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

, or Albert. See Albert of Aix.

M. de Vendome first employed him in discovering where the people in his neighbourhood had concealed their grain; an undertaking which rendered Alberoni’s departure for Spain, with Vendome, as prudent as it turned out to be advantageous. By degrees he obtained the marshal’s confidence, and ventured to propose the daughter of his sovereign, the duke of Parma, to him, as a fit match for the king of Spain. Alberoni’s proposal was attended to, and the princess was demanded in marriage by that monarch, then Philip V. The duke of Parma consented with great readiness to a match that was to procure for his daughter the sovereignty of so great a kingdom as that of Spain, When every thing was settled, and immediately before the princess was to set out for her new dominions, the ministers of Spain had heard that she was a young woman of a haughty imperious temper, and extremely intriguing and ambitious. They therefore prevailed upon the king to write to the duke, requesting another of his daughters in marriage, to whose quiet disposition they could not possibly have any objections,. The king did as he was desired, and sent his letter by a special messenger. Alberoni, who was then at Parma, hearing of this, and afraid that all his projects of ambition would come to nothing, unless the princess whom he recommended, and who of course would think herself highly obliged to him for her exalted situation, became queen of Spain, caused the messenger to be stopped at one day’s journey from Parma, and gave him his choice, either to delay his coming to Parma for a day, or to be assassinated. He of course chose the first, and the princess set out upon her journey to Spain, and became queen.

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.

M. Beauchamp, his latest biographer, observes, that it has been said he was rather an intriguer than a politician; that he was as ambitious as Richelieu, and as supple as Mazarine, but had less forecast and less depth than either. Such is the character, adds M. Beauchamp, which most French writers have given of Alberoni, either from judging of events after they happened, or from prejudice against him, because he showed himself the enemy of France. But if we reflect, that within a very few years Alberoni retrieved a considerable part of the ancient glory of the Spanish monarchy; that in midst of his complicated and extensive designs, his genius, which comprehended every branch of public administration, established regulations favourable to agriculture, arts, and commerce; that he neglected no endeavours which might inspire the Spaniards with a love of industry, while he prompted them to display their ancient valour; and if we lastly consider, that the failure of his projects was owing to the indiscretion of his agents, it may probably appear, that he wanted nothing to place him in a rank with Ximenes or Richelieu, but that success which justifies every thing, and which oftener depends on chance than on genius.

, or Alberic, canon and guardian of the church of Aix in Provence, his country, and where he died, about the year 1120, in his sixtieth year, is the author of a “History of the First Crusade,” from the year 1095 to 1120, the second year of the reign of Baldwin II. king of Jerusalem. Albert was not a witness of the exploits he records, but appears to have had recourse to the best information for his facts. Like most of his contemporaries, however, he abounds in the marvellous, and often disfigures the names of persons and places. Rhener Reinech printed this work, for the first time, in 1584, at Helmstadt, '2 vols. 4to, under the title of “Chronicon Hierosolimitanum,” with notes by the editor, and by Matthew Dresser; and Bougar reprinted it in the first volume of his “Gesta Dei per Francos.” Some late compilers of biography have divided Albert into two persons, Albert and Alberic, both of whom wrote the above chronicle; but Albert went to the crusade, and Alberic staid at home.

, a Lutheran divine, born, according to some, in Weteraw, or, according to others, at a small village near Francfort on the Main, studied divinity at Wittemberg, and became one of the most zealous adherents of Luther, who had a great friendship for him. He was for some time preacher to Joachim II. elector of Brandenburgh, but on a dispute respecting the revenues of the clergy, he lost that situation, and travelled intw various places, maintaining the doctrines of the reformation. In 1548 he was a preacher at Magcleburgh; but the Interim, proposed by Charles V. and fatal to so many of the Protestant clergy, oblige'd him to leave that place, and reside in a private station at Hamburgh. He was afterwards appointed &uperintendant-general of New Brandenburgh, in Mecklenburgh, where he died May J, 1553. He collected from the book, written by Albizzi (See Albizzi), of the conformities of St. Francis with Jesus Christ, the most remarkable absurdities and follies, and published them under the title of the “Alcoran of the Cordeliers.” He printed this collection in German, in the year 1531, without name of place or printer; and again in Latin at Wittemberg, in 1542 4, and called the Alcoran, because the Franciscans of his time paid as much veneration to the conformities as the Turks do to their alcoran. Luther honoured the compilation of his disciple with a preface. Conrad Baudius augmented it with a second book, translated it into French, and published it in 1556, one vol. 12mo; afterwards at Geneva, in 1560, in 2 vols. 12 mo. The last edition of this satirical work is that of Amsterdam in 1734, in 3 vols. 12mo, with copper-plates. There is also of this Albert, “Judicium de Spongia Erasmi, Roterodami;” and several other pieces in Latin and German, particularly a collection of forty-nine fables, called “The book of Wisdom and Virtue,” Francfort, 1579, 8 vo, in German verse. His satirical turn pervades all his writings.

