor Roberto Caracciolo vescovo d' Aquino e di Lecce, 1703.” 3. “Delia vita di Scipione Ammiralo, patrizio Leccese, libri tre,” Lecce, 1706. 4. “Vita di Antonio Caraccio da Nardo.” 5. “Vita di Andrea Peschiulli da Corigliano.” These two are not printed separately, but in a collection entitled “Vite de' Letterati Salentini.” 6. “Vita di Giacomo Antonio Ferrari,” Lecce, 1715. 7. “Vita di Giorgio Baglivo,” Leccese. 8. “Lettera discorsiva al March. Giovani GioSeffo Orsi, dove si tratto dell' origine e progressi de signori accademici Spioni, e delle varie loro lodevoli applicazioni,” Lecce, 1705, 8vo. 9. “Discorso historico, in cui si tratta dell' origine e delle fondazione della citta di Lecce e d'Alcune migliori e piu principal! notizie di essa,” Lecce, 1705. 10. “Le Vite de letterati Salentini, parte I.” The Lives of the learned men of Terra d'Otranto, part I. Florence in the title, but really Naples, 1710. The second part was published at Naples, 1713, in 4to. 11. “Orazione funebre recitata in occasione della morte dell' imperadore Giuseppe nel vescoval domo di Gallipoli,” Naples, 1716. 12. “Scritto istorico legale sopra le ragioni della suspension! del' interdetto locale generale della chiefa di Lecce e sua diocesi,” Rome, 1716. 13. “Tre lettere legale.” These three letters were written in defence of the right of the church of Lecce. 14. He wrote likewise several poems, particularly seven sonnets, which are published in the second part of the “Rimo scelte del sign. Bartolommeo Lippi,” printed at Lucca, 1719.

, a Florentine writer of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, was born at Scarperia, in the valley of Mugello, and studied under John de Ravenna, Vargerius, Scala, Poggio, and other learned men. After studying mathematics for some time, he went to Constantinople, where he resided nine years, and Whence he sent a great number of letters to Emmanuel Chrysoloras at Florence. Here likewise he had an opportunity of studying the Greek language, and acquired such an acpurate knowledge of it as to attempt various translations. On his return he went to Rome, and was a candidate for the place pf the pope’s secretary, which at that time Leonard d'Arezzo obtained, but Angelo appears to have held the office in 1410. From this time we have no account of him, except that he is said to have died in the prime of life. He translated from Greek into Latin, J. “Cosmographise Ptolomaei, lib. VIII.” 2. “Ptolojnaei quadripartitum.” 3. “Ciceronis vita,” from Plutarch. 4. The lives of Pompey, Brutus, Marius, and Julius Caesar, also from Plutarch, but not printed. There is likewise a work entitled “Jacob! Angeli historica na'rratio de vita, rebusque gestis M. Tullii Ciceronis,” Wirtemberg, 1564, Berlin, 1581 and 1587^ which Fabricius, in his Bibl. Lat. Med. Æv. says is a different work from the translation from Plutarch.

His fourth work, published at London, 1624, in Gr. and Lat. is entitled “Labor C. A. de Apostasia Ecclesiae, et de Homine peccati, scilicet Antichristo, &c.” The object is, in the first'instance, to establish a distinction betwixt the apostacy and the man of sin in 2 Thess. ii. 3; to prove that the apostacy, predicted as necessary to take place before the coming of Antichrist, was fulfilled in the surrender of the temporal powers to pope Boniface by the emperor Phocas, and that Mahomet, who appeared within eleven years after, was the Antichrist; and lastly, to demonstrate, by some ingenious calculations, which are also applied to other subjects of prophecy, that the destruction of the last of the Mahomets, to all of whom he attaches the title of Antichrist, will happen in the year 1376.

, an Italian scholar, was born in 1455, at Arona, on the Lake Major. His family, one of the most illustrious in Milan, took the name of Anghiera, from the same lake, which is partly in the county of Anghiera. In 1477, he went to Rome, and entered into the service of the cardinal Ascanio Sforza Visconti, and afterwards into that of the archbishop of Milan. During a residence there of ten years, he formed an acquaintance with the most eminent literary men of his time, and among others, with Pomponio Leto. In 1487, he went into Spain in the suite of the ambassador of that court, who was returning home. By him he was presented to Ferdinand and Isabella, king and queen, and served in two campaigns, but quitted the army for the church, and was appointed by the queen to teach the belles lettres to the young men of the court, in which employment he continued for some time. Having on various occasions shown a capacity for political business, Ferdinand, in 1501, employed him on an errand of considerable delicacy, to the sultan of Egypt, in which he acquitted himself greatly to his majesty’s satisfaction. While engaged in this business, he took the opportunity of visiting some part of Egypt, particularly the pyramids, and returned to Spain in the month of August 1502. From this time he became attached to the court, and was appointed a member of the council for the affairs of India. The pope, at the king’s request, made him apostolical prothonotary, and in 1505, prior of the church of Grenada, with a valuable benefice. After the death of Ferdinand, Anghiera remained as much in favour with the new king, and he also was presented by Charles V. to a rich abbey. He died at Grenada in 1526, leaving several historical works, which are often quoted by the name of Peter Martyr, as if that were his family name; and in the Diet. Hist, he is recorded under Martyr. His principal works are, 1. “Opus Epistolarum Petri Martyris Anglerii, Mediolanensis,” 1530, fol. reprinted more correctly in Holland by Elzevir, 1670, fol. with the letters and other works, Latin and Spanish, of Ferdinand de Pulgar. This work, which is much esteemed, is divided into thirty-eight books, comprehending the whole of his political life from 1488 to 1525, and contains many curious historical particulars not to be found elsewhere. 2. “De rebus Oceanicis etorbe novo Decades,” a history of the discovery of the New World, compiled from the manuscripts of Columbus, and the accounts he sent to Spain to the India council, of which our author was a member. These Decades were at first printed separately; the first edition of the whole is that of Paris, 1536, fol. which has been often reprinted. 3. “De insulis nuper in vends et incolarum moribus,” Basil, 1521, 4to, 1533, fol. 4. “De legation e Baby lonica, libri tres,” printed with the Decades, which contains an account of his embassy to the sultan of Egypt. Some other works, but rather on doubtful authority, have been attributed to him.

, an eminent Italian paintress, was born at Cremona in 1533, of a distinguished family. The author of the Museum Fforentinum is guilty of a very remarkable anachronism, in regard to Sophonisba; for he hxes her birth in 1559, in which year it w absolutely impossible she could have been born. This appears incontestabiy from Vasari, who tells us, that she painted the portrait of the queen of Spain, by order of Pope Paul IV. in 1561; and to prove this fact, he inserts the letter which she sent along with the picture to the Pope, and also the Pope’s answer, both dated in 1561; Sophonisba’s from Madrid the 16th of September, and the Pope’s from Rome the 15th of October; at which time, according to the Museum Florentinum, she could have been only two years old, if born in 1559. The first instructor of this eminent paintress was Bernardini Campo of Cremona; but she learned colouring and perspective from Bernardo Gatti, called Soiaro. One of her first performances was the portrait of her father, placed between his two children, with such strong characters of life and nature, with a pencil so free and firm, and so lively a turn of colour, that her work was universally applauded, and she was acknowledged an incomparable painter of portraits. Through every part of Italy she is distinguished by no other name than that of Sophonisba. But although portraits engrossed the greatest part of her time, yet she designed several historical subjects, with figures of a small size, touched with abundance of spirit, and with attitudes easy, natural, and graceful. By continual application to her profession she lost her sight; and it is recorded thatVandyck, having had an opportunity of conversingjwith Sophonisba, used to say, that he received more beneficial knowledge of the two principles of his art from one blind woman, than by studying all the works of the greatest masters of Italy. At Lord Spencer’s, at Wimbledon, there is a portrait of Sophonisba, playing on the' harpsichord, painted by herself; an old woman appears as her attendant; and on the picture is written, Jussu Patris. And at Wilton, in the Pembroke collection, is the marriage of St. Catherine, painted by Sophonisba. One of her sisters, named Lucia Angusciola, painted portraits, and gained by her performances a reputation not inferior to Sophonisba, as well in regard to the truth and delicacy of her colouring, as the justness of the resemblance. And another of her sisters, named Europa Angusciola, from her infancy manifested an extraordinary turn for painting, and shewed such taste and elegance in her manner of design, as to procure a degree of applause almost equal to Lucia or Sophonisba.

, commonly called Michael of Bologna, a Romish divine of distinguished learning in the fourteenth century, was born at Bologna in Italy, where he entered of the order of the Carmelites; but studied afterwards in the university of Paris, and there received the degree of doctor. In the general chapter of his order, which was held at Ferrara in 1354, in that of Bourdeaux in 1358, and in that of Treves in 1362, he was named regent of the convent at Paris. After arriving at other honours in the Romish church, he fell under the displeasure of the pope Urban VI. and retired to the convent of Bologna, where he wrote a great many books, and where he died Nov. 16, 1400, according to father Lewis de Sainte Terese; or Dec. 1, 1416, according to Trithemius and Du Pin. The editors of the General Dictionary incline to the former date. Of his works, there were published, “Super Sententias libri IV.” Milan, 1510; and Venice, 1632, fol. “Commentaria in Psalmos,” which was first published at Alcala in 1524, under the name of Igr.otus, as the author was not then known; and republished in the same manner at Lyons in 1588 and 1603. These and commentaries by him on other parts of the holy scriptures were afterwards published with his name, first at Venice, in 3 vols. 4to; and at Paris in 1626, in two vols. folio; and at Lyons in 1652 and 1673, in the same form. The manuscripts he left besides are very numerous, and were preserved with great care. One of them was a dictionary of the words occurring in the Bible, which was unfinished.

, a Venetian engraver, is said to have acquired so much precision and delicacy in executing small objects, that Michael Angelo, in whose time he appears to have flourished, considered him as having attained the very perfection of his art; he principally engraved medals; and his engravings of the medals of Henry II. king of France, and of pope Paul III. which has on the reverse, Alexander the Great kneeling before the high priest of Jerusalem, are greatly valued by connoisseurs. Strutt mentions another Anichini, an Italian artist, who flourished about 1655, who appears to have been an engraver of some note; but we have no account of his life.

, confessor to Lewis XIV. was born at Rouergue, in 1590. He became a Jesuit in 1607, and professed the fourth vow in 1624. He taught philosophy at Toulouse six years, and divinity seven; and having discharged his duty in each of these capacities with great applause, he was invited to Rome, to act as censor-general of the books published by the Jesuits, and theologist to the general of the society. Upon his return to his own province, he was appointed rector of the colleges of Montpellier and of Toulouse. He assisted as deputy of his province at the eighth congregation-general of the Jesuits held at Rome in 1645, where he distinguished himself in such a manner, that father Vincent Caraffa, general of the Jesuits, thought no person more fit to discharge the office of assistant of France, which had been vacant for some time. The ninth congregation gave him the same post, under Francis Picolimini, general of the society, upon whose death he was made provincial of the province of France. Whilst he was engaged in this employment, he was chosen confessor to the king 1654; and after having discharged this office 16 years, he was obliged to solicit his dismission; his great age having much impaired his hearing. Father Sotueil, from whom these particulars are taken, gives him the character of a person of great virtues, perfect disinterestedness, modesty, and humility; exact in practising the observances and discipline of his order; extremely cautious in using his interest for his own advantage, or that of his family; and of uncommon zeal for religion. “He was the hammer of heretics,” says he, “and attacked particularly, with incredible zeal, the new heresy of the Jansenists. He strenuously endeavoured to get it condemned by the pope, and restrained by the authority of the king. Besides which, he confuted it with such strength of argument, that his adversaries had nothing solid to reply to him.” There are many (says Mr. Bayle) whom father Sotueil will never convince in this last point; but he seems to agree with him in the character of disinterestedness which he gives to Annat, who stirred so little for the advancement of his family, that the king is reported to have said, he knew not whether father Annat had any relations.

, archbishop of Canterbury in the reigns of William Rufus and Henry I was an Italian by birth, and born in 1033 at Aost, or Augusta, a town at the foot of the Alps, belonging to the duke of Savoy. He was descended of a considerable family: his father’s name was Gundulphus, and his mother’s Hemeberga. From early life his religious cast of mind was so prevalent, that, at the age of fifteen, he offered himself to a monastery, but was refused, lest his father should have been displeased. After, however, he had gone through a course of study, and travelled for some time in France and Burgundy, he took the monastic habit in the abbey of Bee in Normandy, of which Lanfranc, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury, was then prior. This was in 1060, when he was twenty-seven years old. Three years after, when Lanfranc was made abbot of Caen, Anselm succeeded him in the priory of Bee, and on the death of the abbot, was raised to that office. About the year 1092, Anselm came over into England, by the inritation of Hugh, earl of Chester, who requested his assistance in his sickness. Soon after his arrival, William Rufus, falling sick at Gloucester, was much pressed to fill up the see of Canterbury. The king, it seems, at that time, was much influenced by one Kanulph, a clergyman, who, though a Norman and of mean extraction, had a great share in the king’s favour, and at last rose to the post of prime minister. This man, having gained the king’s ear by flattering his vices, misled him in the administration, and put him upon several arbitrary and oppressive expedients. Among others, one was, to seize the revenues of a church, upon the death of a bishop or abbot; allowing the dean and chapter, or convent, but a slender pension for maintenance. But the king now falling sick, began to be touched with remorse of conscience, and among other oppressions, was particularly afflicted for the injury he had done the church and kingdom in keeping the see of Canterbury, and some others, vacant. The bishops and other great men therefore took this opportunity to entreat the king to fill up the vacant sees; and Anselm, who then lived in the neighbourhood of Gloucester, being sent for to court, to assist the king in his illness, was considered by the king as a proper person, and accordingly nominated to the see of Canterbury, which had been four years vacant, and was formerly filled by his old friend and preceptor Lanfranc. Anselm was with much difficulty prevailed upon to accept this dignity, and evidently foresaw the difficulties of executing his duties conscientiously under such a sovereign as William Rufus. Before his consecration, however, he gained a promise from the king for the restitution of all the lands which were in the possession of that see in Lanfranc’s time. And thus having secured the temporalities of the archbishopric, and done homage to the king, he was consecrated with great solemnity on the 4th of December, 1093. Soon after his consecration, the king intending to wrest the duchy of Normandy from his brother Robert, and endeavouring to raise what money he could for that purpose, Anselm made him an offer of five hundred pounds; which the king thinking too little, refused to accept, and the archbishop thereby fell under the king’s displeasure. About that time, he had a dispute with the bishop of London, touching the right of consecrating churches in a foreign diocese. The next year, the king being ready to embark for Normandy, Anseim waited upon him, and desired his leave to convene a national synod, in which the disorders of the church and state, and the general dissolution of manners, might be remedied: but the king refused his request, and even treated him so roughly, that the archbishop and his retinue withdrew from the court, the licentious manners of which, Anselm, who was a man of inflexible piety, had censured with great freedom. Another cause of discontent between him and the archbishop, was Anselm’s desiring leave to go to Rome, to receive the pall from pope Urban II. whom the king of England did not acknowledge as pope, being more inclined to favour the party of his competitor Guibert. To put an end to this misunderstanding, a council, or convention, was held at Rockingham castle, March 11, 1095. In this assembly, Anselm, opening his cause, told them with what reluctancy he had accepted the archbishopric; that he had made an express reserve of his obedience to pope Urban; and that he was now brought under difficulties upon that score. He therefore desired their advice how to act in such a manner, as neither to fail in his allegiance to the king, nor in his duty to the holy see. The bishops were of opinion, that he ought to resign himself wholly to the king’s pleasure. They told him, there was a general complaint against him, for intrenching upon the king’s prerogative; and that it would be prudence in him to wave his regard for Urban; that bishop (for they would not call him pope) being in no condition to do him either good or harm. To this Anselm returned, that he was engaged to be no farther the king’s subject than the laws of Christianity would give him leave; that as he was willing “to render unto Cassar the things that were Caesar’s,” so he must likewise take in the other part of the precept, and “give unto God that which was God’s.” Upon this William, bishop of Durham, a court prelate, who had inflamed the difference, and managed the argument for the king, insisted, that the nomination of the pope to the subject was the principal jewel of the crown, and that by this privilege the kings of England were distinguished from the rest of the princes of Christendom. This is sound doctrine, if that had really been the question; but, whatever may be now thought of it, Anselm held an opinion in which succeeding kings and prelates acquiesced, and in the present instance, there is reason to think that William Rufus’s objection was not to the pope, but to a pope. Be this as it may, the result of this council was that the majority of the bishops, under the influence of the court, withdrew their canonical obedience, and renounced Anselm for their archbishop, and the king would have even had them to try and depose him, but this they refused. In consequence of this proceeding, Anselm desired a passport to go to the continent, which the king refused, and would permit only of a suspension of the affair from March to Whitsuntide; but long before the expiration of the term, he broke through the agreement, banished several clergymen who were Anselm’s favourites, and miserably harrassed the tenants of his see. Whitsuntide being at length come, and the bishops having in vain endeavoured to soften Anselm into a compliance, the king consented to receive him into favour upon his own terms; and, because Anselm persisted in refusing to receive the pall from the king’s hands, it was at last agreed that the pope’s nuncio, who had brought the pall into England, should carry it clown to Canterbury, and lay it upon the altar of the cathedral, from whence Anselm was to receive it, as if it had been put into his hands by St. Peter himself.

This may appear trifling; but as we have already said that the king’s objection was to a pope, and not to Me pope, jt is necessary to prove this by a circumstance which occurred during the interval above-mentioned, especially as this part of Anselm’s conduct has been objected to by some late biographers more acquainted with the opinions of their own time, than with the opinions and state of society in that of Anselm. During the above interval, Walter, bishop of Alba, was sent by Urban into England, attended by two clergymen, who officiated in the king’s chapel. These ecclesiastics had been privately dispatched to Rome, to inquire into the late election, and examine which of the two pretenders, Guibert or Urban, was canonically chosen, and finding the right lay in Urban, applied to him, and endeavoured to persuade him to send the king the archbishop of Canterbury’s pall. This was the king’s point; who thought, by getting the pall into his possession, he should be able to manage the archbishop. The pope complied so far, as to send the bishop of Alba to the king with the pall, but with secret orders concerning the disposal of it. This prelate arriving at the English court, discoursed very plausibly to the king, making him believe the pope was entirely in his interest; in consequence of which William ordered Urban to be acknowledged as pope in all his dominions. After he had thus far gratified the see of Rome, he began to treat with the legate about the deprivation of Anselm; but was greatly disappointed, when that prelate assured him the design was impracticable. As therefore it was now too late to go back, he resolved, since he could not have his revenge upon Anselm, to drop the dispute, and pretend himself reconciled. Matters being thus adjusted, the archbishop went to Canterbury, and received the pall with great solemnity the June following. And now it was generally hoped, that all occasion of difference between the king and the archbishop was removed; but it appeared soon after, that the reconciliation on the king’s part was not sincere. For William, having marched his forces into Wales, and brought that country to submission, took that opportunity to quarrel with Anselm, pretending he was not satisfied with the quota the archbishop had furnished for that expedition. Finding therefore his authority too weak to oppose the corruptions of the times, Anselm resolved to go in person to Rome, and consult the pope. But the king, to whom he applied for leave to go out of the kingdom, seemed surprised at the request, and gave him a flat denial. His request being repeated, the king gave his compliance in the form of a sentence of banishment, and at the meeting of the great council, Oct. 1097, commanded him to leave the kingdom within eleven days, without carrying any of his effects with him, and declared at the same time thut he should never be permitted to return. Anselm, nowise affected by this harsh conduct, went to Canterbury, divested himself of his archiepiscopal robes, and set out on his journey, embarking at Dover, after his baggage had been strictly searched by the king’s officers. As soon as the king heard that he had crossed the channel, he seized upon the estates and revenues of the archbishopric, and made every thing void which Anselm had done. The archbishop, however, got safe to Rome, and was honourably received by the pope, and after a short stay in that city, he accompanied the pope to a country seat near Capua, whither his holiness retired on account of the unhealthiness of the town. Here Anselm wrote a book, in which he gave an account of the reason of our Saviour’s incarnation. The pope wrote to the king of England in a strain of authority, enjoining him to reinstate Anselm in all the profits-und privileges of his see, and Anselm wrote into England upon the same subject. The king, on the other hand, endeavoured to get Anselm discountenanced abroad, and wrote to Roger, duke of Apulia, and others, to that purpose. But, notwithstanding his endeavours, Anselm was treated with all imaginable respect wherever he came, and was very serviceable to the pope in the council of Bari, which was held to oppose the errors of the Greek church, with respect to the procession of the Holy Ghost. In this synod Anselm answered the objections of the Greeks, and managed the argument with so much judgment, learning, and penetration, that he silenced his adversaries, and gave general satisfaction to the Western church. This argument was afterwards digested by him into a tract, and is extant among his other works. In the same council Anselm generously interposed, and prevented the pope from pronouncing sentence of excommunication against the king of England, for his frequent outrages on religion. After the synod of Bari was ended, the pope and Anselm returned to Rome, where an ambassador from the king of England was arrived, in order to disprove Anselm’s allegations and complaints against his master. At first the pope was peremptory in rejecting this ambassador; but the latter in a private conference, and through the secret influence of a large sum of money, induced the court of Rome to desert Auselm. Still the pope could not be resolute; for when the archbishop would have returned to Lyons, he could not part with him, but lodged him in a noble palace, and paid him frequent visits. About this time the pope having summoned a council to sit at Rome, Anselm had a very honourable seat assigned to him and his successors, this being the first appearance of an archbishop of Canterbury in a Roman synod. Nor was this all. for the bishop of Lucca, one of the members, alluded to Anselm’s case in a manner so pointed, that the pope was obliged to promise that matters should be rectified. When the council broke up, Anselm returned to Lyons, where he was entertained for some time by Hugo the archbishop, and remained there until the death of king William and pope Urban in 1100. Henry I. who succeeded William, having restored the sees of Canterbury, Winchester, and Salisbury, which had been sei'/ed by his predecessor, Anselm was solicited to return to England, and on his arrival at Clugny, an agent from the king presented him with a letter of invitation to his bishopric, and an excuse for his majesty’s not waiting until Anselm’s return, and receiving the crown from the hands of another prelate.

When he came to England, September 1100, he was received with extraordinary respect by the king and people, but it being required that he should be re-invested by the king, and do the customary homage of his predecessors, he refused to comply, alledging the canons of the late synod at Rome about investitures. This synod excommunicated all lay persons, who should give investitures for abbies or cathedrals, and all ecclesiastics receiving investitures from lay hands, or who came under the tenure of homage for any ecclesiastical promotion, were put under the same censure. Displeased as the king was with Anselm’s adherence to this law, he was not sufficiently established on the throne to hazard an open rupture, and it was therefore agreed that the dispute should rest until Easter following, and in the mean time both parties were to send their agents to Rome, to try if they could persuade the pope to dispense with the canons of the late synod in relation to investitures. About this time, Anselm summoned a synod to meet at Lambeth, on occasion of the king’s intended marriage with Maud or Matilda, eldest daughter of Malcolm king of Scotland, and in this synod, it was determined, that the king might lawfully marry that princess, notwithstanding she was generally reported to be a nun, having worn the veil, and had her education in a religious house. Soon after the marriage, which Anselm celebrated, he was of signal service to king Henry against his brother the duke of Normandy, who had invaded England, and landed with a formidable army at Portsmouth, as he not only furnished the king with a large body of men, but was very active, likewise, in preventing a revolt of the great men from him. To engage the primate to perform these services, we are assured by Eadmer, his fr.end, secretary, and biographer, that the king solemnly promised io govern the kingdom by his advice, and submit in all tilings to the will of the pope, a promise which he seems to have kept no longer than danger was in view.

The agents, sent by the king and the archbishop to Rome, being returned, brought with them a letter Irom pope Paschal to the king, in which his holiness absolutely refused to dispense with the canons concerning investitures. The king, on his part, resolved not to give up what for some reigns had passed for part of the royal prerogative, and thus the difference was continued between the king and Anselm. In this dispute the majority of the bishops and temporal nobility were on the court side; and some of them were very earnest with the king, to break entirely with the see of Rome; but it was not thought adTiseable to proceed to an open rupture without trying a farther expedient; and therefore fresh agents were dispatched by the king to Rome, with instructions to offer the pope this alternative; either to depart from his former declaration, and relax in the point of investitures, or to be content with the banishment of Anselm, and to lose the obedience of the English, and the yearly profits accruing from that kingdom. At the same time, Anselm dispatched two monks, to inform the pope of the menaces of the English court. But the king’s ambassadors could not prevail with the pope to recede from his declaration; his holiness protesting he would sooner lose his life than cancel the decrees of the holy fathers, which resolution he signified by letters to the king and Anselm. Soon after, the king, having convened the great men of the kingdom at London, sent Anselm word, that he must either comply with the usages of his father’s reign, or quit England; but the agents disagreeing in their report of the pope’s answer, Anselm thought proper not to return a positive answer till farther information. And thus the controversy slept for the present. The next year a national synod was held under Anselm at St. Peter’s, Westminster; at which the king and the principal nobility were present, and in which several abbots were deposed for simony, and many canons were made. By one of these the married clergy were commanded to put away their wives, and by another it was decreed that the sons of priests should not be heirs to their fathers’ churches.

The king had an interview with the archbishop about mid-lent, 1103, in which he laboured both by threats and promises, to bring him to do homage for the temporalities of his see, but when he found him inflexible, he joined with the bishops and nobility in desiring Anselm to take a journey to Rome, to tiy if he could pe; suade the pope to relax, and Anselm accordingly set out, April 29. At the same time, the king dispatched one William Warelwast to Home, who, arriving there before Anselm, solicited-for the king his master, but to no purpose, as the pope persisted in refusing to grant the king the right of investiture. But, at the same time, his Holiness wrote a very ceremonious letter to the king of England, entreating him to wave‘ the contest, and promising all imaginable, compliance in other matters. Anselm, having taken leave of the court of Rome, returned to Lyons, where he received a sharp and reprimanding letter from a monk, acquainting him with the lamentable condition of the province of Canterbury, and blaming him for absenting himself at such a critical time. During the archbishop’s stay at Lyons, the king sent another embassy to Rome, to try if he could prevail with the pope to bring Anselm to a submission. But the pope, instead of being gained, excommunicated some of the English court, who had dissuaded the king from parting with the investitures, yet he declined pronouncing any censure against the king. Anselm, perceiving the court of Rome dilatory in its proceedings, removed from Lyons, and made a visit to the countess Adela, the conqueror’s daughter, at her castle in Blois. This lady inquiring into the business of Anselm’s journey, he told her that, after a great deal of patience and expectation, he must now be forced to excommunicate the king of England. The countess was extremely concerned for her brother, and wrote to the pope to procure an accommodation. The king, who was come into Normandy, hearing that Anselm designed to excommunicate him, desired his sister to bring him with her into Normandy, with a promise of condescension in several articles. To this Anselm agreed, and waited upon the king at a castle called L’Aigle, July 1105, where the king restored to him the revenues of the archbishopric, but would not permit him to come into England, unless he would comply in the affair of the investitures, which Anselm refusing, continued in France, till the matter was once more laid before the pope. But now the English bishops, who had taken part with the court against Anselm, began to change their minds, as appears by their letter directed to him in Normaiuly, in which, after having set forth the deplorable state of the church, they press him to come over with all speed, promising to stand by him, and pay him the regard due to his character. This was subscribed by Gerrard archbishop of York, Robert bishop of Chester, Herbert bishop of Norwich, Ralph bishop of Chichester, Samson bishop of Worcester, and William elect of Winchester. Anselm expressed his satisfaction at this conduct of the bishops, but acquainted them that it was not in his power to return, till he was farther informed of the proceedings of the court of Rome. In the mean time, being told, that the king had fined some of the clergy for a late breach of the canons respecting marriage, he wrote to his highness to complain of that stretch of his prerogative. At length the ambassadors returned from Rome, and brought with them a decision more agreeable than the former, for now th pope thought fit to make some advances towards gratifying the king, and though he would not give up the point of investitures, yet he dispensed so far as to give the bishops and abbots leave to do homage for their temporalities. The king, who was highly pleased with this condescension in the pope, sent immediately to invite Anselm to England; but the messenger finding him sick, the king himself went over into Normandy, and visited him at the abbey of Bee, where all differences between them were completely adjusted. As soon as Anselm. recovered, he embarked for England, and landing at Dover, was received with extraordinary marks of welcome, the queen herself travelling before him upon the road, to provide for his better entertainment. From this time very little happened in the life of this celebrated prelate, excepting only his contest with Thomas, archbishop elect of York, who endeavoured to disengage himself from a dependency on the see of Canterbury; but although Anselm died before the point was settled, Thomas was obliged to comply, and make his submission as usual to the archbishop of Canterbury. Anselm died at Canterbury, in the seventy-sixth year of his age, and the seventeenth of his prelacy, April 21, 1109.