, sometimes called Argentinensis, lived in the fourteenth century, and wrote a history, or chronicle, from the time of the emperor Ilodolphus I. to that of Charles IV. or from the year 1270 to 1378. Cuspiuian quotes him often, and has given a fragment of the work; and Ursticius has published the whole in his collection of German historians. There is usually joined to it, the fragment of a chronicle, from the year 631 to 1267. His other works are enumerated in Du Pin’s Bibliotheque for the fourteenth century.

, a painter of some distinction, but whose reputation is chiefly established by his engravings, was born in 1552 atBorgo S. Sepolcbro, from which he derived one of his names. From his father, Michele Alberti, he learned the first rudiments of historical painting, in which art he made very considerable progress. His greatest works are in fresco at Rome; and he also painted in oil, and combined some thought with much practice. From whose instructions he became an engraver is uncertain, but his best style of execution seems evidently to have been founded on the prints of C. Cort and Agostino Caracci, though in his friezes and other slighter plates he owed much to the works of Francesco Villemena. The engravings of Alberti are never very highly finished, or powerful in effect. The lights are scattered and left untinted, as well upon the distances, as upon the principal figures of the fore-ground, which destroys the harmony, and, prevents the proper gradation of the objects. The drawing of the naked parts of the figure, in the works of this artist, is rarely incorrect: the extremities are well marked, and the characters of the heads generally very expressive: but his draperies are apt to be rather stitf and hard. His prints may be considered as very extraordinary efforts of a great genius, whilst the art was as yet at some considerable distance from perfection. The number of plates, great and small, engraved by this artist, amounts to nearly one hundred and eighty, of which seventy-five are from his own compositions, the rest from Michael Angelo Buonaroti, Raphael, Polidoro, Andrea del Sarto, &c. The “Miracle of St. Philip Benizzo” is one of the most excellent. Alberti died in 1615.

, a German lawyer of the 16th century, born at Widmanstadt, deeply learned in the Oriental languages, gave an abridgment of the Koran, with critical notes, 1543, 4to; a work which procured him the title of chancellor of Austria, and chevalier of St. James. He published in 4to, in 1556, a New Testament in Syriac, from the manuscript used by the Jacobites, at the expence of the emperor Ferdinand I. It contains neither the second epistle of Peter, nor the second and third of John, nor that of Jude, nor the Apocalypse. Only 1000 copies were printed, of which five hundred remained in Germany, and the rest were sent to the Levant. It is impossible for any thing to be more elegant, or better proportioned, says pere Simon, than the characters of this edition. Some copies have the date of T562. He also composed a Syriac grammar, to which is prefixed a very curious preface. He died in 1559.

, an eminent Italian artist, and one of the earliest scholars that appeared in the revival of letters, was of a noble and very ancient family at Florence, but was born at Venice in the end of the fourteenth, or beginning of the fifteenth century. Various authors have given 1398, 1400, and 1404, as the date of his birth. In his youth he was remarkable for his agility, strength, and skill in bodily exercises, and an unquenchable thirst of knowledge possessed him from his earliest years. In the learned languages he made a speedy and uncommon proficiency. At the age of twenty, he first distinguished himself by his Latin comedy entitled “Philodoxius,” copies of which he distributed among his friends, as the work of Lepidus, an ancient poet. The literati were completely deceived, and bestowed the highest applauses on a piece which they conceived to be a precious remnant of antiquity. It was written by him during the confinement of sickness, occasioned by too close an application to study, and appeared first about the year 1425, when the rage for ancient manuscripts was at its height, and Lepidus for a while took his rank with Plautus and Terence. Even in the following century, the younger Aldus Manutius having met with it in manuscript, and alike ignorant of its former appearance, and the purpose it was intended to serve, printed it at Lucca, 1588, as a precious remnant of antiquity. Alberti took orders afterwards in order to have leisure to prosecute his studies. In 1447 he was a canon of the metropolitan church of Florence, and abb of St. Savino, or of St. Ermete of Pisa. Although he became known to the world as a scholar, a painter, a sculptor, and an architect, it is to his works of architecture that he owes his principal fame. He may be regarded as one of the restorers of that art, of which he understood both the theory and practice, and which he improved by his labours as well as his writings. Succeeding to Brunelleschi, he introduced more graceful forms in the art; but some consider him notwithstanding as inferior to that celebrated architect. Alberti studied very carefully the remains of ancient architecture, which he measured himself at Rome and other parts of Italy, and has left many excellent specimens of his talents. At Florence, he completed the Pitti palace, and built that of Ruccellai, and the chapel of the same family in the church of St. Pancras; the facade of the church of Santa Maria Novella, and the choir of the church of Nunziata. Being invited to Rome by Nicholas V. he was employed on the aqueduct of PAqua Vergine, and to raise the fountain, of Trevi; but this having since been reconstructed by Clement XII. from the designs of Nicholas Salvi, no traces of Alberti’s work remain. At Mantua, he constructed several buildings, by order of Louis of Gonzaga, of which the most distinguished are the churches of St. Sebastian, and that of St. Andrew: the latter, from the grandeur and beauty of its proportions, is esteemed a model for ecclesiastical structures. But his principal work is generally acknowledged to be the church of St. Francis at Rimini.

Among the moral works of Alberti, written in Latin, are, 1. his dialogue, entitled, “Momus, de Principe,” of which there were two editions at Rome in 1520. 2. “Trivia, sive de causis senatoriis, &c.” Basil, 1538, 4to. Cosimo Bartoli, who translated into Italian most of the works of Albertij has made the fifth and sixth books of the Momus from his treatise “De Jure,” or On the administration of justice. He composed an hundred “Fables,” or Apologues, and a poem, entitled “Hecatomphile,” on the art of love, which was translated by Bartoli into Italian, 1568, and into French in 1534 and 1584. There are extant many other writings by Alberti on philosophy, mathematics, perspective, and antiquities. He also wrote some Italian poems, in which he wished to introduce the Latin rythm, but in this he has not been successful. His writings, however, on the arts, are in highest estimation. He wrote a treatise on sculpture, and another on painting “De Pictura, prestantissima et nunquam satis laudata arte, &c.” Basil, 1540; printed likewise at Leyden by the Elzevirs, in 1649. The work from which he derives most reputation is his treatise on architecture, “De re aidificatoria,” in ten books, which was not published until after his death, in 1485, by his brother Bernard. It was translated into Italian by Peter Lauro, Venice, 1549, and in 1550 by Bartoli, with wood-cuts. A beautiful edition was also published in London, 1726, 3 vols. fol. by James Leoni, in Italian and English, with fine copper-plates. The last edition, that of Bologna, 1782, fol. contains the treatise before mentioned. Alberti died probably in 1485, or as Tiraboschi thinks, in 1472; and was buried in his family-vault in the church of St. Croix. He was indefatigable in study and business; in his temper amiable and conciliating, and extremely liberal to the merits of other artists. Politian, in the dedication of his work on architecture to Lorenzo de Medici, bestows the highest encomiums on him, and attributes to him the discovery of a great variety of curious mechanical inventions; and Vasari gives him the invention of the camera obscura; but it is more certain that we owe to him the optical machine for exhibiting drawings so as to imitate nature.

, 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.

, archbishop of Prague, slightly mentioned in our former edition, deserves some farther notice on account of his character having been much misrepresented by Popish writers, from design, and by one or two late Protestant writers, from ignorance of his real history. He was born at Mahrisch-Netistadt in Moravia, and probably there first educated. When a young man, he entered the university of Prague, and studied medicine, in which faculty he took his degree in 1387. To the study of medicine he joined that of the civil and canon law, and in order to prosecute these sciences with more success, went to Italy, where at that time the ablest lawyers were; and at Padua, in 1404, received his doctor’s degree. On his return, he taught medicine in the university of Prague for nearly thirty years, and attained such reputation, that Wenceslaus IV. king of Bohemia, appointed him his first physician. In 1409, on the death of the archbishop of Prague, Wenceslaus recommended him to be his successor, and the canons elected him, although not very willingly. For some time they had no reason to complain of his neglecting to suppress the doctrines of Wicklifte and Huss, which were then spreading in Bohemia; but afterwards, when Huss came to Prague, and had formed a strong party in favour of the reformation, he relaxed in his efforts, either from timidity or principle, and determined to resign his archbishopric, which he accordingly did in 1413, when Conrade was chosen in his room, a man more zealous against the reformers, and more likely to gratify his clergy by the persecution of the Hussites. Albicus lived afterwards in privacy, and died in Hungary, 1427, and so little was his character understood, that the Hussites demolished a tomb which he bad caused to be built in his life-time, while the Popish writers were equally hostile to him for the encouragement he had given to that party. They reproached him in particular for his extreme parsimony and meanness while archbishop. Balbinus, however, the historian of Prague, asserts, that in his household establishment he was magnificent and bountiful. His last biographer allows, that in his old age he was more desirous of accumulating than became his character. During the time he held the archbishopric, he had the care of the schools and students, and bestowed every attention on the progress of literature. The only works he left are on medical subjects; “Practica medendi,” “Regimen Pestilentiae,” “Regimen Sanitatis,” all which were published at Leipsic in 1484, 4to.