Anselm’s character, in his own times, appears to have been that of a man of ardent piety, extensive learning, and great firmness and constancy in pursuing the measures which he thought most conducive to the interests of the church. How far he acted right in his adherence to the papal dominion, cannot he judged from what is now thought on that subject, but what was then either law or practice. There can be no doubt that in the early ages of the English church, the pope had a kind of patriarchal power in England, and although we find instances of disputes between some of our kings and the court of Home on this subject, we generally also find that they ended in the submission of the former, or in such a compromise as the mutual interests of the contending parties required for a temporary truce. Never until the reformation was the point completely settled, although it was, until that period, a perpetual source of litigation, and sometimes, it must be confessed, our monarchs shewed a firmness that might have deprived the court of Rome of her boasted supremacy, had they not been thwarted by the superstitious fears of their subjects.

, a Dutch poet of considerable celebrity in his own country, was born at Amsterdam in 1622. In 1649 he travelled to Italy, where he acquired great reputation as a writer of Latin verse. Pope Innocent X. gave him a beautiful medal for a poem which he had composed on occasion of the jubilee celebrated in 1650, and queen Christina gave him a gold chain for a poem in Dutch which he addressed to her. Some have discovered in his poems an inclination for the Roman catholic religion. He died at Perouse in Italy, May 16, 1669. The collection of his works was printed at Rotterdam, 1715, 8vo; and contains the “Crown of St. Stephen the martyr,” published in 1646; and his tragedy of the “Parisian nuptials, or the massacre of St. Bartholomew,” which first appeared in 1649.

a French ecclesiastic and antiquary, was born at Frejus, July 25, 1643. When he had finished his studies, he succeeded an uncle, in a canonry of the cathedral of that city, and wrote a treatise “De periculis Canonicorum,” on the dangers to which the lives of canons are liable: this curious piece his brother Charles intended to publish, but it remains in manuscripj;. In 1680, he published, what was accounted more valuable, a Latin dissertation on the foundation of the church of Frejus, and its history, lives of the bishops, &c. This was intended as an introduction to a complete history of the city and church of Frejus, which is still in manuscript. In 1684, on the recommendation of father La Chaise, under whom he had studied theology at Lyons, he was appointed grand-vicar and official to J. B. de Verthamon, Mshop of Pamiers, who employed him in restoring peace to his diocese, which had been disturbed by the regale, a right so called in France, by which the French king, upon the death of a bishop, Claimed the revenues and fruits of his see, and the colladon of all benefices vacant in the diocese, before the appointment of a new bishop. Antelmi was so successful in this undertaking, that the bishop on his arrival found his diocese in perfect tranquillity. He then continued to prosecute his studies, and wrote several works, particularly his disquisition concerning the genuine writings of Leo the Great, and Prosper Aquitanus, “De veris operibus, &c.” 1689. In this he maintains that the Capitula concerning the grace of God, the Epistle to Demetrius, and the two books of the Calling of the Gentiles, ascribed to Leo, were really written by Prosper. Father Quesnel was his opponent on this subject, and was the first who ascribed these books to Leo, while Baronius, Sirmond, Labbe, and Noris, conjectured that pope Celestine was the author. Quesnel answered Antelmi, and, in M. du Pin’s opinion, with success, Antelmi’s other and more interesting work, was on the authorship of the Athanasian Creed, “Nova de Symbolo Athanasiano disquisitio,” Paris, 1693, 8vo. Quesnel ascribed this creed to Virgilius or Vigilius Thapsensis, an African bishop in the sixth century; Antelmi, and Pithon before him, to a French divine. The General Dictionary gives a summary of the arguments on both sides.

, a learned Italian of the fifteenth century, was a native of Perugia, and of a family of some rank. He was the scholar of Joannes Antonius Campanus, and published the first and perhaps only entire edition of Campanus’ works, 1495. Michael Fernus, a Milanese scholar, at his request superintended the press, and enriched the publication with a copious life of Campanus, and a variety of elaborate prefaces addressed to various persons. That which is addressed to Antiquarius himself bears ample testimony to his literary reputation. On quitting his native city, Antiquarius obtained a political orKce of consequence and responsibility at Bologna. About 1460 he removed to Milan, where his erudition enabled him to secure the favour and patronage of Giovanni Galeozzo and Lud. Maria Visconti, dukes of Milan, to whom he was secretary and prime minister, and employed his influence in the patronage of literature. As he was in the church he obtained some rich benefices from pope Alexander VI. Many learned works, the publication of which he had encouraged, were dedicated to him, but we have nothing of his own, except an “Oratio,” Milan, 1509, 4to, and a volume of Latin letters, 1519, 4to. He died at Milan in 1512.

, a man of great learning, whq raised himself from a low condition by his merit, his parents being so far from able to support him in his studies, that they themselves stood in need of charity, was born at Rome in 1540. He made a quick and most surprising progress in his studies; for when he was but ten years old, he could make verses upon any subject proposed to him; and these so excellent, though pronounced extempore, that it was commonly thought they exceeded those of the most studied preparation. A proof of this was at the table of the cardinal of Pisa, when he gave an entertainment one day to several other cardinals. Alexander Farnese, taking a nosegay, gave it to this youth, desiring him to present it to him of the company whom he thought most likely to be pope: he presented it to the cardinal of Medicis, and made an eulogium upon him in verse. This cardinal, who was pope some years afterwards, under the name of Pius IV. imagined it all a contrivance, and that the poem had been artfully prepared before-hand, by way of ridicule upon him. He therefore appeared hurt at it, but the company protested that it was an extempore performance, and requested him to make a trial of the boy: he did so, and was convinced of his extraordinary talents. According to Strada, as the cardinal of Medicis was thinking upon a subject for this purpose, the clock in the hall struck; which was the occasion of his proposing a clock for the subject of his verses. The duke de Ferrara coming to Rome, to congratulate Marcellus II. upon his being raised to the pontificate, was so charmed with the genius of Antoniano, that he carried hi:n to Ferrara, where he provided able masters to instruct him in all the sciences. From thence he was sent for by Pius IV. who recollecting the adventure of the nosegay, made inquiry for the young poet; and having found him, invited him to Rome, and gave hinvan honourable post in his palace, and some time after made him professor of the belles lettres in the college at Rome. Antoniano filled this place with so much reputation, that on the day when he began to explain the oration pro Marco Marcello, he had a crowd of auditors, and among these no less than twenty-five cardinals. He was afterwards chosen rector of the college; and after the death of Pius IV. being seized with a spirit of devotion, he joined himself to Philip Neri, and accepted the office of secretary to the sacred college, offered him by Pius V. which he executed for many years with the reputation of an honest and able man. He refused a bishopric which Gregory XIV. wculd have given him, but he accepted the office of secretary to the briefs, offered him by Clement VIII. who made him his chamberlain, and afterwards a cardinal. It is reported, that cardinal Alexander de Montalto, who had behaved a Hitle too haughtily to Antoniano, said, when he saw him promoted to the purple, that for the future he would not despise a man of the cassoc and little band, however low and despicable he might appear; since it might happen that he whom he had despised, might not only become his equal, but even his superior. His intense application is said to have hastened his death, Aug. 15, 1603. His printed works are, 1. “Dele 1 Educazione Cristiana de Figliuoli libri tre,” Verona, 1584, 4to, reprinted at Cremona and Naples. This work on education he wrote at the request of cardinal Borromeo. 2. “Orationes tredecim,” Rome, 1610, 4to, with a life of the author by Joseph Castalio. 3. Various discourses, letters, pieces of poetry, both Latin and Italian, in the collections.

, St. archbishop of Florence, was born in that city in 1389, and became a dominican, and afterwards superior of a numerous society, who devoted themselves to a life of austerity. He appeared to advantage at the council of Florence, where he was appointed to dispute with the Greeks. In 1446, he was, with much reluctance on his side, promoted to be archbishop of Florence, and from the moment of his installation is said to have shewn a bright example of all the virtues ascribed to the bishops of the primitive ages. He practised great temperance, preserved a simplicity of garb and manner, shunned honours, and distinguished himself by zeal and charity, particularly during the plague and famine with which Florence was visited in 1448; and died, much lamented, in 1459. Cosmo de Medicis bestowed his confidence on him; pope Eugene IV. wished he might die in his arms; Pius II. assisted at his funeral, and Adrian VI. enrolled him in the number of the saints, in 1523. His studies had been chiefly directed to ecclesiastical history and theology, and his principal works are, 1. “Historiarum opus seu Chronica libri viginti quatuor,” Venice, 1480; Nuremberg, 1484; Basil, 1491, Z vols. fol. 2. “Summa theologise moralis,” Venice, 4 vols. 4to, often reprinted, and in the edition of Venice, 1582, entitled “Juris Pontificii et Caesarsei summa.” Mamachi published an edition, in 1751, at Venice, 4 vols. 4to, with prolix notes. This work is still consulted. 3. “Summula confessionis,” Venice, 1473, one of the earliest printed books.

, a very learned and useful Spanish biographer, was born at Seville in 1617. His father was made president of the admiralty established in that city by Philip IV. He received his early education among the dorainicans, and studied philosophy and divinity afterwards at Salamanca, under the ablest masters, particularly Francis Ramos del Manzano, who was afterwards preceptor to the king and preceptor to Charles II. He then returned to Seville, and entirely devoted to study, passed the whole of his time in the Benedictine convent, where Benedict de la Serra, the abbot, had collected a very copious library, and where Antonio first planned and composed his valuable “Bibliotheca Hispana.” When considerably advanced in this work, he brought it with him to Rome in 1659, at which time he was sent thither by Philip IV. in the character of agent-general of affairs concerning the crown of Spain, the two Sicilies, and the inquisition, and he continued in this office twenty-two years, at the end of which Charles II. recalled him to Madrid, and made him a member of his council. Notwithstanding these profitable employments, he was so charitable to the poor, as frequently to be in want himself, but was considerably relieved by a canonry of Seville, which pope Alexander VII. bestowed upon him, on the recommendation of the cardinal of Aragon. He died at Madrid in 1684, and was then a ktiight of the order of St. James. It is said that among his papers was found a commission appointing him one of the supreme council of justice, but it is certain that he never filled that office. He left no property, but a library of thirty thousand volumes. His publications were, 1. “De exilio, sive de exilii poena antiqua et nova, exsulumque conditione et juribus, libri tres,” Antwerp, 1659, fol. The editor of the Biog. Universell-e speaks of a previous edition, 1641; but this we do not find in the author’s account in his “Bibl. Hispana.” This is said to have been written when he was only twenty-three years old. 2. “Bibliotheca Hispana Nova,” Rome, 1672, 2 vols. fol. and lately reprinted by Francis Perez Bayer, of Valeutia, at Madrid, 1783, 2 vols. fol. In this work, Antonio, according to the custom of the time, arranges his authors in the alphabetical order of their Christian names, a fault not conveniently remedied by his indexes, which are intended to divide his authors into classes. The collection is unquestionably creditable to Spanish learning and industry, b-ut many of the persons here recorded have long been in the land of oblivion, and among these we may surely reckon the greater part of an hundred and sixty authors who have written on the immaculate conception. 3. “Bibliotheca Hispana vetus, complectens scriptores qui ab Octaviani Augusti imperio usque ad annum M. floruerunt,” Rome, 1696, 2 vols. fol. The M. in this title should be M. D. Antonio having left no means of defraying the expence of this publication, cardinal d'Aguirre took the whole upon himself, and employed Emmanuel Mars, a learned Valentian, as editor. The authors are here ranged in chronological order, with proper indexes, &c. The “Bibliotheca Nova,” although published first, is in fact a sequel to this last, which has also been reprinted by Bayer at Madrid, 1788. Baillet prefers Antonio’s work to every thing of the kind, and Morhof considers it as a model. David Clement prefers it to all the Bibliothecas except that of Quetif and Echarcl. He thinks him blameable, however, for not giving the titles of books in their proper language, an objection to which other biographers, and particularly the French, until lately, have been justly liable. One other publication of Antonio was printed for the first time so lately as 1742, at Valentia, under the titla of “Censura de historias fabulas, obra postuma,” fol. ornamented with plates, and published by D. Gregoire Mayans y Siscar. We know not whether this be part of a work in which Antonio tells us he was long engaged, and which was to be called “Trophaeum historico-ecclesiasticum Deo veritatis erectum ex manubiis pseudo-historicorum, qui Flavii Lucii Dextri, M. Maximi, Helecoe, Braulionis, Luitprandi, et Juliani nomine circumferuntur; hoc est, Vindiciae verae atque iludum notae Hispanarum rerum historise, Germanarum nostros gentislaudum non ex GermanoFuldensibus chronicis emendicatarum in libertatem et puritatem plena assertio,” a work which Bayle thinks would have been of dangerous consequence, as people seldom like to be set right as to the fabulous stories which have long flattered their vanity.

, of Padua, or of Portugal, of the religious order of St. Francis, and the Thaumaturgus of his age, was the son of Martin Bulhan or Bouillan, and of Mary of Trevera, and born at Lisbon in the year 1195. He first joined the community of the canons of the cathedral of Lisbon, and then associated with the regular canons of St. Vincent in the suburbs of that city, where he lived a retired and austere life, and afterwards became one of the order of St. Francis. He left off his baptismal name of Ferdinand, and adopted that of Antony. Conceiving the design of going to Africa, he embarked for that continent; but his vessel being blown back to Messina, he found himself obliged to remain in Italy, where he studied theology, and preached with much reputation. He afterwards visited Montpellier, Thoulouse, and Padua, and made many converts by the earnestness of his preaching; and his discourses, we are told, were confirmed by miracles. Pope Gregory IX had so high an opinion of him that he named him “The Ark of the New Testament, and the secret Depository of sacred learning.” His long Stay at Padua procured him the surname by which he is distinguished. In this place he died, June 13, 1231, in the thirty-sixth year of his age, and was canonized in the following year by pope Gregory above mentioned. His body was placed in the superb church which bears his name. There are several sermons of this saint extant, and some other works. Father Jean of the Hague, a 4 religious of the same order, and professor of theology, printed a new edition of his works in 1641, to which he added those ascribed to St. Francis, and a life of Antony. These works are entitled, “Sermones dominicales adventus, quadragesimæ, ac reliqui omnes de tempore. Sermones de Sanctis. Interpretatio vel expositio mystica in sacram Scripturam. Concordantiæ morales sacrorum bibliorum.” This last is divided into five books.

, a physician and astrologer, was born in 1250, at the village of Abano near Padua, of which the Latin name is Aponus, and hence he is frequently called Petrus de Apono, or Aponensis. He is also sometimes called Petrus de Padua. When young, he went, with a view to study Greek, to Constantinople, or according to others, to some of the islands belonging to the Venetian republic. Having afterwards a desire to study medicine and mathematics, he returned, and spent some years at Padua, and at Paris, where he was admitted to the degree of doctor of philosophy and medicine. He was, however, recalled to Padua, and a professorship of medicine founded for him. He attained great reputation as a physician, and is said to have been very exorbitant in his fees. We are not told what his demands were in the place of his residence, but it is affirmed that he would not attend the sick in any other place under 150 florins a day; and when he was sent for by pope Honorius IV. he demanded 400 ducats for each day’s attendance. But these reports are thought to have been exaggerated, as perhaps are many other particulars handed down to us, such as his abhorrence of milk, which was so great, that he fainted if he saw any person drink it.

, commonly called the Angelical Doctor, of the ancient family of the counts of Aquino, descended from the kings of Sicily and Arragon, was born in the castle of Aquino, in the Terra di Lavoro, in Italy, about the year 1224. At five years of age he was committed to the care of the monks of Mount Cassino, with whom he remained till he was sent to the university of Naples. In the year 1241 he entered into the order of the preaching friars at Naples, without the knowledge of his parents. His mother, being informed of this, used her utmost efforts to induce him to leave this society; to prevent which, the Dominicans removed him toTerracina, and from thence to Anagna, md at last to Rome. His mother followed him thither, and when she could not obtain leave of the monks to see him, by the assistance of her two elder sons, she seized the youth in his journey to Paris, to which he was sent by the monks of his order, and caused him to be shut up in her castle; whence, after a confinement of two jears, he made his escape, and fled first to Naples, and then to Rome. In 1244 he went to Paris with John, the master of the Teutonic order, and from thence removed to Cologne, to hear the lectures of Albertus Magnus. Here he remained till he was invited again to Pans, to read lectures upon the “Book of Sentences,” which he did with great applause, before a very large audience. In the year 1255 he was created D. D. at Paris. He returned to Italy about the year 1263, and was appointed definitor of his order, for the province of Rome; and having taught school divinity in most of the universities of Italy, he re-settled at last at Naples, where he received a pension from king Charles. Here he spent his time in study, in reading of lectures, and exercises of piety; and was so far from any views of ambition or profit, that he refused the archbishopric of that city when it was offered him by Clement IV. In 1274 he was sent for to the second council of Lyons, by pope Gregory X. that he might read before them the book he had written against the Greeks, at the command of Urban IV.; but he fell sick on his journey, at the monastery of Fossanova, near Terracina, where he died on the 7th of March, aged fifty years.

The whole Western world, after his decease, began to load the memory of Thomas Aquinas with honours. The Dominican fraternity removed his body to Thoulouse; pope John XXII. canonized him; Pius V. gave him the title of the Fifth Doctor of the Church; the learned world honoured him with the appellation of The Universal and the Angelic Doctor; and Sixtus Senensis tells us, that he approached so nearly to St. Augustin in the knowledge of true divinity, and penetrated so deeply into the most abstruse meanings of that father, that, agreeably to the Pythagorean metempsychosis, it was a com non expression among all men of learning, that St. Augustin’s soul had transmigrated into St. Thomas Aquinas. Rapin speaks also of him with high honour, and represents him as one of the great improvers of school-divinity. Lord Herbert of Cherbury, in his Life and Reign of Henry VIII. tells us, that one of the principal reasons, which induced this king to write against Martin Luther, was, that the latter had spoken contemptuously of Aquinas. The authority of Aquinas indeed has been always very great in the schools of the Roman Catholics. But notwithstanding all the extravagant praises and honours which have been heaped upon this saint, it is certain that his learning was almost wholly confined to scholastic theology, and that he was so little conversant with elegant and liberal studies, that he was not even able to read the Greek language. For all his knowledge of the Peripatetic philosophy, which he so liberally mixed with theology, he was indebted to the defective translations of Aristotle which were supplied by the Arabians, till he obtained, from some unknown hand, a more, accurate version of his philosophical writings. Adopting the general ideas of the age, that theology is best defended by the weapons of logic and metaphysics, he mixed the subtleties of Aristotle with the language of scripture and the Christian fathers; and, after the manner of the Arabians, framed abstruse questions, without end, upon various topics of speculative theology. He excelled, therefore, only in that subtile and abstruse kind of learning which was better calculated to strike the imagination, than to improve the understanding. He maintained what is commonly called the doctrine of free-will, though he largely quoted Augustin, and retailed many of his pious and devotional sentiments. His Aristotelian subtleties enabled him to give a specious colour to the absurd doctrine of transubstantiation, which in him found a vehement defender. He held many other erroneous opinions, but it must be acknowledged, there are in his writings, and particularly in the account of his discourses during his last sickness, traces of great devotion, and a strain of piety very similar to that of St. Augustin. Aquinas left a vast number of works, which were printed in seventeen volumes in folio, at Venice in 1490; at Nuremberg in 1496; Rome 1570; Venice 1594; and Cologne 1612; and many times after.

The five first volumes contain his Commentaries upon the works of Aristotle. The sixth and seventh a Coramentary upon the four Books of Sentences. The eighth consists of Questions in Divinity. The ninth volume contains the Sum of the Catholic Faith, against the Gentiles; divided into four books. The tenth, eleventh, and twelfth, the Sum of Divinity, with the Commentaries of cardinal Cajetauus. The thirteenth consists of several Commentaries upon the Old Testament, particularly a Commentary upon the Book of Job, a literal and analogical Exposition upon the first fifty Psalms, an Exposition upon the Canticles, which he dictated upon his death-bed, to the monks of Fossanova; Commentaries upon the Prophecies of Isaiah and Jeremiah, and upon the Lamentations. The fourteenth contains the Commentaries upon the gospels of St. Matthew and St. John; the former is said to have been written by Peter Scaliger, a dominican friar and bishop of Verona. The fifteenth volume contains the Catena upon the four Gospels, extracted from the fathers, and dedicated to pope Urban IV. The sixteenth consists of the Commentary upon St. Paul’s Epistles, and the Sermons of Aquinas preached on Sundays and the festivals of saints. The seventeenth contains divers tracts in Divinity.

, the secretary and intendant of finances to Athaiaric, and afterwards subdeacon of the Romish church, flourished in the sixth century, and, according to some accounts, was born in the year 490, but the place of his birth has been contested. He certainly was of Liguria, but in his time Liguria comprehended a great part of Lombardy, and Milan was the chief city. He was educated under Laurentius, archbishop of Milan, who died in the year 504. Arator is said to have died in the year 356. At first he employed his poetical talents on profane subjects, but afterwards on those which were of a more serious kind. In the year 544, he presented Pope Vigilius with the Acts of the Apostles in Latin verse, with which the pontiff was so much pleased that he ordered the work to be read in the church of St. Peter ad Vincula, and it met with universal approbation. We find in it many of the allegories which the venerable Bede introduced in his commentary on the Acts. It was printed with other poetry of the same description, at Venice, 1502, 4to, Strasburgh, 1507, 8vo, Leipsic, 1515, 4to, and in the Bibliotheca Patrum, Paris, 1575, 1589, &c. Father Sirmond published at the end of his edition of Ennodius, a letter in elegiac verse, which Arator wrote to Parthenius.

His gentle manners, polite learning, and excellent talents, entitled him to an intimate correspondence and friendship with the celebrated wits of his time, Pope, Swift, Gay, and Parnell, whom he met as a member of the Scriberus club. In 1714 he engaged with Pope and Swift in a design to write a satire on the abuse of human learning in. svery branch, which was to have been executed in the humorous manner of Cervantes, the original author of this species of satire, under the history of feigned adventures. But this project was put a stop to by the queen’s death, when they had only drawn out an imperfect essay towards it, under the title of the first book of the “Memoirs of Martinus Scriblerus .” “These Memoirs,” says Dr. Johnson, “extend only to the first part of a work, projected in concert by Pope, Swift, and Arbuthnot. Their purpose was to censure the abuses of learning by a fictitious life of an infatuated scholar. They were dispersed; the design was never completed; and Warburton laments its miscarriage, as an event very disastrous to polite letters. If the whole may be estimated by this specimen, which seems to be the prooduction of Arbuthnot, with a few touches perhaps by Pope, the want of more will not be much lamented; for the follies which the writer ridicules are so little practised, that they are not known; nor can the satire be understood but by the learned; he raises phantoms of absurdity, and then drives them away. He cures diseases that were never felt For this reason, this joint production of three great writers has never attained any notice from, mankind.”

The queen’s death, and the disasters which fell upon his friends on that occasion, deeply affected our author’s spirits; and to divert his melancholy, he paid a visit to his brother, a banker at Paris. His stay there, however, was but very short; he returned to London, and having lost his former residence at St. James’s, took a house in Dover-street. In 1727, he published “Tables of ancient Coins, Weights, and Measures,” 4to. He continued to practise physic with good reputation, and diverted his leisure hours in writing papers of wit and humour. He contributed in 1732 towards detecting and punishing the scandalous frauds and abuses that had been carried on under the specious name of the “The Charitable Corporation.” The same year he published his “Essay concerning the nature of Aliments, the choice of them, &c.” which was followed the year alter by the “Effects of Air on Human Bodies.” He was apparently led to the subjects of these treatises by the consideration of his own case; an asthma, which gradually increasing with his years, became shortly after desperate and incurable. In 1734 he retired to Hampstead, in hopes of finding some small relief for this affliction, but died at his house in Cork-street, Burlington-gardens, Feb. 27, 1734-5. He was married, and had children, particularly George and Anne; the former enjoyed a place of considerable profit in the exchequer-office, and was one of the executors to Pope’s will, and the other a legatee.

Pope, in a letter to Digby, dated Sept. 1, 1722, tells him, that the first time he saw the doctor, Swift observed to him, that he was a man who could do every thing but walk. He appears to have been in all respects a most accomplished and amiable person. He has shewn himself equal to any of his contemporaries, in humour, vivacity, and learning; and he was superior to most men in the moral duties of life, in acts of humanity and benevolence. “Arbuthnot,” says Dr. Johnson in his life of Pope, “was a man of great comprehension, skilful in his profession, versed in the sciences, acquainted with ancient literature, and able to animate his mass of knowledge by a bright and active imagination; a scholar with great brilliance of wit; a wit, who, in the crowd of life, retained and discovered a noble ardour of religious zeal.” Dr. Warton also is very copious in his praise, and says, that he had infinitely more learning than Pope or Swift, and as much wit and humour as either. His letter to Pope, written as it were upon his death-bed, and which no one can read without the tenderest emotion, discovers considerable fortitude of mind at the approach of his dissolution. In 1751, came out, in two vols. 8vo. printed at Glasgow, “The miscellaneous works of the late Dr. Arbuthnot,” which are said to comprehend, with what is inserted in Swift’s Miscellanies, all his pieces of wit and humour: but the genuineness of many pieces in that collection is more than apocryphal; and a collection of his works, as well as a life of the author, are still desiderata. Several of the pieces in the above miscellany were written by Fielding, Henry Carey, and other authors, who are known; and some of them were written after Dr. Arbuthnot’s death, or when he was too ill to compose such trifles.

, a Greek ecclesiastic of the isle of Corfou, went to study at Rome, but Clement VIII. sent him to Russia to settle some disputes about religion. On his return, he was so fortunate as to attach himself to cardinal Bovghese, a nephew of the pope, who found him worthy of his patronage and esteem. Of his writings we find: 1. “De concordia ecclesiee occidentals et orientalis, in septem sacrauientorum adminjstratione,” printed at Paris, in 1672, 4to. 2. “Utrum detur purgatorium?” Home, 1632, 4to. 3. “De purgatorio igne,” ibid. 1637, 4to. 4. “Opuscula de processione spiritds sancti,” ibid. 1630, 4to. He is extremely violent against all innovators, whose name he abominates, and under which name he includes the authors of the reformation. Eusebius Renaudot even charges him with want of veracity, and of common honesty, and asserts that he was employed to cry down the Greek church. Arcudio died at Rome, at the college of the Greeks, about the year 1635, in consequence of an accident.

The fame of Guido’s invention soon spread abroad, and among other honours bestowed upon him, the pope John XX. or XIX. for this is not agreed on, sent three messengers to invite him to Rome; he complied, and being presented, was received by his holiness with great kindness. The pope had several conversations with him, in all which he interrogated him as to his knowledge in music: and upon the sight of an antiphonary which Guido had brought with him, marked with the syllables agreeable to his new invention, the pope looked on it as a kind of prodigy, and ruminating on the doctrines delivered by Guido, would not stir from his seat till he had learned perfectly to sing a verse; upon which he declared, that he could not have believed the efficacy of the method, if he had not been convinced by the experiment he himself had made of it. The pope would have detained him at Rome; but labouring under a bodily disorder, and fearing an injury to his health from the air of the place, and the heat of the summer, which was then approaching, Guido left that city with a promise to revisit it, and explain to his holiness the principles of his new system. On his return homeward, he made a visit to the abbot of Pomposa, a town in the duchy of Ferrara, who was very earnest to have Guido settle in the monastery of that place: to which invitation it seems he yielded, being, as he says, desirous of rendering so great a monastery still more famous by his studies there.

Of his works, it has been justly said by Mr, Roscoe, that whether in prose or verse, sacred or profane, epic or dramatic, panegyrical or satirical, and notwithstanding their great number and variety, not one piece exists which in point of literary merit is entitled to approbation; yet the jcommendations which Aretino received from his contemporaries are beyond example. These would not be worth recording as praise bestowed on such a character, but they are striking and useful features in the character of an age on which some writers have bestowed great commendations on account of its learning and patronage of learned men. Aretino seems to have been born to sport with the passions of the great, and to exalt and perpetuate the vices of the vulgar. As a proof how well he knew how to manage the former, we may state from his latest biographer the following examples of misapplied patronage. Francis I. not only presented him with a chain of gold, and afforded him other marks of his liberality, but requested that the pope would allow him the gratification of his society. Henry VIII. of England sent him at one time three hundred gold crowns, and Charles V. not only allowed him a considerable pension, but on one occasion placed him on his right hand, and rode with him in intimate conversation. Julius III. gave him a thousand crowns, accompanied with a papal bull, nominating him a knight of St. Peter, to which dignity was also annexed an annual income. These favours and distinctions, which were imitated by the inferior sovereigns and chief nobility of Europe, excited the vanity of Aretino to such a degree, that he expected to be created a cardinal, and actually boasted that he had refused that honour. He assumed, however, the titles of “II Divino,” the “Divine,” and “the Scourge of princes.” Medals were struck in honour of him, representing him decorated with a chain of gold, and on the reverse the princes of Europe bringing to him their tribute. On the other hand, however, he was frequently in danger of his life from the persons he had lampooned, and his literary adversaries frequently employed their pens in exposing his vanity and infamous character.

While he was busied in these literary pursuits, Alphonso duke of Ferrara, having occasion to send ambassadors to Rome, in order to appease the anger of pope Julius II. who prepared to make war against him, was, by his brother the cardinal, recommended to Ariosto, as a proper person to be entrusted with such a negotiation, and he acquitted himself so well in his commission, that he returned with an answer much more favourable than was expected. However, the pope, still continuing at enmity with the duke, made a league with the Venetians, and collected a powerful army against Ferrara: but was defeated at the battle of Ravenna. Part of a Meet was sent up the Po, against Ferrara, and met with a repulse from the duke’s party. In this engagement, Ariosto, who was present, behaved with great courage, and took one of the largest of the enemy’s vessels, filled with stores and ammunition. The papal army being dispersed, Alphonso thought it advisable to send an ambassador again to Rome, and dispatched Ludovico a second time, who found his holiness so incensed against the duke, that his indignation was very near showing itself to the ambassador; and it was not without difficulty that Ariosto escaped with life to Ferrara. The duke’s affairs being established, Ariosto returned to his studies; but was employed in various public occupations, that often broke in upon his retirement, and obliged him to defer the completion of his Orlando. However, he found means to bring it to a conclusion; and though it was far from that perfection which he desired, yet, in order to avail himself of the opinion of the public, he caused it to be first printed in 1515.

With respect to pope Leo X. the acknowledged patron of literature and arts, whom Fornari calls particularly liberal to poets, and by whom he relates that Ariosto was highly esteemed, he is said to have made him a present of some hundred crowns for the prosecution of his work, though Ariosto himself is sile'nt upon that head; and yet in the verses published by Gabriele Simeoni, in his satire upon Avarice, it is said in a note, that “Leo X. gave Ariosto several hundred crowns to complete his work.” Upon the exaltation of this pontiff to the papal chair, be paid a visit to him, with great expectations of advantage. The pope gave him a very gracious reception, and a bull or licence entitling him to the profits of his poem; and he left Home dissatisfied in his expectation, but bore testimony to the pope’s honourable reception of him.

But it seems that Ariosto had raised his thoughts to some great ecclesiastical preferment; on which occasion signor Rolli observes, that one reason why he was not preferred was, that he was devoted to Alphonso of Ferrara, whom the pope hated, and therefore could not give our author a cardinal’s hat. Leo died in 1521, six years after the finst publication, and the year in which Ariosto published the third edition of his poem. Perhaps had he lived longer, the poet might have experienced further marks of his generosity.

Notwithstanding what has been mentioned of his personal bravery in the engagement between the pope’s vessels and the duke’s, he is reported to have been naturally of a timid disposition: when on horseback he would alight oa the least appearance of danger; he was particularly timorous on the water; and when he went out of a vessel, would always stay till the last, frequently using this expression: “De puppe novissimus exi.” In every other respect his temper was firm and unruffled.

In 1746, he was appointed one of the physicians to the hospital for lame and sick soldiers behind Buckinghamhouse. In 1751, he published his poem on “Benevolence,” in folio, a production which seems to come from the heart, and contains sentiments which could have been expressed with equal ardour only by one who felt them. His “Taste, an epistle to a young critic,” 1733, is a lively and spirited imitation of Pope, and the first production in which our author began to view men and manners with a splenetic eye. In 1758, he published “Sketches, or essays on various subjects,” under the fictitious name of Lancelot Temple, esq. In some of these he is supposed to have been assisted by the celebrated John Wilkes, with whom he lived in habits of intimacy. What Mr. Wilkes contributed we are not told, but this gentleman, with all his moral failings, had a more chaste classical taste, and a purer vein of humour than we find in these sketches, which are deformed by a perpetual flow of affectation, a struggle to say smart things, and above all a most disgusting repetition of vulgar oaths and exclamations. This practice, so unworthy of a gentleman or a scholar, is said to have predominated in Dr. Armstrong’s conversation, and is not unsparingly scattered through all his works, with the exception of his “Art of preserving Health.” It incurred the just censure of the critics of his day, with whom, for this reason, he could never be reconciled.

, doctor of the Sorbonne, and brother of the preceding, was born at Paris the 6th of February 1612. He studied philosophy in the college of Calvi, on the ruins of which the Sorbonne was built, and began to study the law; but, at the persuasion of his mother and the abbot of St. Cyran, he resolved to apply himself to divinity. He accordingly studied in the college of the Sorbonne, under Mr. l‘Escot. This professor gave lectures concerning grace; but Arnauld, not approving of his sentiments upon this subject, read St. Augustin, whose system of grace he greatly preferred to that of Mr. l’Escot: and publicly testified his opinion in his thesis, when he was examined in 1636, for his bachelor’s degree. After he had spent two years more in study, which, according to the laws of the faculty of Paris, must be between the first examination and the license, he began the acts of his license at Easter 1638, and continued them to Lent, 1640. He maintained the act of vespers the 18th of December 1641, and the following day put on the doctor’s cap. He had begun his license without being entered in form at the Sorbonne, and was thereby rendered incapable of being admitted, according to the ordinary rules. The society, however, on account of his extraordinary merit, requested of cardinal Richelieu, their provisor, that he might be admitted, though contrary to form; which was refused by that cardinal, but, the year after his death, he obtained this honour. In 1643, he published his treatise on Frequent Communion, which highly displeased the Jesuits. They refuted it both from the pulpit and the press, representing it as containing a most pernicious doctrine: and the disputes upon grace, which broke out at this time in the university of Paris, helped to increase the animosity between the Jesuits and Mr. Arnauld, who took part with the Jansenists, and supported their tenets with great zeal. But nothing raised so great a clamour against him, as the two letters which he wrote upon absolution having been refused by a priest to the duke of Liancour, a great friend of the Port Royal. This duke educated his grand-daughter at Port Royal, and kept in his house the abbé de Bourzays. It happened in 1655, that the duke offered himself for confession to a priest of St. Sulpice, who refused to give him absolution, unless he would take his daughter from Port Royal, and break off all commerce with that society, and discard the abbé. Mr. Arnauld therefore was prevailed upon to write a letter in defence of Liancour. A great number of pamphlets were written against this letter, and Mr. Arnauld thought himself obliged to confute the falsities and calumnies with which they were filled, by printing a second letter, which contains an answer to nine of those pieces. But in this second letter the faculty of divinity found two propositions which theycondemned, and Mr. Arnauld was excluded from that society. Upon this he retired, and it was during this retreat, which lasted near 25 years, that he composed that variety of works which are extant of his, on grammar, geometry, logic, metaphysics, and theology. He continued in this retired life till the controversy of the Jansenists was eaded; in 1668. Arnauld now came forth from, his retreat, and was presented to the king, kindly received by the pope’s nuncio, and by the public esteemed a father of the church. From this time he resolved to enter the lists only against the Calvinists, and he published his book entitled “La perpetuite de la Foi,” in which he was assisted by M. Nicole: and which gave rise to that grand controversy between them and Claude the minister.

, a famous scholar of the twelfth century, born at Brescia in Italy, whence he went to France, and studied under the celebrated Peter Abelard. Upon his return to Italy, he put on the habit of a monk, and began to preach several new and uncommon doctrines, particularly that the pope and the clergy ought not to enjoy any temporal estate. He maintained in his sermons, that those ecclesiastics who had any estates of their own, or held any lands, were entirely cut off from the least hopes of salvation; that the clergy ought to subsist upon the alms and voluntary contributions of Christians; and that all other revenues belonged to princes and states, in order to be disposed of amongst the laity as they thought proper. He maintained also several singularities with regard to baptism and the Lord’s supper. He engaged a great number of persons in his party, who were distinguished by his name, and proved very formidable to the popes. His doctrines rendered him so obnoxious, that he was condemned in 1139, in a council of near a thousand prelates, held in the church of St. John Lateran at Rome, under pope Innocent II. Upon this he left Italy, and retired to Swisserland. After the death of that pope, he returned to Italy, and went to Rome; where he raised a sedition against Eugenius III. and afterwards against Adrian IV. who laid the people of Rome under an interdict, till they had banished Arnold and his followers. This had its desired effect: the Romans seized upon the houses which the Arnoldists had fortified, and obliged them to retire toOtricoli in Tuscany, where they were received with the utmost affection by the people, who considered Arnold as a prophet. However, he was seized some time after by cardinal Gerard; and, notwithstanding the efforts of the viscounts of Campania, who had rescued him, he was carried to Rome, where, being condemned by Peter, the prefect of that city, to be hanged, he was accordingly executed in 1155. Thirty of his followers went from France to England, about 1160, in order to propagate their doctrine there, but they were immediately seized and put to death. Mr. Berington, the historian of Abelard and Heloisa, after a very elegant memoir of Arnold’s life, sums up his character with much candour. He thinks he was a man whose character, principles, and views, have been misrepresented; but he allows that he was rash, misjudging, and intemperate, or he would never have engaged in so unequal a contest. It appears, indeed, by all accounts, that he was one of those reformers who make no distinctions between use and abuse, and are for overthrowing all establishments, without proposing any thing in their room.

was a famous physician, who lived in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, and after, studying at Paris and Montpelier, travelled through Italy and Spain. He was well acquainted with languages, and particularly with the Greek, Hebrew, and Arabic. He was at great pains to gratify his ardent desire after knowledge; but this passion carried him rather too far in his researches, as he endeavoured to discover future events by astrology, imagining this science to be infallible; and upon this foundation he published a prediction, that the world would come to an end in 1335 or 1345, or, according to others, in 1376. He practised physic at Paris for some time; but, having advanced some new doctrines, he drew upon himself the resentment of the university; and his friends, fearing he might be arrested, persuaded him to retire from that city. Some authors have also affirmed, that the inquisitors of the faith, assembled at Tarascon, by order of Clement V. condemned the chimerical notions of this learned physician. Upon his leaving France he retired to Sicily, where he was received by king Frederic of Arragon with the greatest marks of kindness and esteem. Some time afterwards, this prince sent him to France, to attend the same pope Clement in an illness, and Arnold was shipwrecked on the coast of Genoa, in 1309, though some say it was in 1310, and others in 1313. The works of Arnold, with his life prefixed, were printed in one volume folio, at Lyons, 1520, and at Basil, 1585, with the notes of Nicholas Tolerus.

, bishop of Lisieux, in the twelfth century, was treasurer of the church of Bayeux, archdeacon of Seez, and in 1141, succeeded John, his uncle, io the bishopric of Lisieux. In 1147 he travelled beyond seas with Louis the Young, king of France, and returned in 1149. In 1,154, he was present at the coronation of Henry II. king of England, whom he endeavoured to keep steadfast to the orthodox faith, as appears by the letters of pope Alexander III. He espoused the cause of Thomasa Becket, and travelled to England, on purpose to effect a reconciliation between Becket and the king, but finding that his interference was useless, and likely to involve himself with Henry, he resolved to retire to a monastery. Many years after he was made canon regular of the abbey of St. Victor at Paris, where he died August 31, 1182. He wrote several works, and among others, a volume of letters, two speeches, one delivered in the council held at Tours, 1163, and the other on occasion of ordaining a bishop, and some pieces of poetry, all printed by Odo Turnebus, the son of Adrian, Paris, 1585, under the title “Epistolae, conciones, et epigrammata,” and afterwards inserted in theBibliotheca Patrum. D'Acheri, in the second volume of his Spicilegium, has a treatise by Arnoul, “De Schismate orco post Honoriill. discessum, contra Girardum episcopum Engolismensem,” the legate of Peter of Leon, the antipope: and in the thirteenth volume, a sermon and five letters. ArnoiFs letters are chiefly valuable for the particulars they contain of the history and discipline of his times, and his poetry is favourably spoken of, as to correctness of verse.

There are extant likewise, “Tomellus, sive epistola Ernulfi ex JYlonacho Benedictino Episcopi Roffensis de Incestis Conjugiis,” and “Epistola solutiones quasdam continens ad varias Lamberti abbatis Bertiniani qurestiones, praecipue de Corpore et Sanguine Domini.” Bale, who confounds our Arnulph with Arnoul bishop of Lisieux, and with Arnoul abbot of Bonneval, and Arnulphus the presbyter, informs us, that Arnulphus went to Rome, where, inveighing strongly against the vices of the bishops, particularly their lewd ness, grandeur, and worldly-mindedness, he fell a sacrifice to the rage and resentment of the Roman clergy, who caused him to be privately assassinated. But this was Arnulphus the presbyter, who, as Platina tells us, was destroyed by the treachery of the Roman clergy, in the time of pope Honorius II. for remonstrating with great severity against the corruptions of the court of Rome. Nor could this possibly be true of our Arnulph, in the time of that pope for this bishop of Rochester died before Honorius II. was raised to the pontificate. As to the works ascribed by Bale to Arnulphus, such as “De Operibns sex dierum,” &c. they were written either by Arnoul bishop of Lisieux, or by Arnoul abbot of Bonneval.

, a learned Italian physician, was born at Assisi, about the year 1586. His father, who was also a physician of character, spared nothing to give him an education suitable to the profession which he wished him to follow. He began his studies at Perugia, and meant to have completed them at Montpellier, but he was sent to Padua, where he attended the logical, philosophical, and medical classes. Having obtained his doctor’s degree in his eighteenth year, he went to Venice and practised physic there for fifty years, during which he refused very advantageous offers from the duke of Mantua, the king of England, and pope Urban VIII. and died there July 16, 1660. He had collected a copious library, particularly rich in manuscripts, and cultivated general literature as well as the sciences connected with his profession, in which last he published only one tract, to be noticed hereafter. His first publication was “Riposte alle considerazion di Alessandro Tassoni, sopra le rime del Petrarca,” Padua, 1611, 8vo, to which Tassoni replied under the assumed name of Crescenzio Pepe; “Avvertimenti di Cres. Pepe a Guiseppe degli Aromatari, &c.” 1611, 8vo. Aromatari answered this by “Dialoghi di Falcidio Melampodio in riposta agli avvertimenti date sotto nome di Cres. Pepe, &c.” Venice, 1613, 8vo. But the work which has procured him most reputation was a letter on the generation of plants, addressed to Bartholomew Nanti, and printed for the first time, prefixed to his (Aromatari’s) “Disputatio de rabie contagiosa,” Venice, 1625, 4to, Francfort, 1626, 4to, and the Letter was afterwards printed among the “Epistolæ selectæ” of G. Richt, Nuremberg, 1662, 4to. It was also translated into English, and published in the Philosophical Transactions, No. CCXI, and again reprinted with Jungius’s works, in 1747, at Cobourg. His opinions on the generation of plants were admired for their ingenuity, and if his health and leisure had permitted, he intended to have prosecuted the subject more minutely.

, the son of a painter named Cesari at Arpino, was born at Rome in 1560. While yet in his 13th year his father placed him with the artists employed by Gregory XIII. in painting the lodges of the Vatican, whom he served in the humble employment of preparing their pallets and colours. But, in this situation he discovered such talents, that the pope gave orders to pay him a golden crown per day so long as he continued to work in the Vatican. Pope Clement VIII. distinguished him by adding new and higher favours to those of Gregory XIII. He made him chevalier of the order of Christ, and appointed him director of St. John de Lateran. In 1600 he followed the cardinal Aldobrandini, who was sent legate on occasion of the marriage of Henry IV. with Mary de Medicis. Caravagio, his enemy and his rival, having attacked him, Arpino refused to fight him because he was not a knight, and in order to remove this obstacle, Caravagio was obliged to go to Malta to be admitted chevalierservant. Arpino wanted likewise to measure swords with Annibal Carachio, but the latter, with becoming contempt, took a pencil in his hand, and, shewing it to him, said, “With this weapon I defy you.” Arpino died at Rome in 1640, at the age of four-score. He was among painters what Marino was among poets, born to dazzle and to seduce, and both met with a public prepared to prefer glitter to reality. He is said to have conducted some of his first pictures from designs of Michel Angelo, but it was less their solidity that made him a favourite, than the facility, the fire, the crash, and the crowds, that filled his compositions. The horses which he drew with great felicity, the decisive touch that marked his faces, pleased all; few but artists could distinguish manner from style, and them his popularity defied. The long course of his practice was distinguished by two methods, in fresco and in oil. The first, rich, vigorous, amene, and animated, has sufficient beauties to balance its faults; it distinguishes, with several altar-pieces, his two first frescos in the Campidoglio, the Birth of Romulus, and the Battle of the Sabines; and with this class might be numbered some of his smaller works, with lights in gold, and exquisitely finished; this method, however, soon gave way to the second, whose real principle was dispatch, free but loose and negligent; in this he less finished than sketched, with numberless other works, the remainder of the frescos in the Campidoglio, forty years after the two first. He reared a numerous school, distinguished by little more than the barefaced imitation of his faults, and a brother Bernardino Cesari, who was an excellent copyist of the designs of Michel Angelo, but died young. Among painters he is sometimes known by the name of II Cavalier d'Arpino, and sometimes by that of Josephin. Mr. Fuseli has given the above character of him under that of Cesari.

, a native of Florence, where he was born in 1582, and died in 1662, was appointed by pope Urban VIII. canon of the cathedral. He wrote a great many books, among which are, 1. “The Rhetoric of Aristotle,” divided into fifty-six lessons; 2. “A translation of the Poetic” of the same author; 3. “Four Academical discourses,” on pleasure, laughter, spirit, and honour. 4. “A life of St. Francis.” 5. Some pious writings, particularly a “Treatise on vocal and mental Prayer.” His father, Nicholas Arrighetti, died at Florence in 1639, and was a man of learning, and skilled in mathematics. There was also a Jesuit of the same name, who published “The theory of Fire,” in 1750, 4to; and died at Sienna in 1767.

, archbishop of Monembasia, or Malvasia in the Morea, was a learned philologist of the fifteenth century. He was the particular friend of pope Paul III. and wrote to him some very elegant letters. He submitted also to the Romish church, which gave so much offence to the heads of the Greek church, that they excommunicated him. There are of his extant, a “Collection of Apophthegms,” printed at Rome, in Greek and another “Collection of Scholia on seven of the tragedies of Euripides,” printed at Venice in 1518, 8vo Basil, 1544; and again at Venice in 1533. His collection of Apophthegms, or “Praeclara dicta Philosophorum,” has no date of year. The time of his death is uncertain, but he was alive in 1535.

, a French eastern scholar and traveller, was born at Marseilles in 1635, of a family originally from Tuscany, and from his infancy discovered an uncommon aptitude for learning languages, and a strong passion for travelling.In 1653 he accompanied his father, who was appointed consul at Saida, and resided for twelve years in the different ports of the Levant, where he learned the Persian, Hebrew, Arabic, and Syriac languages. After his return to France, he was, in 1668, sent to Tunis, to negociate a treaty with the Dey, and was the means of delivering three hundred and eighty French slaves, who wished to show their gratitude by making up a purse of 600 pistoles, which he refused to accept. In 1672, he was sent to Constantinople, where he had a principal hand in concluding a treaty with Mahomet IV. and succeeded chiefly by the facility with which he spoke the Turkish language, and which strongly recommended him to the confidence of the grand visier. M. Turenne had also requested him to obtain information respecting the opinions of the Greeks on the eucharist, which he found to be the same with that of the Latins. On his return, 1 he was made a knight of St. Lazarus, and received a pension of 1000 Hvres. The knowledge he had now so often displayed in the affairs of the Levant, induced the court to send him as consul to Algiers, and afterwards to Aleppo. Pope Innocent XI. in consideration of the services he had rendered to religion, made him an offer of the bishopric of Babylon, which he refused, but agreeably to the pope’s permission, named father Pidou for that office, which the Pope confirmed. During the latter part of his life, the chevalier d'Arvieux lived in retirement at Marseilles, devoting his time to the study of the sacred scriptures, which he read in the originals. He died in that city, Oct. 3, 1702. he had written the history of a voyage made by order of Louis XIV. to the grand Emir, the chief of the Arabian princes, and a treatise on the manners and customs of the Arabiaris, both published by M. de laRoque, Paris, 1717, 12mo. His “Memoires” were published by father Labat, Paris, 1735, 6 vols. 12mo. This work was attacked in “Lettres critiques de Hadji-Mehemet-Effendi,” Paris, 1735, 12mo, supposed to have been written under this name by M. Petis de la Croix.

, archbishop of Canterbury in the reigns of Richard II. Henry IV. and Henry V. was the second son of Robert Fitz-Alan, earl of Arundel and Warren, and brother of Richard earl of Arundel, who was afterwards beheaded. He was but twenty-two years of age when, from being archdeacon of Taunton, he was promoted to the bishopric of Ely, by the pope’s provision, and consecrated April 9, 1374, at Otteford. He was a considerable benefactor to the church and palace of that see. He almost rebuilt the episcopal palace in Holborn, and, among other donations, he presented the cathedral with a very curious table of massy gold, enriched with precious stones which had been given to prince Edward by the king of Spain, and sold by the latter to bishop Arundel for three hundred marks. In the year 1386, the tenth of Richard II. he was made lord high chancellor of England but resigned it in 1389 was again appointed in 1391, and resigned it finally, upon his advancement to the see of Canterbury. After he had sat about fourteen years in the see of Ely, he was translated to the archbishopric of York, April 3, 1388, where he expended a very large sum of money in building a palace for the archbishops, and, besides other rich ornaments, gave to the church several pieces of silver-gilt plate. In 1393, being then chancellor, he removed the courts of justice from London to York and, as a precedent for this unpopular step, he alledged the example of archbishop Corbridge, eighty years before. The see of Canterbury being vacant by the death of Dr. William Courtney, archbishop Arundel was translated thither, January 1396. The crosier was delivered into his hands by Henry Chellenden, prior of Canterbury, in the presence of the king, and a great number of the nobility, and on the 19th of February 1397, he was enthroned with great pomp at Canterbury, the first instance of the translation of an archbishop of York to the see of Canterbury. Soon after he had a contest with the university of Oxford about the right of visitation, which was determined by King Richard, to whom the decision was referred, in favour of the archbishop. At his visitation in London, he revived an old constitution, first set on foot by Simon Niger, bishop of London, by which the inhabitants of the respective parishes were obliged to pay to their rector one halfpenny in the pound out of the rent of their houses. In the second year of his translation, a parliament was held at London, in which the commons, with the king’s leave, impeached the archbishop, together with his brother the earl of Arundel, and the duke of Gloucester, of high-treason, for compelling the king, in the tenth year of his reign, to grant them a commission to govern the kingdom. The archbishop was sentenced to be banished, and had forty days allowed him to prepare for his exile, within which time he was to depart the kingdom on pain of death. Upon this he retired first into France, and then to Rome, where pope Boniface IX. gave him a very friendly reception, and wrote a letter to king Richard, desiring him to receive the archbishop again into favour. But not meeting with success, his holiness resolved to interpose his authority in favour of Arundel. Accordingly he nominated him to the archbishopric of St. Andrews, and declared his intention of giving him several other preferments in England, by way of provision. The king, upon this, wrote an expostulatory letter to the pope, which induced him not only to withhold the intended favours from Arundel, but likewise, at the king’s request^ to promote Roger Walden dean of York and lord treasurer of England, to the see of Canterbury. That prelate, however, was soon obliged to quit his new dignity for, next year, Arundel returned into England with the duke of Lancaster, afterwards king Henry IV. upon whose accession to the throne, the pope revoked the bull granted to Walden, and restored Arundel and among the articles of mis government brought against king Richard, one was his usage and banishment of this prelate. The throne being vacant by Richard’s resignation, and the duke of Lancaster’s title being allowed in parliament, Arundel had the honour to crown the new king and, at the coronationdinner, sat at his right hand; the archbishop of York being placed at his left. In the first year of king Henry’s reign, Arundel summoned a synod, which sat at St. Paul’s. Harpsfield, and the councils from him, have mistaken this synod for one held during the vacancy of the see. He also by his courage and resolution, preserved several of the bishops, who were in king Henry’s army, from being plundered of their equipages and money. The next year, the commons having moved, that the revenues of the church might be applied to the service of the public, Arundel opposed the motion so vigorously, that the king and lords promised him, the church should never be plundered in their time. After this, he visited the university of Cambridge, where he made several statutes, suppressed several bad customs, and punished the students for their misbehaviour. And, when the visitation was ended, at the request of the university, he reserved all those matters and causes, which had been laid before him, to his own cognizance and jurisdiction. In the year 1408, Arundel began to exert himself with vigour against the Lollards or Wickliffites. To this end, he summoned the bishops and clergy at Oxford, to check the progress of this new sect, and prevent that university’s being farther tinctured with their opinions. But the doctrines of Wickliff still gaining ground, the archbishop resolved to visit the university, attended by the earl of Arundel, his nephew, and a splendid retinue. When he came near the town, he was met by the principal members of the university, who told him, that, if he came only to see the town, he was very welcome, but if he came in the character of a visitor, they refused to acknowledge his jurisdiction. The archbishop, resenting this treatment, left Oxford in a day or two, and wrote to the king on accpunt of his disappointment. After a warm contest between the university and the archbishop, both parties agreed to refer the dispute to the king’s decision who, governing himself by the example of his predecessors, gave sentence in favour of the archbishop. Soon after this controversy was ended, a convocation being held at St. Paul’s in London, the bishops and clergy complained of the growth of Wicklevitism at Oxford, and pressed the archbishop to visit that university. He accordingly wrote to the chancellor and others, giving them notice, that he intended to hold a visitation in St. Mary’s church. His delegates for this purpose were sent down soon after, and admitted by the university, who, to make some satisfaction for their backwardness in censuring Wickliff’s opinions, “wrote to the archbishop, and asked his pardon: after which they appointed a committee of twelve persons, to examine heretical books, particularly those of Wicklitf. These inquisitors into heretical pravity, having censured some conclusions extracted out o'f WicklitPs books, sent an account of their proceedings to the archbishop, who confirmed their censures, and sent an authority in writing to some eminent members of the university, empowering them to inquire into persons suspected of heterodoxy, and oblige them to declare their opinions. These rigorous proceedings made Arundel extremely hated by the Wickliffites, and certainly form the deepest stain on his character. However he went on with the prosecution, and not only solicited the pope to condemn the abovementioned conclusions, but desired likewise a bull for the digging up Wickliff’s bones. The pope granted the first of these requests, but refused the other, not thinking it any useful part of discipline to disturb the ashes of the dead. Arundel’s warm zeal for suppressing the Lollards, or Wickliffites, carried him to several unjustifiable severities against the heads of that sect, particularly against sir John Oldcastle, lord Cobham and induced him to procure a synodical constitution, which forbad the translation of the scriptures into the vulgar tongue. This prelate died at Canterbury, after having sat seventeen years, the 20th of February, 1413. The Lollardsofthose times asserted the immediate hand of heaven in the manner of his death. He died of an inflammation in his throat, and it is said that he was struck with this disease, as he was pronouncing sentence of excommunication and condemnation on the lord Cobham; and from that time, notwithstanding all the assistance of medicine, he could swallow neither meat nor drink, and was starved to death. The Lollards imputed this lamentable end to the just judgment of God upon him, both for his severity towards that sect, and forbidding the scriptures to be translated into English; and bishop Godwin seems to lean to the same opinion. He was buried in the cathedral of Canterbury, near the west end, under a monument erected by himself in his life-time. He was a considerable benefactor to that church, having built the Lanthorn Tower, and great part of the Nave and he gave a ring of five bells, called from him” Arundel’s Ring," several rich vestments, a mitre enchased with jewels, a silver gilt crosier, a golden chalice for the high altar, and another to be used only on St. Thomas Becket’s day. He bestowed also the church of Godmersham, out of the income of which, he ordered six shillings and eight pence to be given annually to every monk of the convent, on the aforesaid festival. Lastly, he gave several valuable books, particularly two Missals, and a collection in one volume of St. Gregory’s works, with anathema to any person who should remove it out of the church. He appears to have possessed a great natural capacity, and was a splendid benefactor to many of our ecclesiastical structures. As a politician, he took a very active share in the principal measures of very turbulent times, and it is perhaps now difficult to appreciate his character in any other particulars than what are most prominent, his zeal for the catholic religion, and his munificence in the various offices he held.

The master of St. John’s college at this time, Nicholas Medcalf, was a great encourager of learning, and his tutor, Mr. Hugh Fitzherbert, had not only much knowledge, but also a graceful and insinuating method of imparting it to his pupils. To a genius naturally prone to learning, Mr. Ascham added a spirit of emulation, which induced him to study so hard, that, while a mere boy, he made a great progress in polite learning, and became exceedingly distinguished amongst the most eminent wits in the university. He took his degree of B. A. on the twenty-eighth of February, 1534, when eighteen years* of age; and on the twenty-third of March following, was elected fellow of his college by the interest of the master, though Mr. Ascham’s propensity to the reformed religion had made it difficult for Dr. Medcalf, who, according to Ascham' s account, was a man of uncommon liberality, to carry his good intention into act. These honours served only to excite him to still greater vigilance in his studies, particularly in that of the Greek tongue, wherein he attained an excellency peculiar to himself, and read therein, both publicly for the university, and privately in his college, with universal applause. At the commencement held after the feast of St. Peter and St. Paul, in 1536, he was inaugurated M. A. being then twenty-one years old. By this time many of his pupils came to be taken notice of for their extraordinary proficiency, and William Grindall, one of them, at the recommendation of Mr. Ascham, was chosen by sir John Cheke, to be tutor to the lady Elizabeth. As he did not accept this honour himself, he probably was delighted with an academical life, and was not very desirous of changing it for one at court. His affection for his friends, though it filled him with a deep concern for their interests, and a tender regard for their persons, yet could not induce him to give up his understanding, especially in points of learning. For this reason he did not assent to the new pronunciation of the Greek, which his intimate friend, sir John Cheke, laboured, by his authority, to introduce throughout the university; yet when he had thoroughly examined, he came over to his opinion, and defended the new pronunciation with that zeal and vivacity which gave a peculiar liveliness to all his writings. In July 1542, he supplicated the university of Oxford to be incorporated M. A. but it & doubtful whether this was granted. To divert him after the fatigue of severer studies, he addicted himself to archcry, which innocent amusement drew upon him the censure of some persons, against whose opinion he wrote a small treatise, entitled “Toxophilus,” published in 1544, and dedicated to king Henry VIII. then about to undertake his expedition against Boulogne. This work was very kindly received and the king, at the recommendation of sir William Paget, was pleased to settle a pension of ten pounds (now probably in value one hundred) upon him, which, after that prince’s death, was for some time discontinued, but at length restored to him, during pleasure, by Edward VI. and confirmed by queen Mary, with an additional ten pounds per annum. Among other accomplishments he was remarkable for writing a very fine hand, and taught that art to prince Edward, the lady Elizabeth, the two brothers Henry and Charles, dukes of Suffolk, and several other persons of distinction, and for many years wrote all the letters of the university to the king, and to the great men at court. The same year that he published his book he was chosen university- orator, in the room of Mr. John Cheke, an office which gratified his passion for an academical life, and afforded him frequent opportunities of displaying his superior eloquence in the Latin and Greek tongues. In 1548, on the death of his pupil, Mr. Grindal, he was sent for to court, in order to instruct the lady Elizabeth in the knowledge of the learned languages, which duty he discharged for two years, with great reputation to himself, and with much satisfaction to his illustrious pupil. For some time he enjoyed as great comfort at court as he had done at college but at length, on account of some illjudged and ill-founded whispers, Mr.Ascham took such a distaste at some in the lady Elizabeth’s family, that he left her a little abruptly, which he afterwards heartily repented, and took great and not unsuccessful pains, to be restored to her good graces. On his returning to the university, he resumed his studies, and the discharge of his office of public orator, his circumstances being at this time tolerably easy, by considerable assistance from lovers of learning, and a small pension allowed him by king Edward, and another by archbishop Lee. In the summer of 1550, he went, into Yorkshire to visit his family and relations, but was recalled to court in order to attend sir Richard Morysine, then going ambassador to the emperor Charles V. Imia journey to London he visited the lady Jane Gray, at er father’s house at Broad gate in Leicestershire, with whm he had been well acquainted at court, and for whomie had already a very high esteem. In September followig, he embarked with sir R. Morysine for Germany, wherehe remained three years, during which he left nothing omitsd which might serve to perfect his knowledge of men as veil as books. As he travelled with an ambassador, he thought it became him to make politics some part of his study, ad how well he succeeded appears from a short but very cirious tract which he wrote, concerning Germany, and of he affairs of Charles V. He was also of great use to the anbassador, not only in the management of his public concerns, but as the companion of his private studies, vihich were for the most part in the Greek language. He read Herodotus, Sophocles, Euripides, and Demosthenes, three days in a week the other three he copied the letters which the ambassador sent to England. While thus employed, his friends in England, particularly sir William Cecil, procured for him the post of Latin secretary to king Edward. But this he did not enjoy long, being recalled on account of the king’s death, on which occasion he lost all his places, together with his pension, and all expectation of obtaining any farther favours at court. In this situation he was at first hopeless, and retired to the university to indulge his melancholy. But the prospect quickly became more promising. His friend the lord Paget mentioned him to Stephen Gardiner bishop of Winchester, lord high chancellor, who very frankly received him into his favour, notwithstanding Mr. Ascham remained firm to his religion, which was so far from being a secret to the bishop, that he had many malicious informations given him on that head, which he treated with contempt, and abated nothing in his friendship to our author. He first procured him the re-establishment of his pension, which consisted of but ten pounds a year, with the addition of ten pounds a year more he then fixed him in the post of Latin secretary to the king and queen, and, by her majesty’s interest and his own, kept him in the fellowship of St. John’s, and in his place of orator to the university, to Midsummer 1554. Soon after his admission to his new employment, he gave art extraordinary specimen of his abilities and diligence, by composing and transcribing, with his usual elegance, in three days, forty-seven letters to princes and personaes, of whom cardinals were the lowest. He was likewe patronised by cardinal Pole, who, though he wrote e;gant Latin, yet sometimes made use of Mr. Ascharn’s pn, particularly in translating his speech to the parliaBsnt, which he made as the pope’s legate, and of which Unslation he sent a copy to the pope. On the first of June 1554, Ascham married Mrs. Margaret Howe, a lady of a rood family, with whom he had a very, considerable fortme, and of whom he gives an excellent character, in one oi his letters to his friend Sturmius. His favour with qteen Mary’s ministers was not less than what he enjoyed frtm the queen herself, who conversed with him often, and was much pleased with his company. On her death, having been previously reconciled to the lady Elizabeth, he was immediately distinguished by her, now queen, and from his time until his death he was constantly at court, very fully employed in the discharge of his two great offices, the cne of secretary for the Latin tongue, and the other of tutor to her majesty in the learned languages, reading some hours with her every day. This interest at court would have procured a man of a more active temper many considerable advantages; but such was either Ascham’s indolence, or disinterestedness, that he never asked any thing, either for himself or his family, though he received several favours unsolicited, particularly the prebend of Westwang in the church of York, in 1559, which he held to his death. Yet however indifferent to his own affairs, he was very far from being negligent in those of his friends, for whom he was ready to do any good office in his power, and in nothing readier than in parting with his money, though he never had much to spare. He always associated with the greatest men of the court, and having once in conversation heard the best method of educating youth debated with some heat, he from thence took occasion, at the request of sir Richard Sackville, to write his “Schoolmaster,” which he lived to finish, but not to publish. His application to study rendered him infirm throughout his whole life, and at last he became so weak, that he was unable to read in the evenings or at night; to make amends for which, he rose very early in the morning. The year before his death he was seized with a hectic, which brought him very low and then, contrary to his former custom, relapsing into night-studies, in order to complete a Latin poem with which he designed to present the queen on the new year, he, on the 23d of December 1568, was attacked by an aguish ‘distemper, which threatened him with immediate death. He was visited in his last sickness by Dr. Alexander Nowell, dean of St. ’Paul’s, and Graves, vicar of St. Sepulchre’s, who found him perfectly calm and chearful, in which disposition he continued to the 30th of the same month, when he expired. On the 4th of January following, he was interred according to his own directions, in the most private manner, in St. Sepulchre’s church, his funeral sermon being preached by the before-mentioned Dr. Nowell. He was universally lamented, and even the queen herself not only shewed great concern, but was also pleased to say, that phg had rather have lost ten thousand pounds than her tutor Ascham. His only failing was too great a propensity to dice and cock-fighting, which the learned bishop Nicolson would persuade us to be an unfounded calumny; but as it is mentioned by Camden, as well as some other contemporary writers, it seems impossible to deny it. It is certain that he died in very indifferent circumstances, as may appear from the address of his widow to sir William Cecil, in her dedication of his “Schoolmaster,” wherein she says expressly, that Mr. Ascham left her a poor widow with many orphans; and Dr. Grant, in his dedication of Ascham’s letters to queen Elizabeth, pathetically recommends to her his pupil, Giles Ascham, the son of our author, representing, that be had lost his father, who should have taken care of his education, and that he was left poor and without friends. Besides this son he had two others, Dudley and Sturmur, of whom we know little. Lord Burleigh took Giles Ascham under his protection, by whose interest he was recommended to a scholarship of St. John’s, and afterwards by the queen’s mandate, to a fellowship of Trinity college in Cambridge, and was celebrated, as well as his father, for his admirable Latin style in epistolary writings.

2. “Theatrum Chemicum Britannicum, containing several poetical pieces of our famous English philosophers, who have written the Hermetique mysteries, in their own ancient language. Faithfully collected into one volume, with annotations thereon, by Elias Ashmole, esq. qui est Mercuriophilus Anglicus,” London, 1652, 4to. The authors published in this collection are, Thomas Norton’s ordinal of Alchemic~ George Rrpley’s compound of Alchemic; Pater Sapientice, i.e. the father of wisdom, by an anonymous writer; Hermes’ s Bird, written originally in Latin, by Raymund Lully, and done into English verse by Abbot Cremer, of Westminster; Sir Geoffrey Chaucer’s Chanons Yeoman’s tale Dastin’s Dream, which seems to be a version of the Latin poem of John Dastm, entitled his Vision Pearce, the black monk, on the Elixir Richard Carpenter’s work, which some think, and not without reason, ought rather to be ascribed to John Carpenter, bishop of Worcester, who was one of the best chemists of his time Hunting of the Green Lion, by Abraham Andrews but there is also a spurious piece with the same title Breviary of Natural Philosophy, by Thomas* Charnock Ænigmas, by the same person Bloomfield' s Blossoms, which is likewise entitled the Camp of Philosophy, by William Bloomfield Sir Edward Kelle’s work his letter to G. S. Gent. (It is somewhat strange that this gentleman’s name, even by Mr. Ashmole, is written Keiley, though sir Edward himself wrote it Kelle.) Dr. John Dee’s Testament, which appears to be an epistle to one John Gwin, written A. D. 1568, and a third letter, the first two being wanting; Thomas Robinson, of the Philosopher’s Stone Experience and Philosophy, by an anonymous author the Magistery, by W. B. i. e. William Bloomfield John Gower, on the Philosopher’s Stone George Ripley’s Vision verses belonging to Ripley’s Scrowle Mystery of Alchymists preface to the Medulla of George Ripley; Secreta Secretorum, by John Lydgate Hermit’s Tale, anonymous description of the Stone the Standing of the Glass, for the time of the putrefaction and congelation of the medicine Ænigma Philosophicum, by William Bedman Fragments by various authors. 3. “The Way to Bliss, in three books, made public by Elias Ashmole, esq; qui est Mercuriophilus Anglicus,” London, 1658, 4to. This was the work in which he took his leave of the astrologers and aichymists, and bestowed his attention on the studies which produced, 4. “The Institution, Laws, and Ceremonies of the most noble Order of the Garter. Collected and digested into one body by Elias Ashmole, of the Middle Temple, esq. Windesore herald at arms. A work furnished with variety of matter relating to honour and noblesse” London, 1672, folio. He was not only so happy as to receive those extraordinary marks of the sovereign’s favour, mentioned above, but was complimented in an obliging manner by his royal highness the duke of York; who, though then at sea against the Dutch, sent for his book by the earl of Peterborough, and afterwards told our author he was extremely pleased with it. The rest of the knights-companions of the most noble order received him and his book with much respect and civility, and the regard shown him abroad was more singular. It was reposited, by the then pope, in the library of the Vatican. King Christie of Denmark, sent him, in 1674, a gold chain and- medal, which, with the king’s leave, he wore on certain high festivals. FredericWilliam, elector of Brandenburg!), sent him the like present, and ordered his boot to be translated into High Dutch. He was afterwards visited by the elector Palatine’s, the grand duke of Tuscany’s, and other foreign princes’ ministers, to return him thanks for this book, which he took care should be presented them, and thereby spread the fame of the garter, the nation, and himself, all over Europe. Yet it does not appear that this laborious and exquisite performance advanced at all the design he had formed some years before, of being appointed historiographer to the order, to which proposal some objections were made, and by our author fully answered, although we find no mention of this circumstance in any memoirs of Mr. Ashmole hitherto extant. 5, “The Arms, Epitaphs,. Feuestral Inscriptions, with the draughts of the Tombs, &c. in all the churches in Berkshire.” It was penned in 1666, and the original visitation taken in the two preceding years, in virtue of his deputatien from sir Edward Byshe, elariencieux king at arms, and published under the title of “The Antiquities of Berkshire,” 3 vols. 8vo, 1717, 1723, and at Reading in 1736, fol. 6. “Familiarum iilustrium Imperatorumque Romanorum Numismata Oxonire in Bodleianae Bibliotbecoe Archivis descripta et explanata.” This work was finished by the author in 1659, and given by him to the public library in Oxford, in 1666, in 3 vols, folio, as it was fitted for the press. 7. “A description and explanation of the Coins and Medals belonging to king Charles II.” a folio ms. in the king’s cabinet. 8. “A brief ceremonial of the Feast of St. George, held at Whitehall 1661, with other papers relating to the Order.” 9. “Remarkable Passages in the year 1660, set down by Mr. Elias Ashmole.” 10. “An account of the Coronation of our Kings, transcribed from a ms. in the king’s private closet.” 11 “The proceedings on the day of the Coronation of king Charles II.” mentioned by Anthony Wood, as printed in 1672, but he owns he never saw it. 12. “The Arms, Epitaphs, &c. in some churches and houses in Staffordshire,” taken when he accompanied sir William Dugdale in his visitation. 13. “The Arms, Epitaphs, Inscriptions, &c. in Cheshire, Shropshire, Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire, &c.” taken at the same time. Bishop Nicolson mentions his intention to write the history and antiquities of his native town of Litchfield. 14. “Answers to the objections urged.against Mr. Ashmole’s being made historiographer to the order of the Garter,” A. D. 1662. 15. “A Translation of John Francis Spina’s book of th Catastrophe of the World; to which was subjoined, Ambrose Merlin’s Prophecy.” It is doubtful whether this was ever published. What, indeed, he printed, was but a very small part of what he wrote, there being scarcely any branch of our English history and antiquities, on which he has not left us something valuable, of his own composing, in that vast repository of papers, which make several folios in his collection of Mss. under the title of, 16. CoU lections, Remarks, Notes on Books, and Mss. a wonderful proof of industry and application. 17. “The Diary of his Life,” written by himself, which was published at London, 1717, in 12mo, with the following title “Memoirs of the life of that learned antiquary, Elias Ashmole, esq. drawn up by himself by way of diary, with an appendix of original letters. Published by Charles Burman, esquire.” The copy from whence these papers were published, was in the hand-writing of Dr. Robert Plott, chief keeper of the Ashmolean museum at Oxford, and secretary of the Royal Society, and was transcribed by him for the use of a near relation of Mr. Ashmole’s, a private gentleman in Staffordshire. They had been collated a few years before, by David Perry, M. A. of Jesus’ college in Oxford. The appendix* contains a letter of thanks, dated January 26, 1666, from the corporation at Litchfield, upon the receipt of a silver bowl presented to them by Mr. Ashmole a preface to the catalogue of archbishop Laud’s medals, drawn up by Mr. Ashmole, and preserved in the public library at Oxford a letter from Dr. Thomas Barlow, afterwards bishop of Lincoln, to Mr. Ashmole, dated December 23, 1668, on the present of his books, describing archbishop Laud’s cabinet of medals a letter from John Evelyn, esq. to recommend Dr. Plott to him for reader in natural philosophy, and another from Mr. Joshua Barnes, dated from Emanuel college, Cambridge, October 15, 1688, wherein he desires Mr. Ashmole’s pardon, for having reflected upon his Order of the Garter, in his own history of king Edward III. with Mr. Ashmole’s answer to that letter, dated October 23 following. It is from this diary, which abounds in whimsical and absurd memoranda, that the dates and facts in his life have been principally taken.

Photius greatly extols Athanasius as an elegant, clear, and excellent writer. It is controverted among learned men, whether Athanasius composed the creed commonly received under his name. Baronius is of opinion that it was composed by Athanasius when he was at Rome, and offered to pope Julius as a confession of his faith which circumstance is not at all likely, for Julius never questioned his faith. However, a great many learned men have ascribed it to Athanasius as cardinal Bona, Petavius, Bellarmine, and Rivet, with many others of both communions. Scultetus leaves the matter in doubt; but the best and latest critics- make no question but that it is to be ascribed to a Latin author, Vigilius Tapsensis, an African bishop, who lived in the latter end of the fifth century, in the time of the Vandalic Arian persecution. Vossius and Quesnel have written particular dissertations in favour of this opinion. Their arguments are, 1. Because this creed is wanting in almost all the manuscripts of Athanasius’ s works. 2. Because the style and contexture of it do not bespeak a Greek but a Latin author. 3. Because neither Cyril of Alexandria, nor the council of E^phesus, nor pope Leo, nor the council of Chalcedon, have ever mentioned it in all that they say against the Nestorians or Eutychians. 4. Because this Vigilms Tapsensis is known to have published others of his writings under the borrowed name of Athanasius, with which this creed is commonly joined. These reasons have persuaded Pearson, Usher, Cave, and Dupin, critics of the first rank, to come into the opinion, that this creed was not composed by Athanasius, but by a later and a Latin writer.

, bishop of Rochester in the reigns of queen Anne and king George I. was born March 6, 1662-3, at Milton or Middleton Keynes, near Newport- Pagnel, Bucks. He was admitted a king’s scholar in 1676 at Westminster-school; and thence, in 1680, was elected a student of Christ-Church college, Oxford, where he soon distinguished himself by his wit and learning and gave early proofs of his poetical talents, in a Latin version of Dryden’s “Absalom and Achitophel,” published in 1682; and in 1684 he edited the “Ανθολογια, seu selecta quædam poematum Italorum qui Latin escripserunt,” which was afterwards enlarged and published by Pope in 1740, with the omission, however, of Atterbury’s excellent preface. In 1687 he made his first essay in controversial writing, and shewed himself as an able and strenuous advocate for the Protestant religion, in “An Answer to some Considerations on the spirit of Martin Luther, and the original of the Reformation.” These Considerations were published under the name of Abraham Woodhead, who was a popish writer, but were really written by Obadiah Walker, master of University college, Oxford. Mr. Atterbury’s answer was soon after animadverted upon by Mr. Thomas Deane, fellow of University college, at the end of “The Religion of Martin Luther, whether Catholic or Protestant, proved from his own works.” This spirited performance of Atterbury induced bishop Burnet to rank the author among the eminent divines who had distinguished themselves by their admirable defences of the Protestant religion. Atterbury also pleads this pamphlet in his speech at his trial, as a proof of his zeal in that cause, and the same was urged by his counsel.

This commitment of a bishop upon the suspicion of hightreason, as it was a thing rarely practised since the Reformation, occasioned various speculations among the people. March 23, 1723, a bill was brought into the House of Commons, for “inflicting certain pains and penalties on Francis lord bishop of Rochester” a copy of which was sent to him, with notice that he had liberty of counsel and solicitors for making his defence. Under these circumstances, the bishop applied, by petition, to the House of Lords, for their direction and advice, as to his conduct in this conjuncture and April 4, he acquainted the Speaker of the House of Commons, by a letter, that he was determined to give that house no trouble, in relation to the bill depending therein but should be ready to make his defence against it, when it should be argued in another house, of which he had the honour to be a member. On the 9th, the bill passed the House of Commons, and was the same day sent up to the House of Lords for their concurrence. May 6, being the day appointed by the lords for the first reading of the bill, bishop Atterbury was brought to Westminster, to make his defence. The counsel for the bishop were, sir Constantine Phipps and William Wynne, esq. for the king, Mr. Reeve and Mr. Wearg. The proceedings continued above a week; and on Saturday, May 11, the bishop was permitted to plead for himself, which he did in a very eloquent speech. On Monday the 13th he was carried, for the last time, from the Tower, to hear the reply of the king’s counsel to his defence. On the 15th, the bill was read the third time, and, after a long and warm detiate, passed on the 16th, by a majority of 83 to 43. On the 27th, the king came to the house, and confirmed it by his royal assent. June 18, 1723, this eminent prelate, having the day before taken leave of his friends, who, from the time of passing the bill against him, to the day of his departure, had free access to him in the Tower, embarked on board the Aldborough man of war, and landed the Friday following at Calais. When he went on shore, having been informed that lord Bolingbroke, who had, after the rising of the parliament, received the king’s pardon, was arrived at the same place on his return to England, he said, with an air of pleasantry, “Then I am exchanged” and it was, in the opinion of Mr. Pope on the same occasion, “a sign of the nation’s being afraid of being over-run with too much politeness, when it could not regain one great man, but at the expence of another.” But the severity of his treatment did not cease even with his banishment. The same vindictive spirit pursued him in foreign climes. NoBritish subject was even permitted to visit him without the king’s sign manual, which Mr. Morice was always obligee! to solicit, not only for himself, but for every one of his family whom he carried abroad with him, for which the fees of office were very high.

As to bishop Atterbury’s character, however the moral and political part of it may have been differently represented by the opposite parties, it is universally agreed, that he was a man of great learning and uncommon abilities, a fine writer, and a most excellent preacher. His learned friend Smalridge, in the speech he made, when he presented him to the upper house of convocation, as prolocutor, styles him “Vir in nullo literarum genere hospes, in plerisque artibus et studiis diu et feliciter exercitatus, in maxime perfectis literarum disciplinis perfectissimus.” In his controversial writings, he was sometimes too severe upon his adversary, and dealt rather too much in satire and invective but this his panegyrist imputes more to the natural fervour of his wit, than to any bitterness of temper, or prepense malice. In his sermons, however, he is not only every way unexceptionable, but highly to be commended. The truth is, his talent as a preacher was so excellent and remarkable, that it may not improperly he said, that he owed his preferment to the pulpit, nor any hard matter to trace him, through his writings, to his several promotions in the church. We shall conclude bishop Atterbury’s character, as a preacher, with the encomium bestowed on him by the author of “The Tatler” who, having observed that the English clergy too much neglect the art of speaking, makes a particular exception with regard to our prelate; who, says he, “has so particular a regard to his congregation, that he commits to his memory what he has to say to them, and has so soft and graceful a behaviour, that it must attract your attention. His person,” contnues this author, “it is to be confessed, is no small recommendation but he is to be highly commended for not losing that advantage, and adding to a propriety of speech (which might pass the criticism of Longinus) an action which would have been approved by Demosthenes. He has a peculiar force in his way, and has many of his audience, who could not be intelligent hearers of his discourse, were there no explanation as well as grace in his action. This art of his is used with the most exact and honest skill. He never attempts your passions till he has convinced your: reason. All the objections which you can form are laid open and dispersed, before he uses the least vehemence in his sermon; but when he thinks he has your head, he very soon wins your heart, and never pretends to shew the beauty of holiness, till he has convinced you of the truth of it.” In his letters to Pope, &c. bishop Atterbury appears in a pleasing light, both as a writer and as a man. In ease and elegance they are superior to those of Pope, which are more studied. There are in them several beautiful references to the classics. The bishop excelled in his allusions to sacred as well as profane authors.

The following anecdote was first communicated to the public by the late Dr. Maty, on the credit of lord Chesterfield: “I went,” said lord Chesterfield, “to Mr. Pope, one morning, at Twickenham, and found a large folio Bible, with gilt clasps, lying before him upon his table and, as I knew his way of thinking upon that book, I asked him jocosely, if he was going to write an answer to it It is a present, said he, or rather a legacy, from my old friend the bishop of Rochester. I went to take my leave of him yesterday in the Tower, where I saw this Bible upon his table. After the first compliments, the bishop said to me,” My friend Pope, considering your infirmities, and my age and exile, it is not likely that we should ever meet again and therefore I give you this legacy to remember me by it. Take it home with you, and let me advise you to abide by it.“” Does your lordship abide by it yourself“” I do.“If you do, my lord, it is but lately. May I beg to know what new light or arguments have prevailed with you now, to entertain an opinion so contrary to that which you entertained of that book all the former part of your life r” The bishop replied, “We have not time to talk of these things, but take home the book; I will abide by it, and I recommend you to do so too, and so God bless you.” It has been justly remarked^ that whatever were the bishop’s faults, we do not recollect any thing that indicates a disbelief or a doubt of the truth of Christianity. His actions and writings rather display him in the light of a zealous supporter of religion than in that of an infidel. His sermons on the miraculous propagation of the Gospel, and on a standing revelation’s being the best means of conviction, not to mention others of his discourses, are important evidences of his attachment to the Christian religion. It is observable, that he generally treats unbelievers with contempt, as an ignorant, superficial, and conceited set of men, which he vyould scarcely have done had he been of the same sentiments for, though a man may conceal, or deny, or even persecute the opinions which he himself holds, it is not very likely that he should appear to despise the retainers of them. With respect to the above anecdote related by Dr. Maty, the late Mr. Badcock, from a zeal to vindicate the bishop’s character, as if it were insinuated that he had once been an unbeliever, wrote a letter in which he endeavoured to deny the authenticity of the anecdote but, in our opinion, without arriving at that conclusion.

, an able astronomer and mathematician, was born at Saorgio, near Nice, in Provence, in 1714. At the age of sixteeeri he entered the order of St. Dominic, and made rapid progress in his studies, not only in sacred literature, but in mathematics, and the languages. In his thirty-fifth year he was appointed second librarian of the Casanata, and ten years aftenvards first librarian, which office he held until his death. His studies were extended to mathematics, astronomy, antiquities, natural history, criticism, and bibliography but astronomy was his favourite pursuit, on which he published many pieces. He was appointed by the late pope Pius VI. to make mineralogical observations on the new mines of Tolfa. He died July 3, 1794. His published works are, 1. “Mercurius in sole visus, observatio habita Romae, &c.” Rome, 1753, 4to. 2. “Phenomena ccelestia observata,” Rome, 1754, 8vo. 3. “Otia astronomica,” Rome, 1755, 4to. 4. “Novissimus Mercurii transitus,” Rome, 1756, 8vo. 5. “Passaggio di Venere, &c.” 4to, without place or date, but most probably 1761. 6. “Transitus Veneris, &c.” 1762. This appears to be cither the same work as the preceding, or a Latin translation. 7. “Investigatio Parallaxis Solaris, &c.” Rome,. 1765, 8vo, published under the anagrammatical name of Dadeus Ruffus. 8. “De Solis Parallaxi commentarius,” Rome, 1766, 8vo. 9. “Dimostrazione della theoria, &c.” of the Comet of the year 1769, published in a literary journal at Rome, 1770. 10. “Letere typografiche,” under the name of the abbe Nicolas Ugolini de Foligno, addressed to Xavier Laire, author of the historical essay on the Roman typography of the 15th century, Mentz, 1778, 8vo, a satirical attack on father Laire. 11. “Catalogus historico-criticus Romanarum editionum saeculi 15.” Rome, 1783, 4to. 12. “Catalogus librorum typis impressorum bibliothecae Casanatensis, praestantioribus notis et observationibus illustratus,” 4 vols. fol. 1762, 1768, 1775, 1788. 13. “Specimen historico-criticum editionum Italicarum ssGCuli 15,” Rome, 1794, 4to. In some of the foreign journals, are other essays by him on astronomical subjects.

, descended of an ancient and honourable family, of the county of Essex, was born in 1488. He was by nature endowed with great abilities, from his ancestors inherited an ample fortune, and was happy in a regular education, but whether at Oxford or Cambridge is not certain. At what time he was entered of the Inner-Temple, does not appear, but in 1526 he was autumn reader of that house, and is thought to have read on the statute of privileges, which he handled with so much learniag and eloquence, as to acquire great reputation. This, with the duke of Suffolk’s recommendation, to whom he was chancellor, brought him to the' knowledge of his sovereign, who at that time wanted men of learning and some pliability he was, accordingly, by the king’s influence, chosen speaker of that parliament, which sat first on the third of November, 1529, and is by some styled the Black Parliament, and by others, on account of its duration, the Long Parliament. Great complaints were made in the house of commons against the clergy, and the proceedings in ecclesiastical courts, and several bills were ordered to be brought in, which alarmed some of the prelates. Fisher, bishop of Rochester, inveighed boldly against these transactions, in the house of lords, with which the house of commons were so much offended, that they thought proper to complain of it, by their speaker, to the king, and Fisher had some difficulty in excusing himself. The best historians agree, that great care was taken by the king, or at least by his ministry, to have such persons chosen into this house of commons as would proceed therein readily and effectually, and with this view Audley was chosen to supply the place of sir Thomas More, now speaker of the lords’ house, and chancellor of England. The new house and its speaker justified his majesty’s expectations, by the whole tenor of their behaviour, but especially by the passing of a law, not nowfound among our statutes. The king, having borrowed very large sums of money of particular subjects, and entered into obligations for the repayment of the said sums, the house brought in, and passed a bill, in the preamble of which they declared, that inasmuch as those sums had been applied by his majesty to public uses, therefore they cancelled and discharged the said obligations, &c. and the king, finding the convenience of such a parliament, it sat again in the month of January, 1530-1. In this session also many extraordinary things were done amongst the rest, there was a law introduced in the house of lords, by which the clergy were exempted from the penalties they had incurred, by submitting to the legatine power of Wolsey. On this occasion the commons moved a clause in favour of the laity, many of themselves having also incurred the penalties of the statute. But the king insisted that acts of grace ought to flow spontaneously, and that this was not the method of obtaining what they wanted; and the house, notwithstanding the intercession of its speaker, and several of its members, who were the king’s servants, was obliged to pass the bill without the clause, and immediately the king granted them likewise a pardon, which reconciled all parties. In the recess, the king thought it necessary to have a letter written to the pope by the lords and commons, or rather by the three estates in parliament, which letter was drawn up and signed by cardinal Wolsey, the archbishop of Canterbury, four bishops, two dukes, two marquisses, thirteen earls, two viscounts, twenty-three barons, twenty-two abbots, and eleven members of the house of commons. Thepurport of this letter, dated July 13, above three weeks after the parliament rose, was to iMigage the pope to grant the king’s desire in the divorce business, for the sake of preventing a civil war, on account of the succession, and to threaten him if he did not, to take some other way. To gratify the speaker for the great pains he had already taken, and to encourage him to proceed in the same way, the king made him this year attorney for the duchy of Lancaster, advanced him in Michaelmas term to the state and degree of a serjeant at law, and on the 14th of November following, to that of his own serjeant. In January, 1531-2, the parliament had its third session, wherein the grievances occasioned by the excessive power of the ecclesiastics and their courts, were regularly digested into a book, which was presented by the speaker, Audley, to the king. The king’s answer was, He would take advice, hear the parties accused speak, and then proceed to reformation. Jn this session, a bill was brought into the house of lords, for the better securing the rights of his majesty, and other persons interested in the eare of wards, which rights, it was alleged, were injured by fraudulent wills and contracts. This bill, when it came into the house of commons, was violently opposed, and the members expressed a desire of being dissolved, which the king would not permit but after they had done some business, they had a recess to the month of April. When they next met, the king sent for the speaker, and delivered to him the answer which had been made to the roll of grievances, presented at their last sitting, which afforded very little satisfaction, and they seemed now less subset viciit. Towards the close of the month, one Mr. Themse moved, That the house would intercede with the king, to take back his queen again. The king, extremely alarmed at this, on the 30th of April, 1532, sent for the speaker, to whom he repeated the plea of conscience, which had induced him to repudiate the queen, and urged that the opinion of the learned doctors, &c. was on his side. On the 11th of May the king sent for the speaker again, and told him, that he had found that the clergy of his realm were but half his subjects, or scarcely so much, every bishop and abbot at the entering into his dignity, taking an oath to the pope, derogatory to that of their fidelity to the king, which contradiction he desired his parliament to take away. Upon this motion of the king’s, the two oaths he mentioned were read in the house of commons and they would probably have complied, if the plague bad not put an end to the session abruptly, on the 14th of May; and two days after, sir Thomas More, knt. then lord chancellor of England, went suddenly, without acquainting any body with his intention, to court, his majesty being then at York Place, and surrendered up the seals to the king. The king going out of town to EastGreenwich, carried the seals with him, and on Monday, May 20, delivered them to Thomas Audley, esq, with the title of lord keeper, and at the same time conferred on him the honour of knighthood. September 6, sir Thomas delivered the old seal, which was much worn, and received a new one in its stead, yet with no -higher title: but on January 26, 1533, he again delivered the seal to the king, who kept it a quarter of an hour, and then returned it with the title of lord chancellor. A little after, the king granted to him the site of the priory of Christ Church, Aldgate, together with all the church plate, and lands belonging to that house. When chancellor he complied with the king’s pleasure as effectually as when speaker of the house of commons. For in July 1535, he sat in judgment on sir Thomas More, his predecessor, (as he had before on bishop Fisher,) who was now indicted of high-treason upon which indictment the jury found him gnilty, and the lord chancellor, Audley, pronounced judgment of death upon him. This done, we are told, that sir Thomas More said, that he had for seven years bent his mind and study upon this cause, but as yet he found it no where writ by any approved doctor of the church, that a layman could be head of the ecclesiastical state. To this Audley returned, “Sir, will you be reckoned wiser, or of a better conscience, than all the bishops, the nobility, and the whole kingdom” Sir Thomas rejoined, “My lord chancellor, for one bishop that you have of your opinion, I have a hundred of mine, and that among those that have been saints and for your one council, which, what it is, God knows, I have on my side all the general councils for a thousand years past; and for one kingdom, I have France and all the ether kingdoms of the Christian world.” As our chancellor was very active in the business of the divorce, he was no less so in the business of abbies, and had particularly a large hand in the dissolution of such religions houses as had not two hundred pounds by the year. This was in the twenty-seventh of Henry VIII, and the bill being delayed long in the house of commons, his majesty sent for the members of that house to attend him in his gallery, where he passed through them with a stern countenance, without speaking a word the members not having received the king’s command to depart to their house, durst not return till they knew the king’s pleasure so they stood waiting in the gallery. In the mean time the king went a hunting, and his ministers, who seem to have had better manners than their master, went to confer with the members to some they spoke of the king’s steadiness and severity to others, of his magnificence and generosity. At last the king came back, and passing through them again, said, with an air of fierceness peculiar to himself, That if his bill did not pass, it should cost many of them their heads. Between the ministers’ persuasions and the king’s threats, the matter was brought to an issue the king’s bill, as he called it, passed and by it, he had not only the lands of the small monasteries given him, but also their jewels, plate, and rich moveables. This being accomplished, methods were used to prevail with the abbots of larger foundations to surrender. To this end, the chancellor sent a special agent to treat with the abbot of Athelny, to offer him an hundred marks per annum pension which he refused, insisting on a greater sum. The chancellor was more successful with the abbot of St. Osithes in Essex, with whom he dealt personally and, as he expresses it in a letter to Cromwell, the visitor-general, by great solicitation prevailed with him but then he insinuates, that his place of lord chancellor being very chargeable, he desired the king might be moved for addition of some more profitable offices unto him. In suing for the great abbey of Walden, in the same county, which he obtained, besides extenuating its worth, he alleged under his hand, that he had in this world sustained great damage and infamy in serving the king, which the grant of that should recompense. But if the year 1536 was agreeable to him in one respect, it was far from being so in another; since, notwithstanding the obligations he was under to queen Anne Bullen, he was obliged, by the king’s command, to be present at her apprehension and commitment to the Tower. He sat afterwards with Cranmer archbishop of Canterbury, when he gave sentence of divorce on the pre-contract between the queen and the lordPiercy and on the 15th of May, in the same year, he sat in judgment on the said queen, notwithstanding we are told by Lloyd, that with great address he avoided it. The lengths he had gone in serving the king, and his known dislike to popery, induced the northern, rebels in the same year, to name him as one of the evil counsellors, whom they desired to see removed from about the king’s person which charge, however, his majesty, as far as in him lay, wiped off, by his well- penned answer to the complaints of those rebels, wherein an excellent character is given of the chancellor. When the authors of this rebellion came to be tried, the chancellor declined sitting as lord high steward, which high office was executed by the marquis of Exeter, on whom shortly after, viz. in 1538, Audley sat as high-steward, and condemned him, his brother, and several t other persons, to suffer death as traitors. In the latter end of the same year, viz. on the 29th of November, 30 Hen. VIII. the chancellor was created a baron, by the style of lord Audley of Walden in the county of Essex, and was likewise installed knight of the garter. In the session of parliament in 1539, there were many severe acts made, and the prerogative carried to an excessive height, particularly by the six bloody articles, and the giving the king’s proclamation the force of a law. It does not very clearly appear who were the king’s principal counsellors in these matters but it is admitted by the best historians, that the rigorous execution of these laws, which the king first designed, was prevented by the interposition of the lord Audley, in conjunction with Cromwell, who was then prime minister, and the duke of Suffolk, the king’s favourite throughout his whole reign. In the beginning of 1540, the court was excessively embarrassed. What share Audley had in the fall of Cromwell afterwards is not clear, but immediately after a new question was stirred in parliament, viz. How far the king’s marriage with Anne of Cleves, was lawful This was referred to the judgment of a spiritual court and there are yet extant the depositions of Thomas lord Audley, lord chancellor, Thomas, archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas, duke of Norfolk, Charles, duke of Suffolk, and Cuthbert, lord bishop of Durham, wherein they jointly swear, that the papers produced to prove the retraction of the lady Anne’s contract with the duke of Lorrain, were inconclusive and unsatisfactory. Other lords and ladies deposed to other points, and the issue of the business was, that the marriage was declared void by this court, which sentence was supported by an act of parliament, affirming the same thing, and enacting, That it should be high-treason to judge or believe otherwise. This obstacle removed, the king married the lady Catherine Howard, niece to the duke of Norfolk, and cousin -german to Anne Bullen. Nothing is clearer from history, than that the chancellor was closely attached to the house of Norfolk and yet in the latter end of the year 1541, he was constrained to be an instrument in the ruin of the unfortunate queen information of her bad life before her marriage, being laid first before the archbishop of Canterbury, and by him communicated to the chancellor. The king then appointed lord Audley one of the commissioners to examine her, which they did, and there is yet extant a letter subscribed by him and the other lords, containing an exact detail of this affair, and of the evidence on which, in the next session of parliament, the queen and others were attainted. The whole of this business was managed in parliament by the chancellor, and there is reason to believe, that he had some hand in another business transacted in that session which was the opening a door for the dissolution of hospitals, the king having now wasted all that had accrued to him by the suppression of abbies. Some other things of the like nature were the last testimonies of the chancellor’s concern for his master’s interest but next year a more remarkable case occurred. Jn the 34th of Henry VIII. George Ferrers, esq. burgess for Plymouth, was arrested, and carried to the compter, by virtue of a writ from the court of king’s bench. The house, on notice thereof, sent their serjeant to demand their member in doing which, a fray ensued at the compter, his mace was broke, his servant knocked down, and himself obliged to make his escape as well as he could. The house, upon notice of this, resolved they would sit no longer without their member, and desired a conference with the lords where, after hearing the mutter, the lord chancellor Audley declared the contempt was most flagrant, and referred “the punishment thereof to the house of commons whereupon Thomas Moyle, esq. who was then speaker, issued his warrant, and the sheriff of London, and several other persons, were brought to the bar of the house, and committed, some to the Tower, and some to Newgate. This precedent was gained by the king’s want of an aid, who at that time expected the commons would offer him a subsidy the ministry, and the house of lords, knowing the king’s will gave the commons the complimerit of punishing those who had imprisoned one of their members. Dyer, mentioning this case, sap,” The sages of the law held the commitment of Ferrers legal, and though the privilege was allowed him, yet was it held unjust.“As the chancellor had led a very active life, he grew now infirm, though he was not much above fifty years old, and therefore began to think of settling his family and affairs. But, previous to this, he obtained from the king a licence to change the name of Buckingham college in Cambridge, into that of Magdalen, or Maudlin some will have it, because in the latter word his own name is included. To this college he was a great benefactor, bestowed on it his own arms, and is generally 'reputed its founder, or restorer. His capital seat was at Christ-Christ in town, and at Walden in Essex and to preserve some remembrance of himself and fortunes, he caused a magnificent tomb to be erected in his new chapel at Walden. About the beginning of April, 1544, he was attacked by his last illness, which induced him to resign the seals but he was too weak to do it in person, and therefore sent them to the king, who delivered them to sir Thomas Wriothesley, with the title of keeper, during the indisposition of the chancellor a circumstance not remarked by any of our historians. On the 19th of April, lord Audi ey made hU will, and, amongst other things, directed that his executors should, upon the next New-year’s day after his decease, deliver to the king a legacy of one hundred pounds, from whom, as he expresses it,” he had received all his reputations and benefits." He died on the last of April, 1544, when he had held the seals upwards of twelve years, and in the fifty-sixth of his life, as appears by the inscription on his tomb. He married Elizabeth, daughter of Thomas iGrey, marquis of Dorset, by whom he had two daughters, Margaret and Mary; Mary died unmarried, and Margaret became his sole heir. She married first lord Henry Dudley, a younger son of John duke of Northumberland, and he being slain at the battle of St. Quintin’s, in Picardy, in 1557, she married a second time, Thomas duke of Norfolk, to whom she was also a second wife, and had by him a son Thomas, who, by act of parliament, in the 27th of Elizabeth, was restored in blood; and in the 39th of the same reign, summoned to parliament by his grandfather’s title, as baron of Walden, In the 1st of James I. he was created earl of Suffolk, and being afterwards lord hightreasurer of England, he built on the ruins of the abbey of Walden, that nee noble palace, which, in honour of our chancellor, he called Audley-End.

, a native of Provence, went to Paris in his youth, there studied law, and became a member of the counsel of the house of Orleans. In 1708 he published a work entitled “Traite de Porigine de la Regale, et des causes de son etablissement,” 4to, in eight books, in which he had introduced a dissertation on the authenticity of canon 22 distinct. 63 of the first part of the canon law, which had been rejected by Baronius and Bellarmin, and some other able writers, even in France. The consequence was, that his work was condemned in a brief of pope Clement XI. in 1710, and this censure was repealed a few months after by a sentence of the parliament of Paris. These circumstances contributed not a little to the reputation of the author, who is said to have died the year following.

, the most celebrated artist of the family, was the third son of the first-mentioned Claude Audran, and born at Lyons in 1640. He learned from his father the first principles of designing and engraving following the example of his brother, he went to Paris, where his genius soon began to manifest itself and his reputation brought him to the knowledge of Le Brun, who employed him to engrave the “Battle of Constantine,” and the “Triumph” of that emperor, and for these works he obtained apartments at the Gobelins. At Rome, where he went for improvement, he is said to have studied under Carlo Maratti, in order to perfect himself in drawing and in that city, where he resided three years, he engraved several fine plates among; the rest the portrait of pope Clement IX. M. Colbert, a great encourager of the arts, was so struck with the beauty of Audran’s works, whilst he resided at Rome, that he persuaded Louis XIV. to recall him. On his return, he applied himself assiduously to engraving, and was appointed engraver to the king, From whom he received liberal encouragement. In 1681, he was named counsellor of the royal academy and died at Paris in 1703. He had been married, but left no male issue behind him.

, a Spanish writer, and a native of Tordesillas, is principally known as the author of the “Continuation, or second part of the history of Don Quixote,” which was published under the title “La Segunda Parte del Ingenioso Hidalgo D. Quixote de la Mancha,” 1614, 8vo. This, without being absolutely contemptible, is still very inferior to Cervantes’ s admirable production. It was afterwards translated, or rather imitated and new-modelled by Le Sage, and from this edition, an English translation was published about fifty or sixty years ago, in 2 vols. 8vo, but from the English work no proper judgment can be formed of the original. A more recent translation, which we have not seen, appeared in 1807. Pope has versified a tale from it in his Essay on Criticism.

, elder brother to Joseph, was born at Florence in 1645. His preceptor in rhetoric was Vincent Glarea, who soon confessed that his pupil went beyond him. He read almost incessantly the best Italian and Latin writers. And having at first employed a considerable time in the perusal of the poets, epecially the epic, he afterwards applied himself wholly to the reading of Cicero, and of the historians. From the works of the rhetoricians he proceeded to those of the philosophers, and particularly admired and followed Plato. He bestowed an indefatigable attention upon those parts in the writings of the philosophers, which in any manner related to eloquence, the attainment of which he sought with incredible ardour. Amidst these occupations he sometimes renewed his poetical exercises. At his father’s request he composed a Latin poem in praise of St. Thomas Aquinas. This, with many others of our author’s poems, is lost. Those of his poems which are extant, most of which he composed. in his youth, shew that if he had chosen to addict himself exclusively to this study, he might have attained a very high rank. His father afterwards sent him to Pisa to study jurisprudence, and he exercised himself daily in writing to perfect his style. Nor did he write in Latin only for he translated Sallust, and Celsus, and other Latin authors, into Greek and some Greek elegies of his are extant. He was created chief of the academy of Apathists. On the death of the cardinal Leopold of Medicis, he was ordered to compose verses in his praise, which were so much approved, that similar tasks were imposed upon him on the deaths of other princes. In the year 1676, the place long Tacant of teacher of Greek in the Lyceum of Pisa was bestowed upon him by the archduke Cosmo III. After filling this office six years, he was advanced to the dignity of teacher of humanity. In this he succeeded Gronovius, who, by the rudeness and asperity of his manners, had given so much offence to the college, that he was obliged to quit the academy in less than a year after his entering on his office in it. Benedict wrote well in Italian, as appears by the Lezioni which he recited in the Tuscan academy, and in the academy of the Apathists. In his youth he cultivated Italian poetry, and several of his Italian poems are preserved at Rome. He was invited to be professor of humanity in the academy of Pavia on the death of the former professor in 1682, and the same offer was soon after made to him by pope Innocent XI. who was desirous of bringing into the Roman Archigymnasium so eminent a man. In 1688 he was induced by the solicitations of his friends to publish the first book of his Orations. He died in 1707. The dissertations he made in the academy at Pisa, a posthumous work, his orations and poems republished, and his letters then first printed, were all published together at Florence in 3 vols. 1717, folio.

, or by contraction Austin (St.), usually styled the Apostle of the English, and the first archbishop of Canterbury, was originally a monk in the convent of St. Andrew at Rome, and was educated under St. Gregory, afterwards pope Gregory I. who undertook the conversion of the island of Britain. His inducement to this, in the life of St. Gregory, written by John Diaconus, introduces us to a string of puns, which we must refer to the manners and taste of the times, without surely impeaching the seriousness of Gregory, who in his present situation, as well as when pope, had no other visible motive for his zea], than the propagation of Christianity. Walking in the forum at Rome, he haprfened to see some very handsome youths exposed to sale, and being informed that they were of the island of Britain, and that the inhabitants of that island were Pagans, he regretted that such handsome youths should be destitute of true knowledge, and again asked the name of the nation. “Angli” was the answer on which he observed, “In truth they have angelic countenances, and it is a pity they should not be coheirs with angels in heaven.” When informed that they came from the province of Deira (Northumberland), he observed, “It is well, de mz, snatched from the wrath of God, and called to the mercy of Christ and when, in answer to another interrogatory, he was told that the name of their king was Ella, he said,” Alleluia, should be sung to God in those regions." More seriously impressed with a sense of his duty on this occasion, he requested pope Benedict to send some persons to our island on a mission, and offered to be one of the number. He was himself, however, too much a favourite with the Roman citizens to be suffered to depart, and it was not until he became pope, that he was enabled effectually to pursue his purpose. After his consecration in the year 595, he directed a presbyter, whom he had sent into France, to instruct some young Saxons, of seventeen or eighteen years of age, in Christianity, to act as missionaries and in the year 597, he sent about forty monks, including perhaps some of these new converts, with Augustine at their head. Having proceeded a little way on their journey, they began to dread the attempt of committing themselves to a savage and infidel nation, whose language they did not understand. In this dilemma, doubtful whether to return or proceed, they agreed to send back Augustine to Gregory, to represent their fears, and intreat that he would release them from their engagement. Gregory, however/ in answer, advised them to proceed, in confidence of divine aid, undaunted by the fatigue of the journey, or any other temporary obstructions, adding, that it would have been better not to have begun so good a work, than to recede from it afterwards. He also took every means for their accommodation, recommending them to the attention of Etherius, bishop of Aries, and providing for them such assistance in France, that at length they arrived safely in Britain.

The next great event of Augustine’s life was his attempt to establish uniformity of discipline and customs in the island, and as a necessary step to gain over the British (Welch) bishops to his opinion. These Britons, from the first time of planting Christianity in the island, had constantly followed the rules and customs left them by their first masters. But the church of Rome had made certain alterations in the manner of celebrating divine service? to which it pretended all other churches ought to conform, The churches of the West, as being the nearest to Rome, were the most easily gained and almost all of them, excepting those of France and Milan, conformed at last to the Roman ritual. But Britain still continued, as kwere, a world apart. Since the embassy of Lucius to pope Eleutherius, the Britons bad very little communication with the bishops of Rome. They acknowledged them only as bishops of a particular diocese, or, at most, as heads of a patriarchate, on which they did not think the British church ought to be any way dependent. They were so far from receiving orders from the pope, that they were even strangers to his pretensions. But Augustine, full of zeal for the interests of the see of Rome, made an attempt to bring them to acknowledge the superiority of the pope over all other churches. For this purpose he invited the Welch bishops to a conference, and began to admonish them to enter into Christian peace and concord, that they might join with him in converting the Pagans but this proved fruitless, as they would hearken to no prayers or exhortations, and Augustine, therefore, had recourse to a miracle. A blind man. was introduced to be healed, and was healed by Augustine’s prayers, when those of the ancient Britons failed. They were obliged, therefore, to confess that Augustine was sent of God, but pleaded the obstinacy of their people as a reason for their non-compliance. A second synod was appointed, attended by seven British bishops, and many of their learned men, belonging to the ancient monastery of Bangor, of which Dinoth was at that time abbot. Before these came to the synod, they asked the advice of a person of reputed sanctity, whether they should give up their own traditions on the authority of Augustine or not. “Let humility,” said he, “be the test; and if you find, when you come to the synod, that he rises up to you at your approach, obey him if not, let him be despised by you.” On such precarious evidence was a matter to rest which they thought so important. It happened that Augustine continued sitting on their arrival, which might easily have been the case without any intentional insult but it answered the purpose of the Britons, already averse to join him, and they would now hearken to no terms of reconciliation. Augustine proposed that they should agree with him only in three things, leaving other points of difference undetermined namely, to observe Easter at the same time with the rest of the Christian world to administer baptism after the Roman manner; and to join with him in preaching the gospel to the English but all this they rejected, and refused to acknowledge his authority. This provoked Augustine to tell them, that if they would not have peace with brethren, they should have war with enemies and it hap, pened afterwards, that in an invasion of the Pagan Saxons. of the North, the Bangorian monks were cruelly murdered; but this was lon^ after the death of Augustine, who, nevertheless, has been accused by some writers of exciting the animosity which ended in that massacre. For this there seems no solid foundation. Augustine betrayed an improper warmth, and was not free from ambition but in all his history we can find no instance of a sanguinary spirit, or any inclination to propagate Christianity by any other weapons than those he had at first employed. The Britons undoubtedly had a right to their independence, and Augustine is not to be praised for endeavouring to destroy what had so long existed, and over which he had no legal controul.

, son to the senator Isychius, and brother to Apollinaris, bishop of Valentia, was promoted in the beginning of the sixth century to the archbishopric of Vienna, which his father had also held for some years. His principal object was the refutation and conversion of the Arians, and during his conferences, for this purpose with the Arian bishops before Goudeband king of Burgundy, who was an Arian, he converted his son Sigismorid. Cave thinks he converted the king himself, and when he found him concealing his principles, urged him to a public profession of them. He wrote also in defence of pope Symmachus, and died in the year 523. His principal works were Letters, Sermons, and Poems his Letters, 87 in number, contain many curious particulars of the civil and ecclesiastical history of the times. Of his Homilies, one only is extant on Rogation day, in which he gives the origin of the days so called. In all his works, his style is harsh, obscure, and intricate. His poems were printed at Francfort in 1507, and at Paris and Lyons in 1508, 1509, and 1536 but his whole works were published at Paris by father Sirmond, in 1643, fol. and since that Luc d'Achery published in his Spicilegium, the conference with the Arian bishops.

, commonly known by the name of Richard de Bury, was born at St. Edmundsbury, in Suffolk, in 1281. His father, sir Richard Aungervyle, knt. dying when he was young, his uncle John de Willowby, a priest, took particular care of his education and when he was fit sent him to Oxford, where he studied philosophy and divinity, and distinguished himself by his learning, and regular and exemplary life. When he had finished his studies there, he became a Benedictine monk at Durham. Soon after he was made tutor to prince Edward, afterwards king Edward III. Being treasurer of Guienne in 1325, he supplied queen Isobel, when she was plotting against her husband king Edward II. with a large sum of money out of that exchequer, for which being questioned by the king’s party, be narrowly escaped to Paris, where he was forced to hide himself seven days in the tower of a church. When king Edward III. came to the crown, he loaded his tutor Aungervyle with honours and preferments, making him, first, his cofferer, then treasurer of the wardrobe, archdeacon of Northampton, prebendary of Lincoln, Sarum, and Lichfield, and afterwards keeper of the privy seal. This last place he enjoyed five years, and was in that time sent twice ambassador to the pope. In 1333 he was promoted to the deanery of Wells, and before the end of the same year, being chosen bishop of Durham, he was consecrated about the end of December, in the abbey of the black canons of Chertsey in Surrey. He was soon afterwards enthroned at Durham, on which occasion he made a grand festival, and entertained in the hall of his palace at Durham, the king and queen of England, the queen-dowager of England, the king of Scotland, the two archbishops, and five bishops, seven earls with their ladies, all the nobility north of Trent, with a Tast concourse of knights, esquires, and other persons of distinction. The next year he was appointed high-chancellor, and in 1336, treasurer of England. In 1338 he was twice sent with other commissioners to treat -of a peace with the king of France, though to no purpose.

, a native of La Perousa, and canon of St. John of Lateran, died at Rome in 1637. His knowlege of history made him be considered by pope Urban VIII. as one of the most learned historians of his age. He published an “Abridgement of Tursellin’s Universal History,” in 1623; another of “Baronius’s Annals,” and another of Bzovius’s great work on ecclesiastical history, in 9 vols. folio. He wrote also “A History of the Revolt of Bohemia against the Emperors Matthias and Ferdinand,” Rome, 1625. This last is written in Italian, the others in Latin.

was born at Noto, a town of Sicily, in 1369. He applied himself to the study of the Greek language, and went to Constantinople to collect Greek manuscripts. Here he became acquainted with, and was highly respected by, the emperor John Palaeologus, who found him afterwards at Ferrara when he went to assist at a council assembled by Eugene IV. Aurispa bepame secretary to this pope and also to Nicholas V. his successor, who bestowed upon him two rich abbeys. He died at Rome in 1459, in the 90th year of his age. He translated part of the works of Archimedes, Hierocles’s Commentary on the Golden verses of Pythagoras, and published some poems and letters. His translation of Hierocles was printed at Basle in 1543, 8vo. By a part of the preface, quoted by Gesner, it appears that he made this translation when in his eightieth year.

, in Latin Ærodius, lieutenant-criminal in the presidial of Angers, was born there in 1536. He studied Latin and philosophy at Paris, and law at Toulouse from thence he went to Bourges for the advantage of the public lectures of Duarenus, Cujas, and Doneau, three of the most excellent civilians of that age. Having taken the degree of bachelor at Bourges, he returned to his own country, where he read public lectures upon the civil law, and pleaded several causes. He returned to Paris some time after, and became one of the most famous advocates in the parliament. He published there, in 1563, “The Declamations of Quintilian,” which he corrected in a variety of places, and illustrated with notes. The year following he published, in the same city, a treatise “ coneerning the power of Redemption,” written by Francis Grimaudet, the king’s advocate at Angers, and wrote a preface to it concerning “the nature, variety, and change of Laws.” In 1567 he published “Decretorum Rerumve apud diversos populos et omni antiquitate judicatarum libri duo accedit tractatus de origine et auctoritate rerum judicatarum,” which he much enlarged in the subsequent editions. He left Paris the year following, in order to take upon him the office of lieutenant-criminal in his own country, and performed it in such a manner as to acquire the name of “the rock of the accused.” Some other writings came from his pen, political or controversial, but that which acquired most fame among foreigners was his treatise “De Patrio Jure,” on the power of fathers, written in French and Latin, and occasioned by his son having been seduced by the Jesuits. His father, for the purposes of education, had put him under their tuition, but perceiving that he had a lively genius, a strong memory, and other excellent qualifications, he very earnestly desired both the provincial of that order, and the rector of the college, not to solicit him to enter into their society, which they readily promised, but soon broke their word and, though he made the greatest interest, and even prevailed on the king of France and the pope to take his part, he could never recover him from their snares. The young man answered his father’s book, but his superiors were ashamed to publish it, and employed Richeome, the provincial of the Jesuits at Paris, to answer it, but even this they did not venture to publish. Peter Ayrault died July 21, 1601. His son not until 1644.

, commonly called Navarre (doctor Navarrus), was born of a noble family, Dec. 13, 1491, at Varasayn, near Pampeluna in Navarre. He was first educated, and took the habit, in the monastery of regular canons at Roncevaux, and afterwards studied at Alcala and at Ferrara, where he made such progress in law, as to be employed in teaching that science at Toulouse and Cahors. Some time after, he returned to Spain, and was appointed first professor of canon law at Salamanca, an office he filled with high reputation for fourteen years, at the end of which John III. king of Portugal, chose him law-professor of his new-founded university at Coimbra, and gave him a larger salary than had ever been enjoyed by any French or Spanish professor. After filling this chair also, with increasing reputation, for sixteen years, he was permitted to resign, and went first into Castile, and afterwards to Rome, on purpose, although in his eightieth year, to plead the cause of Bartholomew de Caranza, archbishop of Toledo, who was accused of heresy before the inquisition, and whose cause, first argued in Spain, was by the pope’s order removed to Rome. Azpilcueta exerted himself to the utmost, but without success, which we cannot be surprised at when we consider that the inquisitors were his opponents and although they could prove nothing against Caranza, they contrived that he should die in prison. Azpilcueta, however, was honourably received at Rome pope Pius V. appointed him assistant to cardinal Francis Alciat, his vice-penitentiary, and Gregory XIII. never passed his door without a visit, or met him in the street, without enjoying some conversation with him. He was much consulted, and universally esteemed for learning, probity, piety, and chanty. Antonio informs us that he used to ride on a mule through the city, and relieve every poor person he met, and that the creature of itself would stop at the sight of a poor person until its master relieved him. He died June 21, 1586, then in his ninetyfourth year. His works, which are either on morals or common law, were published, Rome, 1590, 3 vols. Lyons, 1591, Venice, 1602.

, an eminent Italian physician, was born at St. Elpidio, in the march of Ancona. He became professor of medicine at Rome, and first physician to pope Sixtus V. and was celebrated for great skill and his works prove that he had great learning. The time of his death is uncertain, but he was alive in 1596. His works are, 1. “DeThermis, libri septem,” Venice, 1571, 1588, fol. and at Padua, 1711. The first is a rare book, and the last has the addition of an eighth book. That printed in 1622 iis mutilated. 2. “De Naturali Vinorum Historia,” Rome, 1596, fol. a very scarce book, of which, however, there is a copy in the British Museum. 3. “De Venenis et Antidotis Prolegomena,” Rome, 1586, 4to. 4. “De Gemmis ac lapidibus pretiosis in S. Scriptura relatis,” Rome, 1577, 4to, and Franc. 1643, 8vo, by Gabelchoverus. 5. “Tabula simplicium Medicamentorum,” Rome, 1577, 4to. 6. “De Conviviis Antiquorum.”

, a learned English monk of the Franciscan order, who flourished in the thirteenth century, was born near Ilchester in Somersetshire, in 1214, and was descended of a very ancient and honourable family. He received the first tincture of letters at Oxford, where having gone through grammar and logic, the dawnings of his genius gained him the favour and patronage of the greatest lovers of learning, and such as were equally distinguished by their high rank, and the excellence of their knowledge. It is not very clear, says the Biographia Britannica, whether he was of Merton college, or of Brazen-nose hall, and perhaps he studied at neither, but spent his time at the public schools. The latter is indeed more probable than that he studied at Merton college, which did not then exist. It appears, however, that he went early over to Paris, where he made still greater progress in all parts of learning, and was looked upon as the glory of that university, and an honour to his country. In those days such as desired to distinguish themselves by an early and effectual application to their studies, resorted to Paris, where not only many of the greatest men in Europe resided and taught, but many of the English nation, by whom Bacon was encouraged and caressed. At Paris he did not confine his studies to any particular branch of literature, but endeavoured to comprehend the sciences in general, fully and perfectly, by a right method and constant application. When he had attained the degree of doctor, he returned again, to his own country, and, as some say, took the habit of the Franciscan order in 1240, when he was about twenty-six years of age but others assert that he became a monk before he left France. After his return to Oxford, he was considered, by the greatest men of that university, as one of the ablest and most indefati^ gable inquirers after knowledge that the world had ever produced and therefore they not only shewed him all due respect, but likewise conceiving the greatest hopes from his improvements in the method of study, they generously contributed to his expences, so that he was enabled to lay out, within the compass of twenty years, no less than two thousand pounds in collecting curious authors, making trials of various kinds, and in the construction of different instruments, for the improvement of useful knowledge. But if this assiduous application to his studies, and the stupendous progress he made in them, raised his credit with the better part of mankind, it excited the envy of some, and afforded plausible pretences for the malicious designs of others. It is very easy to conceive, that the experiments he made in all parts of natural philosophy and the mathematics, must have made a great noise in an ignorant age, when scarcely two or three men in a whole nation were tolerably acquainted with those studies, and when all the pretenders to knowledge affected to cover their own ignorance, by throwing the most scandalous aspersions on those branches of science, which they either wanted genius to understand, or which demanded greater application to acquire, than they were willing to bestow. They gave out, therefore, that mathematical studies were in some measure allied to those magical arts which the church had condemned,and thereby brought suspicions upon men of superior learning. It was owing to this suspicion that Bacon was restrained from reading lectures to the young students in the university, and at length closely confined and almost starved, the monks being afraid lest his writings should extend beyond the limits of his convent, and be seen by any besides themselves and the pope. But there is great reason to believe, that though his application to the occult; sciences was their pretence, the true cause of his ill-usage was, the freedom with which he had treated the clergy in, his writings, in which he spared neither their ignorance nor their want of morals. But notwithstanding this harsh feature in the character of the times, his reputation continued to spread over the whole Christian world, and even pope Clement IV. wrote him a letter, desiring that he would send him all his works. This was in 1266, when our author was in the flower of his 4 age, and to gratify his holiness, collected together, greatly enlarged and ranged in some order, the several pieces he had written before that time, and sent them the next year by his favourite disciple John of London, or rather of Paris, to the pope. This collection, which is the same that himself entitled Opus Majus, or his great work, is yet extant, and was published by Dr. Jebb, in 1773. Dr. Jebb had proposed to have published all his works about three years before his edition of the Opus Majus, but while he was engaged in that design, he was informed by letters from his brother at Dublin, that there was a“manuscript in the college library there, which contained a great many treatises generally ascribed to Bacon, and disposed in such order, that they seemed to form one complete work, but the title was wanting, which l,iad been carelessly torn off from the rest of the manuscript. The doctor soon found that it was a collection of those tracts which Bacon had written for the use of pope Clement IV. and to which he had given the title of Opus Majus, since it appeared, that what he said of that work in his Opus Tertium, addressed to the same pope, exactly suited with this; which contained an account of almost all the new discoveries and improvements that he had made in the sciences,. Upon this account Dr. Jebb laid aside his former design, and resolved to publish only an edition of this Opus Majus. The manuscripts which he made use of to complete this edition, are, 1. ms. in the Cotton library, inscribed^” Jul. D. V.“which contains the first part of the Opus Majus, under the title of a treatise” Jl)e utijitate Scientiarnii). “2. Another ms. in the same library, marked” Tib. C. V." containing the fourth part of the Opus Majus, in which is shewn the use of the mathematics in the sciences and affairs of the world in the ms. it is erroneously called the fifth part. 3. A ms. in the library belonging to Corpus Christi in Cambridge, containing that portion of the fourth part which treats of geography. 4. A ms. of the fifth part, containing a treatise upon perspective, in the earl of Oxford’s library. 5. A ms. in the library of Magdalen college, Cambridge, comprehending the same treatise of perspective. 6. Two Mss. in the king’s library, communicated to the editor by Dr. Richard Bentley, one of which contains the fourth part of Opus Majus, and the other the fifth part. It is said that this learned book of his procured him the favour of Clement IV. and also some encouragement in the prosecution of his studies but this could not have lasted long, as that pope died soon after, and then we find our author under fresh embarrassments from the same causes as before; but he became in more danger, as the general of his order, Jerom de Ascoli, having heard his cause, ordered him to be imprisoned. This is said to have happened in 1278, and to prevent his appealing to pope Nicholas III. the general procured a confirmation of his sentence from Rome immediately, but it is not very easy to say upon what pretences. Yet we are told by others, that he was imprisoned by Reymundus Galfredus, who was general of his order, on account of some alchemistical treatise which he had written, and that Galfredus afterwards set him at liberty, and became his scholar. However obscure these circumstances may be, it is certain that his sufferings for many years must have brought him low, since he was sixty-four years of age when he was first put in prison, and deprived of the opportunity of prosecuting his studies, at least in the way of experiment. That he was still indulged in the use of his books, appears very clearly from the great use he made of them in the learned works he composed.

Pope Nicholas III. dying in the year 1280, Simon de Brie, cardinal of St. Cecilia, was elected pope, and four years after, was succeeded by cardinal Savelli, who took the name of Honoring IV. in the year 1285. Both reigns were full of troubles and very short so that in all this time our author could find no opportunity of applying to the holy see for the mitigation of the sentence pronounced against him- But when he had been ten years in prison, Jerom de Ascoli, who had condemned his doctrine, was chosen pope, and assumed the name of Nicholas IV. As he was the first of the Franciscan order that had ever arrived at this dignity, was reputed a person of great probity and much learning, our author, notwithstanding what had before happened, resolved to apply to him for his discharge and in order to pacify his resentment, and at the same time to shew both the innocence and the usefulness of his studies, he addressed to him a very learned and curious treatise, “On the means of avoiding the infirmities of Old Age,” printed first at Oxford, 1590, and translated and published by Dr. Richard Browne, under the title of “The cure of Old Age and preservation of Youth,” London, 1683, 8vo. It does not appear, however, that his application had any effect on the contrary, some writers say that he caused him to be more closely confined. But towards the latter end of his reign, Bacon, by the interposition of some noblemen, obtained his release, and returned to Oxford, where, at the request of his friends, he composed “A compendium of Theology,” which seems to have been his last work, and of which there is a copy in the royal library. He spent the remainder of his days in peace, and dying in the college of his order, on the 11th of June 1292, as some say, or in 1294, as others assert, was interred in the church of the Franciscans. The monks gave him the title of “Doctor Mirabilis,” or the Wonderful Doctor, which he deserved, in whatever sense the phrase is taken.

He was certainly the most extraordinary man of his time. He was a perfect master of the Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, and has left posterity such indubitable marks of his critical skill in them, as might have secured him a very high character, if he had never distinguished himself in any other branch of literature. In all branches of the mathematics he was well versed, and there is scarcely any part of them, on which he has not written with a solidity and clearness, which have been deservedly admired by the greatest masters in that science. In mechanics particularly, the learned Dr. Freind says, that a greater genius had not arisen since the days of Archimedes. He understood likewise the whole science of optics, with accuracy and is very justly allowed to have understood, both the theory and practice of those discoveries, which have bestowed such high reputation on those of our own and of other nations, who have brought them into common use. In geography also he was admirably well skilled, as appears from a variety of passages in his works, which was the reason that induced the judicious Hackluyt to transcribe a large discourse out of his writings, into his Collection of Voyages and Travels. But his skill in astronomy was still more remarkable, since it appears, that he not only pointed out that error which occasioned the reformation in the calendar, and the distinction between the old stile and the new, but also offered a much more effectual and perfect reformation, than that which was made in the time of pope Gregory XIII. There are also remaining some works of his relating to chronology, which would have been thought worthy of very particular notice, if his skill in other sciences had not made his proficiency in this branch of knowledge the less remarkable. The history of the four great empires of the world, he has treated very accurately ind succinctly, in his great work addressed to pope Clelent IV. He was so thoroughly acquainted with Cheistry at a time that it was scarcely known in Europe, id principally cultivated among the Arabians, that Dr. Freind ascribes the honour of introducing it to him, who speaks in some part or other of his works, of almost every operation now used in chemistry. Three capital discoveries lade by him deserve to be particularly considered. The first is, the invention of gun-powder, which, however confidently ascribed to others, was unquestionably known to him, both as to its ingredients and effects. The second is that which commonly goes under the name of alchemy, or the art of transmuting metals, of which he has left many treatises, some published, and some still remaining in ms. which, whatever they may be thought of now, contain a multitude of curious and useful passages, independently of their principal subject. The third discovery in chemistry, not so deserving of the reader’s attention, was the tincture of gold for the prolongation of life, of which Dr. Freind says, he has given hints in his writings, and has said enough to shew that he was no pretender to this art, but understood as much of it as any of his successors. That he was far from being unskilled in the art of physic, we might rationally conclude, from his extensive knowledge in those sciences, which are connected with it: but we have a manifest proof of his perfect acquaintance with the most material and useful branches of physic, in his Treatise of Old Age, which, as Dr. Freind, whose authority on that subject cannot well be disputed, observes, is very far from being ill written; and Dr. Brown, who published it in English, esteemed it one of the best performances that ever was written. In this work he has collected whatever he had met with upon the subject, either in Greek or Arabian writers, and has added a great many remarks of his own. In logic and metaphysics he was excellently well versed, as appears by those parts of his works, in which he has treated of these subjects; neither was he unskilled in philology and the politer parts of learning. In ethics, or moral philosophy, he has laid down some excellent principles for the conduct of human life. But, as his profession required a particular application to theology, it appears, that he made all his other studies subservient thereto. He had the highest deference for the Holy Scriptures, and thought that in them were contained the principles of true science, and of all useful knowledge. He therefore pressed the study of them in their original languages, and an assiduous application to the several branches of learning, which he thought necessary for the thorough understanding of them,

, the only Protestant who went back to popery that was made bishop in the reign of Louis XIV. was born at Castelgeloux, in Gascony. After having quitted his religion, he entered himself of the Franciscan order, was then made bishop of Glandeve, and afterwards of Pamiers, where he died in 1694, at the age of ninety-four. His Latin poem on the Education of a Prince, 1671, 4to, procured him the episcopal dignity, by the interest of the duke of Montausier. This poem was reprinted in 8vo, in 1685, with notes, and the addition of some odes by the same author. He published also " Carmen pancgyricum/' Toulouse, 1667, 4to, dedicated to pope Clement IX.

This bold step drew upon Baius the indignation of some of his academical colleagues, and the heavy censures of several Franciscan monks. Whether the Jesuits immediately joined in this opposition, and may be reckoned among the first accusers of Baius, is a matter unknown, or at most, uncertain, but it is evident that, even at the rise of this controversy, they abhorred the principal tenets of Baius, which he had taken from Augustm, and adopted as his own. In 1567, he was accused at the court of Rome, and seventy-six propositions drawn from his writings, were condemned by pope Pius V. in a circular letter expressly composed for that purpose. The principal doctrines maintained in these propositions were, that unregenerate men have no ability to perform what is spiritually good, and that no man’s best works are meritorious of eternal life. The pope’s condemnation, however, was issued out in an artful and insidious manner, without any mention being made of the name of the author for the fatal consequences that had arisen from the rash and inconsiderate measures employed by the court of Rome against Luther, were too fresh in the remembrance of the prudent pontiff to permit his falling into new blunders of the same nature. The person and functions of Baius, therefore, were spared, while his tenets were censured. About thirteen years after this transaction, instigated by Tolet, the Jesuit doctor, Gregory XIII. confirmed the sentence, and again condemned the propositions. Dreading further severity, or more probably because his condemnation was vague and ambiguous, Baius submitted but others exclaimed against the papal decisions, as manifestly unjust. Baius’s doctrine was propagated with no inconsiderable zeal, in the flourishing universities of Douay and Louvaine. When the Jesuits Lessius and Hamelius attempted to preach a scheme of predestination, different from that of Augustin, the doctors of these universities condemned their opinions in 1587 and 1588. The bishops of the Low Countries prepared to do the same, but pope Sixtus V. suspended their proceedings, and by imposing silence on both parties, hushed the controversy. Even at this day, many“divin of the Romish communion, and particularly the Jansenists declare openly that Baius was unjustly treated, and that the two edicts of Pius and Gregory are absolutely destitute of all authority. He died the 16th of September 1589, at the age of 76. We have his controversial tracts against Maniix, 1579 and 1582, 2 vols. 8vo. His entire works were collected in 1696, in 4to, at Cologn, and the following year were prohibited by the pope. His style is greatly superior to that of the divines of his time, being simple and close. Baius had studied the fathers with such care, that it is affirmed he read St. Augustin over nine times a proof of his patience, if not of his judgment. Baius by his will founded a college for education. His nephew, James Baius, likewise doctor of Louvain, and who died in 1614, left behind him a tract on the Eucharist, printed at that city in 1605, 8 vo, and a catechism in folio, Cologn, 1620. The opinions of Michael Baius did not die with him. Cornelius Jansenius revived a great number of them in his book, entitled” Augustinus."

, of Sicily, was physician to pope Leo X. who had a high esteem for him. He was no less skilled in the belles lettres than in medicine and cultivated poetry and Greek with much success. He translated, from the Greek into Latin, several pieces of Galen; which were first printed separately, and afterwards inserted in the works of that ancient physician, published at Venice in 1586, in folio. He flourished at Rome about the year 1555.

, an eminent German poet, was born at Ensisheim, in Alsace, in the year 1603. He entered the order of Jesuits in 1624, and after bestowing several years on the study of theology and the languages, became a preacher of note, even at the court of Bavaria. He was requested to write the history of Bavaria, and Leibnitz says he saw some parts of the performance but such was his attachment to the muses, that his history suffered many interruptions, while he gratified with eagerness those friends who asked him for poetical pieces. He died at Nieubourg, Aug. 9, 1663. His works are, 1. “Carmen panegyricum Henrico Ottoni Fuggero vellere aureo donate,” Augs. 1629. 2. “Francisco Andrew, comiti de Tilly, geniale ac praesagum carmen,” Ingold. 1631, 8vo. 3. “Maximilianus primus Austriacus,” Ingold. 1631, and Munich, 1639. This work is in prose and verse, and contains the history of Maximilian the First. 4. “Epithalamion Maximiliano Boiarioe duci et Marise Austriacae,” Munich, 1635. 5. “Hecatombe de vanitate mundi,” Munich, 1636, 8vo, in German and Latin. 6. “Poema de vanitate mundi,” Munich, 1638, 16mo, and 1651, 12mo. 7. “Batrachomyomachia Homeri, tuba Romana cantata, et in libros V distributa.” 8. “Interpretatio Homeric! poematis oratione soluta.” 9. “Usus Batrachomyomachix ethicus, politicus, et polemicus,” Ingold. 1637, and 1647, 12mo. 10. “Templum honoris apertum virtute Ferdinand! III. Austriaci, regis Romanorum,” Ingold. 1637, 8vo. 11. “Agathyrsus; encomii etbiGorum,” in Anacreontic verse, Munich, 1638, 24mo. 12. “Ode Parthenia, sive de laudibus beatae Mariae Virginis,” in German, Munich, 1638 and 1647. 13. “Olympia sacra in stadio Mariano, sive certamen poeticum de laudibus beatse Mariae Virginis super ode Parthenia Germairica,” Cologne. 14. “Lyricorum lib. IV. Epodon lib. I.” Munich, 1643, but a more correct and complete edition was published by Bleau at Amsterdam, which has, however, Cologne in the*title, 1646, 12mo. 15. “Sylvae Lyricae,” Munich, 1648, 12rao. Cologne (i.e. Amsterdam, Bleau), 12mo. 16. “Medicinas gloria per Satyras XXII. asserta prcemittitur hymnus in laudem sanctorum Cosmae etDamiani.” 17. “Vultuosae torvitavis encomium, in gratiam philosophorum et poetarum explication, cum dissertatione de studio poetico.” 18. “Satyra contra abusnm tabaci.” 19. “Antagathyrsus, apologia pro pinguibus,” in heroic verse, Munich, 1643 and, 1651, 12mo. 20. “Poesis osca, sive drama Georgicum, in quo belli mala, pacis bona carmine antique, aetellano, osco, casco,” Munich, 1647, 4to. 21. “Chorea mortalis, sive Lessus in obitu augustissimae imperatrices Leopoldinae, Caesari Fernandino III. nuptae an. 1648, in puerperio mortuae anno 1649,” Munich, 1649, Latin and German. 22. “Jephtias, tragcedia,” Amberg, 1654, 8vo. 23. “Eleonorae Magdalenae Theresiae Neoburgicae genethliacon,” Nieubourg, 1655. 24. “Musae Neoburgicae in ortum J. G. J. Ignatii ducis Neoburgici,” Nieubourg, 1658. 25. “Paraphrasis lyrica in Philomelam sancti Bonaventurae.” 26. “Poematum tomi IV.” 1660, 12mo, an incorrect collection of odes, epodes, and lyric pieces. 27. “Solatium podagricorum,” Munich, 1661, 12mo. 28. et De eclipsi solari anno 1654, die 12 Augusti a pluribus spectata tubo optico, iterum a Jacobo Balbe tubo satyrico perlustrata lib. duo,“Munich, 1662, 12mo. 29.” Urania victrix, sive animse Christianae certamina adversus illecebras quinque sensuum corporis sui,“Munich, 1663, 8vo. This work, which is in elegiac verse, gave so much pleasure to pope Alexander VII. that he sent the author a gold medal, a very considerable mark of regard from one who was himself a good Latin poet. 30.” Paean Parthenius, sive hymnus in honorem S. Ursulas et sociarum martyrum,“Cologne, 1663, 8vo. 31.” Expeditio polemico-poetica sive castrum ignorantise, a poetis veteribus ac novis obsessum, expugnatum, eversum.“32.” Apparatus novarutn inventionum et thematum scribendorum," Munich, 1694, 12mo. who object to the style and taste of some of his works, allow that if he had not written too rapidly, he might have attained great excellence and reputation.

, a French historian, a native of Orleans, according to some writers, or of Mehun, a small town on the Loire, according to others, -flourished in the twelfth century. He was abbé of Bourgueil, in 1089, bishop of Dol, in Britanny, in 1114, and 1115 he received the pallium from pope Paschal II. at the council of Rheims. About the year 1095, he had assisted at the council of Clermont, held upon account of the holy war, of which he wrote a history in four books, from its commencement to the taking of Jerusalem by Godfrey of Boulogne in 1099. He wrote also various works of the historical kind in verse and prose, with the life of Robert D'Abrissel, founder of the order of Fontevraud. Michael Cosnier, curate of Poitiers, published an edition of this life, with very curious notes and Du Chesne has printed Balderic’s poems in the fourth volume of his collection of French writers. Balderic is said to have died Jan. 7, 1131, but this does not agree with his epitaph, which says that he was bishop of Dol twenty-two years, to which, as mentioned above, he was appointed in 1114.

, a celebrated lawyer of the fourteenth century, was a native of Perugia, and the son of Francis Ubaldi, a learned physician, who had him educated with great care. After studying philosophy and belles lettres, he became the pupil of Bartolus in law studies, and afterwards was his powerful rival. He taught law himself at Perugia, where he had for his scholar cardinal Peter Beaufort, afterwards pope Gregory XI. He next became professor at Padua, from which the duke of Milan invited him to the same office at Pavia. He died April 28, 1400, aged 76, of the consequences of the bite of a favourite cat, a circumstance thus expressed on his epitaph:

, an Italian count, and a man of learning, was a native of Placentia, where he was born July 3, 1654. After studying philosophy and the classics in the college of St. Francis Xavier at Bologna, he went to Rome, and passed through a course of theology, law, and mathematics. He was so pleased with Rome as to determine to take up his abode there and when the pope offered him the‘ place of nuncio at Brussels, and in Poland, he preferred a life of literary employment. Some time after, however, he accompanied cardinal d’Estrees to Paris, and the marchioness of Montecuculi to St. Germain and afterwards went to Poland, to be present at the election of a successor to king John Sobieski, then deceased. In 1698, duke Francis, of Parma, sent him to Madrid, as his deputy; and in 1710 Sophia Dorothy duchess of Placentia employed him in the same honourable office at Vienna, and at several courts in Germany, England, and Utrecht. On his return, he passed the rest of his life in a retired manner, and died Feb. 23, 1725. When in England he was elected a member of the royal society, with M. Bianchini. His rich cabinet of natural history, and his extensive library, were always open to men of learning, many of whom he assisted in their pursuits with great liberality. We know of none of his writings, except a discourse on the maps in the Atlas Historique, published at Amsterdam in 1719.

, Baldi, or Baldius, a native of Florence, in the seventeenth century, was a very eminent physician and medical writer. He was reader on medicine in the university of Rome, where he held a canon’s place, and acquired the first reputation throughout Italy. His great ambition was to be physician to pope Innocent X. which he had no sooner obtained than he contracted a distemper which proved fatal a few months after his promotion. None of his biographers give the date of his death (probably about 164. ), but all attribute it to the luxurious change in the mode of living at court. He published many works which bear a high character, and among others: 1. “Praelectio de Contagione pestifera,” Rome, 1631, 4to. 2. “Disquisitio iatrophysica de Aere,” Rome, 1637, 4to, 3. “De loco affecto in pleuritide disceptationes,” Paris, 1640, 8vo Rome, 1643, &c.

, bishop of London in the reigns of Edward I. and II. was educated at Merton college in Oxford, became archdeacon of Middlesex, and, in 1294, dean of St. Paul’s. The see of London being vacant by the death of Richard de Gravesend, Baldock was unanimously chosen, Sept. 20, 1304. But, his election being controverted, he was obliged to repair to Rome and, having obtained the pope’s confirmation, was consecrated at Lyons by Peter Hispanus, cardinal of Alba, Jan. 30, 1306. Being returned into England, he made profession of canonical obedience to the archbishop in the church of Canterbury, March 22, 1306. The same year he was appointed by the pope one of the commissioners for the examination of the articles alleged against the knights templars, and in that year also he was made lord high chancellor of England but Edward I. dying soon after, he held that post little more than a year. Dec. 2, 1308, this prelate, with the approbation of the chapter, settled a stipend on the chancellor of St. Paul’s for reading lectures in divinity in that church, according to a constitution of his predecessor, Richard de Gravesend. He contributed 200 marks towards building the chapel of St. Mary, on the east side of St. Paul’s. He founded also a chantry of two priests in the said church, near the altar of St. Erkenwald. He was a person of a very amiable character, both for morals and learning, and deserved well of his country by his writings, which were, 1. “Historia Anglica, or a history of the British affairs down to his own time.” It is not now extant, though Leland says he saw it at London. 2. “A collection of the statutes and constitutions of the church of St. Paul’s,” extant in the library of that cathedral in 1559. Bishop Balclock died at Stepney, July 24, 1313, having sat from his consecration a little more than seven years, and was buried under a marble monument in the chapel of St. Mary.

, a celebrated Italian poet of the seventeenth century, was distinguished in his youth for his attachment to polite literature, and some verses of acknowledged excellence. He was a native of Palermo, and on account of his talents, very early admitted into the academy of the Reaccensi, but his confined circumstances obliged him to leave his native country in pursuit of better fortune. He went first, for a short time, to Naples, and thence to Rome, where he entered into the army, and served in Hungary in the papal army under the command of John Francis Aldobrandini. He returned afterwards to Rome, and having resumed his studies, was received with great honour into the academy of the Humourists. Here his poetry, his anacreontics, and particularly the encomiastic verses he wrote on the distinguished persons of the court of pope Urban VIII. procured him fame, and might have enriched him, if he had not been deficient in the article of ceconomy, which some of his biographers ascribe to his extravagance, and others to his charity. It is certain, however, that he became poor, and was obliged to enter into the service of some gentlemen in the capacity of secretary, but either from feeling the miseries of dependarpce, or from an unsettled turn, he very frequently changed his masters. Erythraeus relates many stories of the manner in which he shifted for subsistence, which are not much to his credit, but the veracity of Erythneus on this as well as many other occasions, has been called in question by contemporary biographers of good authority, and whatever truth may be in his account, we do not find that Balducci lost the esteem of the learned at Rome. At length he took prders, and officiated as chaplain in the hospital of St. Sixte, but having afterwards been attacked by an illness at the house of a nobleman, who had a high regard for him, and would have administered to all his wants, he caused himself to be removed to the hospital of St. John Latran, where he died in 1642, or according to Crescembini, either in 1645 or 1649. His works were, 1. “Tributo di Parnasso alia Maesta Cesareo di Ferdinando III. d' Austria,” Rome, 1638, 4to. 2. “La Pace Urbana,” Naples, 1632, 4to. 3. “Poesie degli Accademici Fantastici di Roma,” Rome, 1637. 4. “Rime, parte prima,” Rome, 1630, 1645, 12mo. 5. “Rime, parte seconda,” Rome, 1646. All these were collected, and twice published at Venice, 1655 and 1663, 12mo. He also wrote some “Canzoni Siciliane,” and prefaces to part of the works of his friend Stigliani.

, archbishop of Canterbury in the reigns of Henry II. and Richard I. was born of obscure parents at Exeter, where he received a liberal education, and in his younger years taught school. Afterwards, entering into holy orders, he was made archdeacon of Exeter; but soon quitting that dignity and the world, he took the habit of the Cistertian order in the monastery of Ford in Devonshire, and in a few years became its abbot. From thence he was promoted to the see of Worcester (not Winchester, as Dupin says), and consecrated August 10, 1180. Upon the death of Richard, archbishop of Canterbury in 1184, he was translated to that see, with some difficulty, being the first of his order in England, that was ever advanced to the archiepiscopal dignity. He was enthroned at Canterbury the 19th of May 1185, and the same day received the pall from pope Lucius III. whose successor Urban III. appointed him his legate for the diocese of Canterbury. Soon after he was settled in his see, he began to build a church and monastery at Hackington, near Canterbury, in honour of St. Thomas Becket, for the reception of secular priests but, being violently opposed by the monks of Canterbury, supported by the pope’s authority, he was obliged to desist. The 3d of September 1189, he solemnly performed the ceremony of crowning king Richard I. at Westminster. The same year, the king having given the see of York to his bastard brother Geoffry bishop of Lincoln, archbishop Baldwin took this occasion to assert the pre-eminence of the see of Canterbury,' forbidding the bishops of England to receive consecration from any other than the archbishop of Canterbury. The next year, designing to follow king Richard to the Holy Land, he made a progress into Wales, where he performed mass pontifically in all the cathedral churches, and induced several of the Welsh to join the crusade. Afterwards embarking at Dover, with Hubert bishop of Salisbury, he arrived at the king’s army in Syria where being seized with a mortal distemper, he died at the siege of Acre, or Ptolemais, and was buried there. Giraldus Cambrensis, who accompanied this prelate, both in his progress through Wales and in his expedition to the Hgly Land, tells us, he was of a dark complexion, an open and pleasing aspect, a middling stature, and a spare, but healthful, constitution of body modest and sober, of great abstinence, of few words, and not easily provoked to anger. The only fault he charges him with is a remissness in the execution of his pastoral office, arising from an innate lenity of temper whence pope Urban III. in a letter addressed to our archbishop, began thus, “Urban, &c. to the most fervent monk, warm abbot, lukewarm bishop, and remiss archbishop” intimating, that he behaved better as a monk than as an abbot, and as a bishop than as an archbishop. His principal works were, 1. “Of the Sacrament of the Altar.” 2. “Faith recommended.” 3. “Of Orthodox Opinions. 4.” Of Heretical Sects.“5.” Of the Unity of Charity.“6.” Of Love.“7.” Of the Priesthood of John Hircanus.“8.” Of the Learning of Giraldus.“9.” Thirty-three Sermons.“10.” Concerning the Histories of Kings.“11.” Against Henry bishop of Winchester.“12.” In praise of Virginity.“13.” Concerning the Message of the Angel.“14.” Of the Gross.“15.” Concerning Mythology.“16.” A Devotionary Poem.“17.” Letters," These were collected and published by Bertrand Tissier, in 1662.

, or de Bedesale, or Belesale, the tenth bishop of Ely, and founder of St. Peter’s college, or Peter-house, in Cambridge, was in all probability born at Balsham, in Cambridgeshire, from whence he took his surname, about the beginning of the thirteenth century. He was at first a monk, and afterwards sub-prior of the Benedictine monastery at Ely. In 1247, November 13, he was chosen, by his convent, bishop of Ely, in the room of William de Kilkenny, deceased, but king Henry III. who had recommended his chancellor, Henry de Wengham, being angry at the disobedience of the monks, refused to confirm the election, and wasted the manors and estates belonging to the bishoprick. He endeavoured at last to persuade the monks to proceed to a new election aU ledging, that it was not fit so strong a place as Ely should be intrusted with a man that had scarcely ever been out of his cloister, and who was utterly unacquainted with political affairs. Balsham, finding he was not likely to succeed at home, went to Rome, in order to be confirmed by the pope who then was allowed to dispose of all ec^ clesiastical preferments. In the mean time, Boniface, archbishop of Canterbury, used his interest at Rome to obstruct Balsham’s confirmation, though he could alledge jiothing against him and recommended Adam de Maris, a learned Minorite friar, to the bishopric but all his endeavours proved unsuccessful. As to Wengham, having been recommended by the king without his own desire and knowledge, he declined the honour, alledging that the two others, (Balsham and Maris), were more worthy of it than himself. This matter remained in suspense for above ten years, and was at length determined in favour of Balsham for Wengham being promoted to the bishopric of London, upon Folk de Basset’s decease, the pope confirmed Balsham’s election on the 10th of March, 1257, and he was, consecrated the 14th of October following. Being thus fived in his see, he applied himself to works of charity, and particularly in the year 1257, or 1259, according ta some, put in execution what he had designed, if not begun, before, the foundation of St. Peter’s college, the first college in the university of Cambridge. He built it without Trumpingtun gate, near the church of St. Peter, (since demolished), from whence it took its name and on the place where stood Jesus hostel, or de poenitentia Jcsu Christ i, and St. John’s hospital., which he purchased, and united. At first, he only provided lodgings for the scholars, who were before obliged to hire chambers of the townsmen at an extravagant rate and they, and the secular brethren of St. John the Baptist, lived together till the year 1280. Then the monks making over to him their right to the hospital above-mentioned, he endowed his college on the 30th of March of the same year, with maintenance for one master, fourteen fellows, two bible-clerks, and eight poor scholars, whose number might be increased or diminished, according to the improvement or abatement of their revenues. And he appointed his successors, the bishops of Ely, to be honorary patrons and visitors of that college. The revenues of it have since been augmented by several benefactors. The munificent founder had not the satisfaction to see all things finished before his decease. He died at Dodington, June 16, 1286, and was buried in the cathedral church of Ely, before the high altar.

, archbishop of York, and cardinal-priest of the Roman church, was born at Hilton near Appleby in Westmorland, and educated at Queen’s college in Oxford. Having taken holy orders, he became rector of Aller in the diocese of Bath and Wells. He enjoyed three prebends successively in the cathedral church of Salisbury that of South-Grantham in 14&5, that of Chardstock the same year, and that of Horton in 1486i He was elected provost of Queen’s college in 1495, and about the same time created doctor of laws. On September 28, 1503, he was admitted prebendary of Strenshall in the cathedral church of York, void by the consecration of Jeoffrey Blyth to the see of Litchfield and Coventry and on the 2 1st of December following, he was installed in the deanery of that church, in the room of the said Blyth. In 1505 he was made dean of Windsor, and the same year master of the rolls, and one of the king’s privy council. In 1507, he was advanced to the see of Durham, and received the temporalities the 1.7th of November. The next year he was translated to the archbishopric of York, and received the temporalities the 12th of December. Pits assures us, that Bambridge had been very intimate with Morton archbishop of Canterbury, and shared in that prelate’s sufferings during the usurpation of Richard III. after whose death, his affairs took a more prosperous turn, as he was appointed almoner to king Henry VII. and employed by that prince on several embassies to the emperor Maximilian, Charles VIII. king of France, and other potentates of Europe. But he distinguished himself chiefly by his embassy from king Henry VIII. to pope Julius II. who created him a cardinal, with the title of St. Praxede, in March 1511, and, eight days after, appointed him legate of the ecclesiastical army, which had been sent into the Ferrarese, and were then besieging the fort of Bastia. In return for which marks of honour, our new cardinal and legate prevailed with the king his master, to take part with his holiness against the king of France, nor was he less zealous in the service of that pontiff during his life, than in honouring and defending his memory after his death. There are extant in Rymer’s Fœdera, &c, two letters; one from cardinal Barnbridge, during his residence at Home, to king Henry VIII. concerning the pope’s bull giving him the title of mostChristian king and another from the cardinal de Sinigallia, to the king, acquainting his highness that he had delivered that instrument to cardinal Bamhridge. This prelate died at Rome July 14, 1514, being poisoned by one of his domestics, whom he had chastised, and was buried there in the English church of St. Thomas. Pits commends him for his extensive learning, and adds, that he wrote some treatises on subjects of civil law, but that biographer erroneously calls him Urswic, which was the name of his predecessor in the deanery of.Windsor.

, a Swedish lawyer, was born at Norcopin, and was professor of civil law in the university of Franeker for fifteen years, a place conferred upon him on account of his high reputation when a scholar. He died Oct. 13, 1662. In 1649 he published at Franeker a work, “De tyrannide papae in reges et principes Christianos,” and seven years after, “Roma triumphans, seu inauguratio Innocentii X.” also some writings, “de Bancse ruptoribus,” “de Duellis,” “de conciliis et consiliariis principum” but his most celebrated work was an edition of the Taxes of the Roman Chancery, on the sums paid for absolution for crimes, even of the most atrocious kind. It was published at Franeker in 1651, in 8vo, after he had consulted the most ancient copies, printed or manuscript, and by comparing them word for word, supplied by means of one what was wanting in others. He made use of the edition of Cologne in 1523, of that of Wittembergin 1538, of that of Venice in 1584, and of a manuscript, which had been communicated to him by John Baptista Sibon, a Bernardine monk, and reader in the college of Rome. By this means he has made his edition somewhat larger than all that had been published before, and he has added notes, in which he explains a great many terms, which are difficult to be understood it is a kind of glossary. He has likewise joined to it a small Italian tract, which contains the lax which was made use of under pope Innocent X. and he has explained the value of the money as it was at that time. It is almost unnecessary to add, that this work was soon added to the list of prohibited books.

, a celebrated Italian novelist, was born at Castelnuovo in the district of Tortona, where he remained for some years, under the patronage of his uncle Vincenzio Bandello, general of the order, of Do^ minicans, with whom he also travelled through various parts of Italy, France, Spain, and Germany, where it was the 4uty of the general to inspect the convents of his order. After the death of his uncle, at the convent of Altomonte in Calabria, in 1506, Bandello passed a considerable part of his time at the court of Milan, where he had the honour of instructing the celebrated Lucretia Gonzaga, in whose praise he wrote an Italian, poem, which still remains, and where he formed an intimacy with many eminent persons of the age, as appears from the dedicatory epistles prefixed to his novels. Having early enrolled himself in the order of Dominicans, in a fraternity at Milan, he entered deeply into the ecclesiastical and political affairs of the times, and after various vicissitudes of fortune, obtained at length, in 1550, the bishopric of Agen in France, conferred on him by Henry II. but being fond of the poets, ancient and modern, addicted himself much more to the belles lettres than to the government of his diocese. He filled the episcopal chair of Agen for several years, and died about 1561, at the chateau de Bazens, the country seat of the bishops of Agen. His monument was erected in the church of the Jacobins du port St. Marie. He had resigned the bishopric of Agen in 1555, when his successor, Janus Fregosa, son of the unhappy Cæsar, assassinated by the marquis de Guast, had attained his twenty-seventh year. Henry II. who had a regard for the Fregosas, Jiad agreed with the pope, on the death of the cardinal de Lorraine, bishop of Agen, to give, by interim, this bishopric to Bandello, till Janus should arrive at the age required. Bandello consented to this arrangement, and gave up the see according to promise. The best edition of his novels is that of Lucca, 1554, 3 vols. 4to, to which belongs a fourth volume, printed at Lyons in 1573, 8vo. This edition is scarce and dear. Those of Milan, 1560, 3 vols. 8vo, and of Venice, 1566, 3 vols. 4to, are curtailed and little esteemed but that of London, 1740, 4 vols. 4to, is conformable to the first. Boaisteau and Belleforest translated a part of them into French, Lyons, 1616, et seq. 7 vols. 16mo. It is entirely without reason that some have pretended that these novels are not by him, but were composed by a certain John Bandello, a Lucchese, since the author declares himself to be of Lombardy, and even marks Castelnuovo as the place of his nativity. On the other hand, Joseph Scaliger, his contemporary and his friend, who calls him Bandellus Insuber,. positively asserts that he composed his novels at Agen. Fontanini is likewise mistaken in making him the author of a Latin translation of the history of Hegesippus, which he confounds with the novel of Boccace entitled Sito e Gisippo, which Bandello did really translate into Latin. We have by him likewise the collection of poems beforementioned, entitled “Canti xi. composti del Bandello, ilelle lodi della signora Lucrezia Gonzaga,” &c. printed at Agen in 1545, 8vo, which is excessively scarce, and sought after by the curious.

, an eminent sculptor, was born at Florence in 1487, and died in 1559. He was intended by his father, who was a goldsmith, to follow that business, but discovered an early and much higher relish for sculpture. It is said that at the age of nine he made a statue of snow, which was remarkable for justness of proportion. He attempted also painting, but was deficient in colouring, and wanted perseverance to acquire execution and handling. He was, however, a great designer, and his compositions of the Martyrdom of St, Lawrence, and the Massacre of the Innocents, shew exuberance of fancy. In the former, the draped figures that compose the upper rank of spectators, are equally admirable for simplicity and elegance, whilst the saint' himself, and those around him, exhibit little more than clumsiness, or barefaced contrast. The Massacre of the Innocents, with a display of anatomic prowess, presents a scene, not of terror and pity, but loathsomeness and horror. As a sculptor, however, he was esteemed the greatest after Michael Angelo. Among his most admired "works is the copy of the Laocoon, in the garden of the Medicis at Florence. This was intended by pope Clement VII. as a present to Francis I. but when he saw it, he was so much pleased that he could not part with it, and in its stead sent a present of antique statues to the king of France. Another of his admired productions was a bas relief of a Descent from the Cross, which he presented to Charles V. who rewarded him with a commandery of St. James and to this, not inferior in excellence, maybe added his Hercules and Cacus, a colossal groupe, and his statues of Leo X. and Clement VII. Vasari, who has written his life, justlv censures his envious disposition, and particularly his jealous hatred of Michael Angelo.

, an English miscellaneous writer of some note, was born at Sunning, in Berkshire, in 1709, and put apprentice to a weaver at Reading but accidentally breaking his arm before the expiration of his time, he was unable to follow his trade, and for some time, probably, lived upon charity. Ten pounds, however, being left him by a relation, he came up to London, and set up a book-stall in Spital-nelds, hoping to be as lucky as Duck, who about this time raised himself to notice by his poem called “The Thresher,” in imitation of which Banks wrote “The Weaver’s Miscellany,” but without success, which he afterwards acknowledged was not unjust. He then quitted this settlement, and lived some time with Mr. Montague, a bookseller and bookbinder, employing his leisure hours in the composition of small poems, for a collection of which he solicited a subscription, and sent his proposals, with a poem, to Mr. Pope, who answered him in a letter, and subscribed for two copies. He was afterwards concerned in a large work in folio, intituled the “Life of Christ,” which was drawn up with much piety and exactness. He also wrote the celebrated “Critical Review of the Life of Oliver Cromwell,” 12mo, which has been often printed, and is, upon the whole, an impartial work. Towards the end of his life he was employed in writing the Old England and Westminster Journals, and was now enabled to live in easy circumstances. He died of a nervous disorder at Islington, April 19, 1751. His biographer represents him as a pleasing and acceptable companion, and a modest and unassuming man, free from every inclination to engage in contests, or indulge envy or malevolence.

In June 1484, having again retired to Padua, to avoid the plague then raging at Venice, he undertook, at the earnest request of several of the students, to expound some of the Grecian poets and orators, particularly Theocritus and Demosthenes. He had already borne two important offices in the republic, and was exulted to the dignity of senator in 1484, in the thirtieth year of his age. In the same year he opened, at his own house at Venice, a private school of philosophy, delivering his lectures at an early hour in the morning, and although he meant to admit only a few friends, his audience speedily increased, and he continued this employment until June 1485, when he was appointed on an embassy to congratulate the archduke Maximilian, who had recently been elected king of the Romans. On this occasion, Maximilian, whom he addressed in a complimentary oration, conferred on him order of knighthood. In 1488, the senate again interrupted his favourite studies, by appointing him ambassador to Ludovico Sforza, duke of Milan, an office which his grandfather and father had both formerly filled. At Milan, his house became the general resort of the learned, and he contrived, amidst his public labours, to resume his criticisms on Aristotle and Dioscorides. In 1490, he returned to his native city, and about a year after, was appointed ambassador in ordinary to pope Innocent VIII. who conferred the patriarchate upon Hermolaus, and he accepted it, notwithstanding he knew that the republic of Venice had made an express law forbidding all the ministers they sent to Rome to accept of any benefice. Hermolaus excused himself by saying the pope forced him to accept of the prelacy but this availed nothing with the council of ten, who signified to him that he must renounce the patriarchate, and if he refused to comply, that Zachary Barbarus his father should be degraded from all his dignities^ and his estate confiscated. Zachary was a man much advanced in years, and filled one of the chief posts in the commonwealth. He employed all the interest in his power to gain the consent of the republic to his son’s being patriarch but his endeavours proved ineffectual, and Hernaolaus was condemned by the Venetians to perpetual exile.

, a learned and eminent Civilian, was born in Aberdeenshire, in 1541, and descended from one of the best families in Scotland. He was in favour with Mary queen of Scots but, after that princess was dethroned, and detained in captivity in England, finding that he had no prospect of making his fortune in the court of her son James, he resolved to retire into France, which. he did about 1573. He was then more than thirty years of age, and went to Bourges, in order to study law. He there took his doctor’s degree in that faculty, and had applied himself so closely to his books, that he was qualified to fill a chair. Edmund Hay, the Jesuit, who was his countryman, and is said to have been related to him, procured him accordingly a professorship in civil law in the university of Pontamousson, by his interest with the duke of Lorrain, who had lately founded that seminary. And the duke not only conferred upon Barclay the first professorship, but also appointed him counsellor of state, and master of requests. In 1581, Barclay married Anne de Malleville, a young lady of Lorrain, by whom he had his son John, who afterwards became a writer of considerable note, and whom the Jesuits endeavoured to prevail on to enter into their society. But Barclay opposing their scheme, the Jesuits resented it so highly, and did him so many ill offices with the duke, that he was obliged to leave Lorrain. He then went to London, where king James I. is said to have offered him a place in his council, with a considerable pension but he declined these offers, because it was made a necessary condition of his accepting them, that he should embrace the protestant religion. In 1604, he returned into France, and accepted the professorship of the civil law, which was offered him by the university of Angers. He taught there with reputation, and is said to have been fond of making a splendid appearance in his character of professor. But he did not hold this office long, dying in 1606. He was buried in the church of the Franciscans. He appears to have been much prejudiced against the Protestants and was a zealous advocate for passive obedience, and the divine right of kings, as appears from his writings, of which the following are “the principal, 1.” De Reguo et llegali Potestate ad versus Buchananum, Brutum, Boucherium, et reliquos Monarchoniachos,“Paris, 1600, dedicated to Henry IV. 2.” De Potestate Papse, quatenus in Reges et Principes seculares Jus et Imperium habeat,“Franco!'. 1609, 1613, 1621, Hannovias, 1612, in 8vo, and Lond. in English, 1611, in 4to, Mussiponti, 1610, 8vo, and Parisiis, 1600, 4to. In this he proves that the pope has no power, direct or indirect, over sovereigns in temporals, and that they who allow him, any such power, whatever they may intend, do very great prejudice to the Roman catholic religion. 3.” A commentary upon the Title of the Pandects de Rebus creditis et de Jure] urando,“Paris, 1605, 8vo. 4.” Prcemetia in vitam Agricolse," Paris, 1599, 2 vols. 8vo. This last is said to be an excellent commentary on Tacitus. There are two letters from him to Lipsius in Burman’s Sylloges Epistolarum, and four from Lipsius to him.

During the course of three years residence in England, Barclay received no token of the royal liberality. Sunk in indigence, he only wished to be indemnified for his English journies, and to have his charges defrayed into France. At length, he was relieved from those urgent distresses by his patron Salisbury. Of these circumstances we are informed by some allegorical and obscure verses written by Barclay at that sad season. (Delit. Poet. Scot. I. 92 100.) Never did dependent offer incense to a patron more liberally than he did. Burleigh, he admits, was a wise man, but, he adds, “that the wisdom of Burleigh bore the like proportion to that of his son, as the waters of the Thames do to the ocean.” In 1610 he published his Apology for Euphormion, the severity of which satire had excited enemies against him in every quarter of Europe. In this year also he, published his father’s work, “De Potestate Papse,” and when it was attacked by cardinal Bellarmin, be published a treatise entitled “J. Barclaii Pietas, sive, publics pro regibus ac principibus, et privates pro Gulielmo Earclaio parente vindici*, adversus Roberti Bellarmini tractatum, de Potestate summi Pontificis ia rebus temporal!­bus,” Paris, 4to. In 1614 he published his “Icon animarum,” perhaps the best, although not the most renowned of his compositions. It is a delineation of the genius and manners of the European nations, with remarks, moral and philosophical, on the various tempers of men. Mr. Malone observes, as a curious circumstance, that in this work, Barclay has suggested an expedition against the Turkish empire, similar in the most material circumstances to that undertaken in 1798 by the French republic, (particularly in the number of the troops employed) though it was proposed to be directed against a different part of the Turkish dominions from that which was assailed by the French, In 1615, invited, as it is said, by pope Paul V. Barclay determined to fix his residence under the immediate power of a pontiff whose political conduct he had reprobated, and of a court whose maxims he had censured with extraordinary freedom. About the end of that year he quitted England, but not clandestinely, as his enemies reported, and having hastily passed through France, he settled at Rome with his family, in the beginning of the year 1616. In the “Paraenesis,” or “Exhortation to the Sectaries,” he mentions two reasons which induced him to quit England, and take up his abode in Italy. His first was, lest his children, by remaining in England, should have been perverted from the faith. But he could have obviated that danger, by removing into France, in which country he had for his friends Du Vair (president of the parliament of Provence, afterwards keeper of the great seals, and lastly, bishop of Lisieux), and M. Peiresc. His second reason was more singular he perceived that his “Pietas,” or vindication of his father, was pleasing to heretics, and that it disgusted many persons of the Romish communion. He repented of having written it: he then found that it contained erroneous propositions, and he wished to settle in Italy that he might have leisure and freedom to refute them.

, a monk of the order of St. Basil, in the fourteenth century, was in 1339 sent by the Greek emperor Andronicus the younger, as ambassador to Philip king of France, and Robert king t)f Sicily, to solicit assistance against the Mahometan power; and as there was little prospect that this would be granted without a previous union between the Greek and Latin churches, he was also instructed to treat of this measure. These two princes gave him letters to pope Benedict XII. to whom he proposed the assembling of a general council; but as he desired, in the mean time, that a reinforcement might be sent to the Greek emperor, the pope replied that the procession of the Holy Ghost was a point already settled, and therefore did not require a new council, and as for the assistance required, it could not be granted unless the Greek church would shew more sincerity in its wishes for a junction. Barlaam, at his return from Constantinople, had a controversy with the monks called Quietists, who were charged with reviving the Messalian heterodoxy. These monks pretended to see the light which appeared upon Mount Tabor at our Saviour’s transfiguration. They asserted this light to be uncreated and incorruptible, though not part of the divine essence and held other strange opinions, which induced Barlaani to accuse Palamas and his disciples of this sect, to the emperor and to the patriarch of Constantinople, on which a council was called in that city in 1340, but BarJaain failed in maintaining his charges, and was himself censured. Barlaam beinp; thus condemned in the east, retired to the west, joined himself to the Latins, and was made bishop of Hieracium or Gerace in Calabria, where he died about 1348. As he changed from the Greeks to the Latins, his writings will be found to be both for and against the latter. Against them he wrote a treatise on the pope’s primacy, printed first in Gr. and Lat. at Oxford, 1592, 4to, by Lloyd, and afterwards at Hainault, 1608, 8vo, with notes by Sahnasius, who again reprinted it, along with his own treatise of the primacy of the pope, Amsterdam, 1645. Barlaam wrote also a treatise of the procession of the Holy Ghost, containing eighteen articles, of which Ailatius gives the titles. For the Latins he wrote a discourse of the union of the two churches, and five letters, published by Bzovius, Canisius, and in the Bibl. Patrnm separately also at Strasburgh, 1572; and a treatise on arithmetic and algebra from his pen was published at Paris, 1600.

, a very learned divine and bishop in the seventeenth century, was born at Langhill, in the parish of Orton, in Westmorland, in 1607; being the son <*f Mr. Richard Barlow, descended from the ancient family of Barlow-moore in Lancashire. He had his first education at the free-school at Appleby, in his own country. From thence being removed, in the sixteenth year of his age, to Queen’s college in Oxford, he took his degrees in arts, that of master being completed the 27th of June, 1633, and the same year was chosen fellow of his college. In 1635, he was appointed metaphysic-reader in the university; and his lectures being much approved of, were published in 1637 for the use of the scholars. When the garrison of Oxford surrendered to the parliament in 1646, he submitted to the persons then in power and by tb-^ interest of colonel Thomas Kelsey, deputy governor of that garrison, or more likely by that of Selden or Dr. Owen, preserved his fellowship, notwithstanding the parliamentary visitation, of which he gave a ludicrous account, in a pamphlet entitled “Pegasus.” In 1652 he was elected keeper of the Bodleian library and about the same time, was made lecturer of Church-hill, near Burford, in Oxfordshire. July 23, 1657, he took his degree of bachelor in divinity and, in the latter end of the same year, was chosen provost of his college, on the death of the learned Dr. Langbaine. After the restoration of king Charles II. he procured himself to be one of the commissioners, appointed first by the marquis of Hertford, chancellor of the university, and afterwards by the king, for restoring the members which were ejected in 1648. The 2d of August, 1660, he was not only created doctor in divinity among the royalists, but also chosen Margaret professor of divinity, the 1st of September following, upon the ejection of Henry Wilkinson, senior. He wrote, the same year, “The case of a Toleration in matters of religion,' 7 addressed to the famous Rob. Boyle, esq. in which that subject fs handled with great candour. In 1661, he was appointed archdeacon of Oxford, in the room of Dr. Barten Holiday, deceased but he was not installed till June 13, 1664, owing to a contest between him and Dr. Thomas Lamplugh about thut dignity, which, after having lasted some time, was at length decided in favour of Dr. Barlow, at the assizes held at Oxford, March 1, 1663-4. Being eminent for his skill in the civil and canon law, he was often applied to as a casuist, to resolve cases of conscience, about marriage, &c. And on one of these occasions, in 1671, he wrote” Mr. Cottington’s case of Divorce,“in which is discussed the validity of his marriage with a lady whose former husband was living and some years after, another case of marriage, inserted in his” Genuine remains.“Upon the death of Dr. W. Fuller, bishop of Lincoln, which happened April 22, 1675, he obtained, the same day, a grant of that bishopric, at the recommendation of some of the nobility, and chiefly through the interest of the two secretaries of state, Henry Coventry, esq. and sir Joseph Williamson, both some time of his college, and the first formerly his pupil. The 27th of June following, he was consecrated at Ely-house chapel. Archbishop Sheldon opposed his promotion, though the reasons of it are not assigned. After his advancement to this see, bishop Barlow wrote several curious things. They were generally short, and most of them by way of letter. The most considerable are these: In 1676,” The original of Sine Cures >“concerning” Pensions paid out of Churchlivings“and a” Survey of the numbers of Papists within the province of Canterbury” in 1679, “A letter concerning the Canon Law, allowing the whipping of heretics.” But he was most distinguished by his writings against popery the chief of which were, “Popery, or the principles and positions approved by the Church of Rome, &c. are very dangerous to all,” and “A discourse concerning the Laws ecclesiastical and civil, made against heretics by popes, emperors, and kings, provincial and general councils, approved by the Church of Rome,” evidently levelled against the duke of York. He expressed his zeal against the papists, not only in writing, but in action. For when, in 1678, after the discovery of the popish plot, a bill was brought into parliament, requiring all members of either house, and all such as might come into the king’s court, or presence, to take a test against popery our bishop appeared for that bill in the house of lords, and spoke in favour of it. Notwithstanding which we are told, that after king James II.'s accession to the throne, bishop Barlow took all opportunities to express his affection, or submission, to him for he sent up an address of thanks to him, for his first declaration for liberty of conscience, signed by six hundred of his clergy. He wrote reasons for reading that king’s second declaration for liberty of conscience he caused it to be read in his diocese , nay, he was prevailed upon to assert and vindicate the regal power of dispensing with penal laws, in an elaborate tract, with numerous quotations from canonists, civilians, and divines. And yet, after the revolution, he was one of those bishops who readily voted that king James had abdicated his kingdoms. He took the oaths to his successors and no bishop was more ready than he, to fill the places of such clergymen as refused to take the oaths to king William and queen Mary. There was nothing in this, however, inconsistent in one who held his sentiments *in favour of toleration. It is more doubtful that he was entirely addicted to the Aristotelian philosophy, and a declared enemy to the improvements made by the royal society, and to what he called in general the new philoso'phy. He was, however, a rigid Calvinist, and the school divinity was that which he most admired but when his attachment to Calvin’s notions engaged him in a public opposition to some of Mr. Bull’s works, he declined a public disputation on the subject. He has also been blamed for never appearing in his cathedral, nor visiting his diocese in person, but residing constantly at his manor of Bugden but against this he appears to have vindicated himself. His enemies are willing to allow that he was a good casuist, a man of very exten^ sive learning, an universal lover and favourer of learned me if, of what country or denomination soever, and a great master of the whole controversy between the Protestants and Papists. He died at Bugden, October 8, 1691, in the eighty-fifth year of his age; and was buried the llth of the said month, on the north side of the chancel belonging to that church, near the body of Dr. R. Sanderson, some time bishop of Lincoln, and, according to his own desire, in the grave of Dr. William Barlow, formerly bishop of the same see to whose memory, as well as his own, is erected a monument, with an inscription which he composed himself a few days before his death. He bequeathed to the Bodleian library, all such books of his own, as were not in that noble collection at the time of his death and the remainder he gave to Queen’s college in Oxford, on which the society erected, in 1694, a noble pile of buildings, on the west side of their college, to receive them. All his manuscripts, of his own composition, he left to his two domestic chaplains, William Otfley and Henry Brougham, prebendaries of Lincoln, with a particular desire that they would not make any of them public after his decease. Besides the works already mentioned, he wrote against popery, 1.'“Confutation of the infallibility of the church of Rome,” written in 167S. 2. “A letter to J. Evelyn, esq. concerning invocation of Saints, and adoration of the Cross,” London, 1679, 4 to. 3. The same year he reprinted in 8vo, “The Gun-powder Treason, with a discourse of the manner of its discovery, &c.” printed at first in 1606, and placed in the beginning of it, “A preface touching that horrid conspiracy, dated Feb. 1, 1678-9.” 4. “Brutum Fulmen, or the bull of pope Pius Sextus against queen Elizabeth,” 1681, 4tn. 5. “Whether the pope be Antichrist, &c.” 6. “A few plain reasons why a Protestant of the church of England should not turn Roman catholic,” 1688. Some sheets of this, not being licensed, were omitted. Besides these, he is the author of the following 7. “Pietas in Patrem, or a few tears upon the lamented death of his most dear and loving Father Richard Barlow, late of Langhill in Westmorland, who died December 29, 1636,” Oxford, 1637, 4to. 8. “A letter to Mr. John Goodwin, concerning Universal Redemption, by J. Christ,” 1651. 9. “For toleration of the Jews,” 3655. 10. “A letter to Mr. John Tombes in defence of Anabaptism, inserted in one of Tombes’s books.” 11. “A tract to prove that true grace doth not lie so much in the degree, as in the nature.” This also is inserted in a book, entitled Sincerity and Hypocrisy, &c. written by William Sheppard, esq. 12. “The Rights of the Bishops to judge in capital eases in parliament cleared, &c.” Lond. 1680. Dr. Barlow did not set his name to this, and it was by some ascribed to Tho. Turner of Gray’s-inn. 13. “A letter (to his clergy) for the putting in execution the Laws against Dissenters, written in concurrence to that which was drawn up by the justices of the peace of the county of Bedford, at the quarter-sessions held at Ampthill for the said county, Jan. 14, 1684.” After his decease, sir Peter Pett lisbed in 1692, 8vo, “Several miscellaneous and weighty cases of conscience, learnedly and judiciously resolved by the right rev. father in God, Dr. T ho. Barlow, late lord bishop of Lincoln.” Sir Peter published also in 1693, Lond. 8vo, 14. “The genuine Remains of that learned prelate, Dr. Thomas Barlow, late lord bishop of Lincoln, containing divers discourses, theological, philosophical, historical, &c. in letters to several persons of honour and quality.” But these two volumes being published without the knowledge or consent of the bishop’s two chaplains above-mentioned, to whom he had left all his manuscripts, with orders that they should not be published, they severely Reflected upon the publisher, for the unwarrantable liberty he had taken.

, was an English Roman Catholic, of the seventeenth century, whose history has been imperfectly related. According to Moreri (who refers to “Memoires du temps”) he was an Englishman by birth, and studied with great success at Lou vain. Wood savs he was of a Lancashire family, and educated for some time at Oxford, whence he went to Spain, and studied divinity and philosophy under the famous Dr. J. Alph. Curiel, who, adds Wood, was wont to call Barnes by the name of John Hiiss, because of a spirit of contradiction which was always observed in him, but which, it appears by his writings, was a spirit of thinking for himself that could not be very acceptable to his superiors. He is said to have been young when he entered among the English Benedictines near Douay, for fear of the inquisition, with which he was threatened at Louvain and some time after he was obliged to leave the Benedictines, under the same alarm, for holding some sentiments they did not approve. Wood says, that before this he was sent into England on a mission, but being discovered there, he was imprisoned and sent to Normandy with certain priests and Jesuits. Moreri says, that on leaving Douay, he took refuge in Paris, where he was protected by some persons of distinction, and admitted into the friendship of several men of learning. In 1625, at which time he was one of the confessors of the abbey of Chelles, he published a work against mental reservation, entitled “Dissertatio contra equivocationes,” Paris, 8vo, of which a French translation was published at the same time. In the approbation of the faculty of theology at Paris prefixed to this work, he is styled doctor of arts and divinity, professor of the English mission, and first assistant of the congregation of Spain. This work made a considerable noise, and was attempted to be answered by father Theophilus Raynaud in 1627. His next work, entitled “Catholico-Romanus Pacificus,” gave yet more offence, and the pope wrote to the king of France, and to cardinal Richelieu, desiring they would send the author of these publications to Rome. Barnes was accordingly taken up in December 1625. He wrote also an answer to Clement Reyner’s “Apostolatus Benedictinorum in Anglia,” which Wood makes to precede the former. It appears certain, however, that in consequence of the moderation of his opinions, he was hurried like a malefactor from place to place through Germany. While confined at Mechlin, he contrived to make his escape from the room by means of the strings of a bass viol, of which he had procured a quantity under pretence that the dampness of the place had injured what belonged to his instrument; but he was discovered while stepping into a vessel at Antwerp, and conveyed to Rome. Here he was put into the prison belonging to the inquisition, in which he died, after thirty years confinement. During part of this time, his sufferings had brought on insanity. An edition of his “CatholicoRomanus Pacificus” was printed at the theatre at Oxford in 1680, 8vo, and part of it had been before made use of by Dr. Basire in his “Ancient Liberty of the Britannic church.” Wood mentions other writings by Barnes, but without specifying their titles.

, professor of divinity, and chaplain to Henry VIII. king of England, was sent to Germany by his master in 1535, where he held a conference with the protestant divines upon the affair of the divorce after that he had several audiences of the elector of Saxony, and joined with the English ambassadors, who proposed to this elector an alliance against the pope, and desired that Henry VIII. might be associated in the league of Smalcalde. He gave them hopes of a reformation in England but in fact, they had no other design than to obtain their doctors approbation of the divorce of their master, and a political alliance, in order to find the emperor more employment, who threatened to revenge the injury upon king Henry for divorcing his aunt. They carried away with them the opinion of the divines of Witternberg which was not entirely favourable to them but they suppressed the conclusion, wjien they shewed it to the king. Barnes’s conduct however pleased the king, and induced him to employ him in carrying on a correspondence with the princes of Germany. He was sent several times to those courts and among other negociations, he w r as the first who was employed in the project of the marriage with Anne of Cleves. He was a zealous Lutheran, which he did not conceal in his sermons for in Lent in 1540 he confuted the sermon, which bishop Gardiner had preached against Luther’s doctrine. He took the same text as Gardiner had done, and taught a doctrine absolutely contrary to what this prelate had laid down concerning justification nay he even attacked the bishop personally, and jested upon the name of Gardiner. Gardiner’s friends complained to the king of this, who ordered 'Barnes to give him satisfaction, to sign certain articles, and to make a formal recantation in the pulpit. All this was done, but in such a manner, that there was a complaint, that in one part of his sermon he artfully maintained what he had retracted in the other. Upon these complaints he was sent to the Tower by the king’s command, which he never came out of but to suffer death in the midst of the flames for he was condemned* as an heretic by the parliament, without being permitted to make his defence. He declared his belief a little before his death he rejected justification by works, invocation of saints, &c. and desired that the king would undertake a thorough reformation. His freedom of speech had for a long time before exposed him to trouble. While Wolsey was in favour, he preached so vehemently at Cambridge against the luxury of prelates, that every body saw immediately that he designed it against the cardinal. Upon that account he was carried to London, where by the solicitations of Gardiner and Fox, he was rescued from that prosecution, having agreed to abjure some articles which were proposed to him. Afterwards he was again committed to prison upon some newaccusations and then it was generally believed that he would be burnt, but he escaped, and went over into Germany, where he applied himself entirely to the study of the bible and divinity in which he made so great a progress, that he was very much esteemed by the doctors and princes. When the king of Denmark sent ambassadors to England, he desired Barnes to accompany them, or even to be one of them. We have at least two books written by Barnes, one, the “Articles of his Faith,” published in Latin, with a preface by Pomeranus, and again in Dutch in 1531. The other is his “Lives of the Popes,” from St. Peter to Alexander II. published, with a preface by Luther, at Wirtemberg, 1536, and afterwards at Leyden, 1615; together with Bale’s Lives of the Popes. Luther also published an account of his martyrdom.

, whose true name was Fitz-Gerald, was descended from a branch of the FitzGcralds of Burnchurch in the county of Kilkenny, a family settled in Ireland soon after the English acquisitions in that country, which has produced several men of figure in the church. But he has been more remarkable in the learned world for his maternal genealogy, being the son of a sister of Luke Wadding, that eminent Franciscan friar, who, in the seventeenth century, demonstrated his great abilities and industry, by many voluminous treatises of genius and labour. His uncle Wadding took great care of his education in his youth, which he saw rewarded by an uncommon diligence: and when he was of a proper age procured his admission into the Franciscan order, and sent for him toRome; where he lived under his own eye in the college of St. Isidore, a society of thut order founded by himself in 1625, for the education of Irish students in the study of the liberal arts, divinity, and controversy, to serve as a seminary, out of which the mission into England, Scotland, and Ireland, might be supplied. Baron, after some time, grew into high reputation, and became especially remarkable for the purity of -his Latin style, which procured him great reputation. He was for a considerable time lecturer on divinity in the above-mentioned college, and in all resided at Rome about sixty years, where he died, very old, and deprived of sight,. March 18, 1696, and was buried at St. Isidore’s. His works are, 1. “Orationes Panegyricce Sacro-Prophanre decem,” Romae, 1643, 12mo. '. <; Mctra Miscellanea, sive Carminum diversoruin libri duo; Epigrammatum unus alter Silvulte quibus adduntur Elogiaillustriumvirorum,“Romse, 1645, 24to. 3.” Prolusiones Philosophicee,“Romae, 1651, 12mo. 4. a Harpocrates quinque Ludius; seu Diatriba silentii,” Romce, 1651, 12mo. 5. “Obsidio et Expugnatio Arcis Duncannon ia Hibernia, sub Thoma Prestono.” 6. “Boetius Absolutus; sive de ConsolationeTheologiae, lib. iv.” Roma-, 1653, 12mo. 7. “Controversial et Stratagemata,” Lug'­duni, 1656, 8vo. 8. “Scotus Defensus,” Colonize, 1662, folio. 9. “Cursus Philosophicus,” Colonise, 1664, folio. 10. “Epistolæ Familiares Parceneticse,” &c. These are among his 11. “Opuscula varia Herbipoli,” 1666, folio. 12. “Theologia,” Paris, 1676, 6 vols. 13. “Johannes Duns Scotus, ordinis minorum, Doctor subtilis de Angeiis contra adversantes defensus, nunc quoque Novitate amplificatus,” FlorentitE, 1678. 14. “Annales Ordinis S. S. Trinitatis Redemptions Captivorum, Fundatoribus 8. S. Johanne de Matha, et Felice de Valois,” in vols. folio. The first volume was printed at Rome in 1686, and begins with the year 1198, in which pope Innocent the Third gave habit to the founders, and is carried down to the year 1297, just one hundred years. In this volume we have an account of the foundations of their convents, their privileges, and benefactions, the eminent fathers of their order, their miracles and actions; as also, the number of slaves delivered by them from bondage.

, an eminent Italian artist, was born at Urbino, in 1528, and was the disciple of Battista Venetiano, by whom he was carefully instructed in the principles of painting, but he derived his knowledge of perspective from his uncle Bartolomeo Genga. Under those preceptors he practised assiduously, till he was in his twentieth year; and then visited Rome, where, under the patronage of cardinal della Rovere, he pursued his studies incessantly, and proved one of the most graceful painters of his time. At his return to his native city Urbino, he painted several pictures which procured him great applause; but that of a St. Margaret raised his reputation to the highest pitch, and induced pope Pius IV. to invite him to Home, where he employed him in the decorations of his palace of Belvedere, in conjunction with Federigo Zucchero. He excelled equally in history and portrait, but his genius inclined him more particularly to the painting of religious subjects; and his works sufficiently evince, that the utmost of his ambition was to imitate Correggio in his colouring, and Raphael in his manner of designing. But Correggio has somewhat so natural, so grand, so unaffectedly graceful, that Baroccio was far inferior to him, although perhaps more correct in the outlines. Sir Joshua Reynolds, who thought him, upon the whole, one of Correggio’s most successful imitators, says, that sometimes in endeavouring at cleanness or brilliancy of tint, he overshot the mark, and falls under the criticism that was made on an ancient painter, that his figures looked as if they fed upon roses. It is, however, singular to see colours of such variety coalesce so sweetly under his pencil, that perhaps no music reaches the ear with purer harmony, than his pictures the eye; an effect produced, in a great measure, by his attention to chiaroscuro, which he may be said to have introduced to the schools of Lower Italy, and which to obtain he rarely painted any historical figure without having either modelled it in wax, or placed some of his disciples in such attitudes as he wished to represent, it is sajd that when young, he was attempted to be poisoned at a dinner &ivc.5i by some of his rival artists, and that although he escaped with his life, he continued long in an infirm state. He must, however, have completely recovered from this attack, as his life was prolonged to the advanced age of eighty-four. He died at Urbino in 1612. Baroccio was also an engraver from some of his own compositions, and his plates, although slight, and not well managed, with respect to the mechanical part of the workmanship, are nevertheless most admirable, on account of the expression, and excellent drawing, which is discovered in them. His heads are very beautiful and characteristic; and the other extremities of his figures finely marked. Amidst all the difficulties he appears to have met with, in biting his plates with the aquafortis, after he had etched them, and his unskilfulness in handling-the graver, to harmonize and finish them, the hand of the master appears so evident, that the beauties we discover in them far overbalance the defects.

, a learned father of the Romish church, and a monk of the Benedictine order, was born at Martres in the diocese of Rieux in Gascony, and entered into the order of the preaching friars at Toulouse in 1622. He taught divinity several years with applause in the convent of the same city, and was made prior there; as he was likewise at Avignon, and in the general novitiate of the suburb of St. Germain at Paris. He was definitor for his province in the general chapter held in 1656, in which he presided at the theses dedicated to pope Alexander VII. which gained him the esteem of all the city and his whole order. He was present at the assembly, in which the pope ordered the definitors and fathers of the chapter to be told, from him, that he was extremely grieved to see the Christian morality sunk into such a deplorable relaxation, as some of the new casuists had reduced it to, and that he exhorted them to compose another system of it, which should be conformable to the doctrine of St. Thomas. This was what engaged father Baron to undertake the works which he wrote upon that subject. He was again chosen provincial; and afterwards sent by the father general as commissary to Portugal, upon important affairs, which he managed with such success, that the queen, the court, and all the monks gave testimony of his merit by a public act. He returned to Paris to the general novitiate, and died there, Jan. 21, 1674, aged seventy years. Besides several Latin poems, which he left as instances of his capacity in polite literature, he published the following works: 1. “Theologia Moralis,” Paris, 1665, in 5 vols. 8vo, and again in 1667. 2. “Libri Apologetici contra Theophilum Rainaudum,” Paris, 1666, in 2 vols. 8vo. 3. “Mens sancti Augustini & Thorn ae de Gratia & Libertate,” 1666, 8vo. 4. “Ethica Christiana,” Paris, 1666, 2 vols. 8vo. 5. “Responsio ad Librum Cardense,” ibid, in 8vo. 6. “L'Heresie Convaincue,” Paris, 1668, 12mo. 7. “Panegyriques des Saints,” ibid. 1660, '4to. The first two volumes of his Moral Theology were prohibited. It relates to the principal points in dispute between the Dominicans and Jesuits.

, an eminent ecclesiastical writer, and a cardinal of the Roman church, was born at Sora, an episcopal city in the kingdom of Naples, October the 30th, 1538, of Camillo Baronio and Porcia Phebonia, who educated him with great care. He went through his first studies at Veroli, and afterwards applied himself to divinity and civil law at Naples. But the troubles of that kingdom obliged his father to remove him in 1557 to Rome, where he finished his studies in the law under Cesar Costa, afterwards archbishop of Capua, and put himself under the discipline of St. Philip de Neri, founder of the congregation of the oratory, who employed him in the familiar instructions which his clerks gave to the children. After he was ordained priest, St. Philip de Neri sent him, with some of his disciples, in 1564, to establish his congregation in the church of St. John the Baptist. He continued there till 1576, when he was sent to 8,t. Mary in Vallicella, and in both houses he was much admired for his pious zeal and charity. St. Philip de Neri having, in 1593, laid down the office of superior of the congregation of the oratory, thought he could not appoint a more worthy successor than Baronius, and pope Clement VIII. who knew his merit, in compliance with the desires of the founder and his congregation, approved the choice, and some time after made him his confessor. The esteem which that pope had for him, increased as he had an opportunity of growing more intimately acquainted with him, and induced him to appoint our author apostolical prothonotary in 1595, and to advance him to the dignity of cardinal, June 5th, 1596, to which he afterwards added the post of library-keeper to the see of Rome. Upon the death of Clement VIII. m 1605, Baronius had a great prospect of being chosen pope, one and thirty voices declaring for him; but the Spaniards strongly opposed his election on account of his treatise, “Of the Monarchy of Sicily,” in which he argued against the claim of Spain to Sicily. His intense application to his studies weakened his constitution in such a manner, that towards the end of his life he could not digest any kind of food. He died June the 30th, 1607, aged sixtyeight years and eight months, and was interred in the church of St. Mary in Vallicella, in the same tomb where his intimate friend cardinal Francesco Maria Taurusio was buried the year following. Dupin observes, that “an high regard ought to be paid to the memory of Baronius, who was a man of sincere religion, probity, learning, and extensive reading, and laboured with success for the service of the church, and the clearing up of ecclesiastical antiquity. But it were to be wished that he had been exempt from the prejudices which his education and country inspired him with*” In a book of lather Parsons, printed in 1607, and entitled “I)e sacris alienis non adeundis qusestiones du; ad usum praximque Angliae breviter explicate,” is published the judgment of Baronius, together with that of cardinal Bcllarmin and others, declaring that it was absolutely unlawful for the Roman Catholics to be present at the religious worship of the Protestants in England. The work for which Baronius was most celebrated, and which is certainly a wonderful monument of industry and research, was his “Ecclesiastical Annals.” He undertook this work at the age of thirty, and laboured for thirty years in collecting and digesting the materials for it, by reading over carefully the ancient monuments of the church, as well in printed books as in manuscripts, in the Vatican library. He published in 1588 the first volume, which contains the first century after the birth of Christ. The second, which followed after, contains two hundred and five years. These two volumes are dedicated to pope Sixtus V. The third, dedicated to king Philip 11. of Spain, comprehends the history of fifty-five years immediately following. The fourth, dedicated to Clement VIII. contains the history of thirty-four years, which end in the year 395. The fifth, dedicated to the same pope, as well as the following volumes, extends to the year 440. The sixth ends in the year 518. The seventh contains seventy-three years. The eighth extends to the year 714. The ninth, dedicated to king Henry IV. of France, concludes with the year 842. The tenth, dedicated to the emperor Rodolphus II. begins with the year 843, and reaches to 1000. The eleventh, dedicated to Sigismond III. king of Poland, and published in 1605, continues the history to the year 1099. The twelfth, printed under the pontificate of Paul V. in 1607, concludes with 1198. So that we have, in these twelve volumes, the history of the twelve first ages of the church. Henry Spoudunns informs us, that Baronius had left memoirs for three more volumes, which were used by Odoricus Kaynaldus in the continuation of his work. The first edition of Baronius’ s Annals, begun in 158S, and continued the following years, was printed at Rome, where the first volumes were reprinted in 1593. It was followed by some others, with alterations and additions. The second edition was that of Venice, and was begun in 1595. The third was printed at Cologne in 1596, and the foil owing years. The fourth at Antwerp in 1597, &c. The fifth at Mentz in 1601, The sixth at Cologne in 1609. There were several other editions published afterwards, at Amsterdam in 1610, at Cologne in 1624, at Antwerp in 1675, at Venice in 1705, and at Lucca in 1738—1759, by far the best. Before this, the best editions, according to the abbe Longlet de Fresnoy, in his “New method of studying History,” were that of Home, as the original, and that of Antwerp, and the most convenient for study, is that of Mentz, because the authorities of the ecclesiastical writers are marked in it by a different character from the text of Baronius, and the impression is in two columns. The edition of Cologne has the same advantage, though ill printed.

Early in life Mr. Barret was an intimate friend of Dr. Johnson, and of Edward Cave, the founder of the Gentleman’s Magazine, to which he became a frequent contributor. One very interesting letter, signed by his name, appears in vol. XXIV. on a new method of modelling the tenses of verbs, which he defends on the authority of Varro and Dr. Clarke. This judicious scheme, and his elegant translation of Pope’s pastorals into Latin verse, fully established Mr. Barret’s reputation as a Latin scholar; and he also discovered some poetical talent in “War,” a satire, but was less fortunate in his translation of “Ovid’s Epistles into English verse.” This had critical essays and notes, and was said in the title (1759) to be “part of a poetical and oratorial lecture, read in Ashford school, calculated to initiate youth in the first rudiments of taste.”

However, he wrote an ode upon that occasion, in which he introduces Britannia congratulating the king upon his return. In 1660, he was chosen, without a competitor, Greek professor of the university of Cambridge. His oration, spoken upon that occasion, is preserved among his Opuscula. When he entered upon this province, he designed to have read upon the tragedies of Sophocles: but, altering his intention, he made choice of Aristotle’s rhetoric. These lectures, having been lent to a person who never returned them, are irrecoverably lost. The year following, which was 1661, he took the degree of bachelor in divinity. July the 16th, 1662, he was elected professor of geometry in Gresham-college, in the room of Mr. Lawrence Rooke, chiefly through the interest and recommendation of Dr. Wilkins, master of Trinity-college, and afterwards bishop of Chester. In this station, he not only discharged his own duty, but supplied, likewise, the absence of Dr. Pope the astronomy professor. Among his lectures, some were upon the projection of the sphere which being borrowed and never returned, are lost but his Latin oration, previous to his lectures, is in his works. The same year, 1662, he wrote an epithalamium on the marriage of king Charles and queen Catherine, in Greek verse. About this time, Mr. Barrow was offered a valuable living, but the condition annexed of teaching the patron’s son, made him refuse it, as too like a simouiacal contract. Upon the 20th of May 1663, he was elected a fellow of the royal society, in the first choice made by the council after their charter. The same year, Mr. Lucas having founded a mathematical lecture at Cambridge, Mr. Barrow was so powerfully recommended, by Dr. Wilkins, to that gentleman’s executors Mr. Raworth and Mr. Buck, that he was appointed the first professor; and the better to secure the end of so noble and useful a foundation, he took care that himself and his successors should be obliged to leave yearly to the university ten written lectures. We have his prefatory oration, spoken in the public mathematical school, March the 14th, 1664. Though his two professorships were not incompatible, he resigned that of Gresham-college, May the 20th, 1664. He had been invited to take the charge of the Cotton library; but, after ;a short trial, he declined it, and resolved to settle in the university. In 1669, he resigned the mathematical chair to his very worthy friend the celebrated Isaac Newton, being now determined to exchange the study of the mathematics for that of divinity, partly from a strong inclination for the latter, and partly because his mathematical works were less favourably received than he thought they deserved. In 1670, he wrote a Latin poem upon the death of the duchess of Orleans, an epicedium upon the duke of Albemarle, and a Latin ode upon the Trinity. He was only a fellow of Trinity-college, when he was collated by his uncle, the bishop of St. Asaph, to a small sinecure in Wales, and by Dr. Seth Ward, bishop of Salisbury, to a prebend in that cathedral; the profits of both which he applied to charitable uses, and afterwards resigned them, when he became master of his college. In the same year he was created doctor in divinity by mandate. In 1672, Dr. Pearson, master of Trinity-college, being, upon the death of bishop Wilkins, removed to the bishopric of Chester, Dr. Barrow was appointed by the king to succeed him; and his majesty was pleased to say upon that occasion, “he had given it to the best scholar in England.” His patent hears date February the 13th, 1672, with permission to marry, which he caused to be erased, as contrary to the statutes, and he was admitted the 27th of the same month. He gave the highest satisfaction to that society, whose interest he constantly and carefully consulted. In 1675, he was chosen vice-chancellor of the university. This great and learned divine died of a fever, the 4th of May 1677, and was buried in Westminster-abbey, where a monument was erected to him by the contribution of his friends. His epitaph was written by his friend Dr. Mapletoft. He left his manuscripts to Dr. Tillotson and Mr. Abraham Hill, with permission to publish what they should think proper. He left little behind him, except books, which were so well chosen, that they sold for more than the prime cost. Though he could never be prevailed to sit for his picture, some of his friends contrived to have it taken without his knowledge, whilst they diverted him with such discourse as engaged his attention. As to his person, he was low of stature, lean, and of a pale complexion, and negligent of his dress to a fault; of extraordinary strength, a thin skin, and very sensible of cold; his eyes grey, clear, and somewhat short-sighted; his hair a light brown, very fine, and curling. He was of a healthy constitution, very fond of tobacco, which he used to call his panpharmacon, or universal medicine, and imagined it helped to compose and regulate his thoughts. If he was guilty of any intemperance, it seemed to be in the love of fruit, which he thought very salutary. He slept little, generally rising in the winter months before day. His conduct and behaviour were truly amiable; he was always ready to assist others, open and communicative in his conversation, in which he generally spoke to the importance, as well as truth, of any question proposed; facetious in his talk upon fit occasions, and skilful to accommodate his discourse to different capacities; of indefatigable industry in various studies, clear judgment on all arguments, and steady virtue under all difficulties; of a calm temper in factious times, and of large charity in mean estate; he was easy and contented with a scanty fortune, and with the same decency and moderation maintained his character under the temptations of prosperity. In short, he was, perhaps, the greatest scholar of his times and, as an ingenious writer expresses it, “he may be esteemed as having shewn a compass of invention equal, if not superior, to any of the moderns, sir Isaac Newton only excepted.”

Several good anecdotes are told of Barrow, as well of his great integrity, as of his wit, and bold intrepid spirit and strength of body. His early attachment to fighting when a boy is some indication of the latter; to which may be added the two following anecdotes: in his voyage between Leghorn and Smyrna, already noticed, the ship was attacked by an Algerine pirate, which after a stout resistance they compelled to sheer off, Barrow keeping his post at the gun assigned him to the last. And when Dr. Pope in their conversation asked him, “Why he did not go down into the hold, and leave the defence of the ship to those, to whom it did belong r” He replied, “It concerned no man more than myself: I would rather have lost my life, than to have fallen into the hands of those merciless infidels.”

The succeeding year Mons. de Stainville, afterwards duke de Choiseul, being appointed ambassador at Rome, invited our author to accompany him to Italy, an offer which his official duty induced him to decline. In 1755, however, he was enabled to take this journey with his friend Mons. de Cotte, and his residence in Italy was rendered particularly agreeable by the continuance of Mons. cle Stainville there, who introduced him to the celebrated pope Benedict XIV. At Naples he became acquainted with Mazocchi, who was employed in the task of unfolding the numerous ancient manuscripts that had been found in Herculaneum. So little success had attended this undertaking at that period, that it would probably have been abandoned, but for the encouragement given to the prosecution of it by our author. It is related as a proof of the extent of his memory, that having applied in vain for liberty to copy one of these manuscripts, in order to send a fac-simile of the ancient hand-writing to France, and being only suffered to examine it, he read it over attentively five or six times, and suddenly leaving the apartment, copied the fragment from memory, and correcting when he came back some slight errors, he sent it the same day to the academy of belles lettres, enjoining secrecy, that no blame might attach to Mazocchi. While at Rome he gave a new and satisfactory explanation of the beautiful mosaic of Palestina, afterwards pri >ted in the Transactions of the Academy of Inscriptions.

, a pious and learned Dominican, and archbishop of Braga in Portugal, was born in May, 1514, in the city of Lisbon. His father’s name was Dominic Fernandez; but as the son happened to be baptised in the church of our Lady of the Martyrs, he adopted this last name instead of that of his family. In 1528 he took the habit of the order of St. Dominic, and after arriving at his doctor’s degree, was appointed preceptor to Don Antonio, son of the infant Don Lewis, brother of king John III. For twenty years also he taught divinity, and acquired such a character for sanctity and talents, that on a vacancy for the archbishopric of Braga, Bartholomew was universally recommended; but he persisted for a long time in refusing it, until threatened with excommunication. Nor was this reluctance affected, for he had such a fixed repugnance against undertaking this high charge, that the compulsion employed threw him into a disorder from which it was thought he could not recover. When it abated, however, he went to his diocese, and began to exercise his functions in the most exemplary manner. In 1561 he was present at the council of Trent, under pope Pius IV. where he discovered such knowledge and spirit as to acquire general esteem. It was he who advised the fathers of this council to begin business by a reformation of the clergy; and when some of the bishops demanded if he meant to extend his reform to the most illustrious cardinals, he replied, that those “most illustrious” cardinals stood very much in need of a “most illustrious” reformation. In 1563 he went with cardinal de Lorraine to Rome, where the pope received him with every mark of esteem and confidence. Here he spoke his mind on ecclesiastical abuses with great freedom, and observing the custom in one of their assemblies, that the bishops stood uncovered, while the cardinals sat covered, he remonstrated with the pope so effectually, that this affront to the episcopal dignity was no longer tolerated. His principal motive, however, for this journey to Rome, was to obtain leave to resign his archbishopric; but the pope refused, on which he returned to Trent, and as soon as the council was over, went to Braga, where he remained until the pontificate of Gregory XIII. who at length accepted his resignation. After this he led a retired life, entirely occupied in acts of charity and devotion. He died in the convent of Viana, July 16, 1590, in the seventy-seventh year of his age. His works were published at Rome, 1744, 2 vols. fol. and consist of pious treatises, and an itinerary of his travels, in which we discover much of the excellence of his character. M. le Maitre de Saci published his life in 4to and 12mo, 1664. He was beatified by pope Clement XIV. in 1773.