, a historian and poet, whose name also was originally Weiss, or White, was born at Schneeberg, in Misnia. After studying at Leipsic and Francfort, he was appointed professor of poetry at Wittemberg, and soon after historiographer, and private secretary to the house of Saxony, a situation which he held under the electors Augustus and Christian I. He died at Dresden in 1598. The faults in the style and arrangement of his historical works are rather those of his age, while his learning and accuracy have justly entitled him to the praise he has received from his countrymen. Among his numerous works are: 1. A chronicle of Misnia, “Meisnische Landund Berg-Chronica,” Wittemberg and Dresden, 1580, 1599, fol. 2. “Scriptores varii de Russorum religione,” Spire, 1582. 3. “Genealogical tables of the house of Saxony,” in German, Leipsic, 1602. 4. “Historiæ Thuringorum novæ specimen,” which is printed in the “Antiquit. regni Thuringici,” by Sagittarius. His “Latin Poems” were printed at Francfort, 1612, 8vo.

, also called Bartholomew of Pisa, was born in the fourteenth century at Rivano in Tuscany, and was of the order of the Franciscans, or Friars minorites; and derived much fame in the eyes of his brethren by a work in Latin, on the “Conformity of St. Francis with Jesus Christ,” which he presented to the chapter of his order in 1399. (See Albert, Erasmus.) The impiety of this work may be partly guessed from the title; but as Tiraboschi has thought proper to blame the Protestants who either answered it seriously, or turned it into ridicule, and according to him raised a clamour against the friars, who could not be supposed responsible for the act of an individual, it may be necessary to remind the readers of that learned historian, that the friars did in fact take upon them a very high degree of responsibility. They not only bestowed the highest praise on Albizzi; but after receiving his book in a full chapter, the representatives of the whole order, they presented him with a complete dress which St. Francis wore in his life-time. This foolish book, which not only raises St. Francis above all other saints, but impiously compares him with the Saviour, was first printed at Venice, fol. without date, or printer’s name. The second edition, which Dr. Clarke calls the first, was printed at Milan, 1510, a folio of 256 leaves in the black letter, and sells on the continent at from ₤5. to ₤20. The third was also printed at Milan, 1513, in the same form, and type, with a new preface by Mapelli, a Franciscan. All these are uncommonly scarce, and hardly ever to be found complete. Jeremy Bucchi, another Franciscan, published a new edition at Bologna in 1590, in which he omitted many passages, and added the lives of the illustrious men of the order of St. Francis; but as this did not sell, the first two leaves were cancelled, and it was again published in 1620, as a new work. It contains the approbation of the chapter-general, dated Aug. 2, 1399. This work, with more alterations and omissions, was again published at Cologn in 1632, under the title “Antiquitates Franciscanae, sive Speculum vitae B. Francisci et sociorum,” &c. The last we shall notice is that of father Valentine Maree, ' or Marcus, a reco^let, or reformed Franciscan, entitled “Traite de conformites du disciple avec le maitre, c'est a dire, de S. Francois avec J. C. en tout le mysteres de sa naissance, vie, passion, mort, &c.” Liege, 1658, 4to. Although in this many extravagances are retrenched, there is yet enough to demonstrate its folly. Some other works, sermons, &c. have been attributed to Albizzi, which are little known.

, 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.

, or Albricius, a philosopher and physician, born in London in the eleventh century; but of whom our accounts are very imperfect and doubtful. He is said to have studied both at Oxford and Cambridge, and to have afterwards travelled for improvement. He had the reputation of a great philosopher, an able physician, and well versed in all the branches of polite literature. Of his works, Bale, in his third century, has enumerated only the following: “De origine Deorum;” “De Ratione Veneni;” “Virtutes Antiquorum;” “Canones Speculative.” He adds, that in his book concerning the virtues of the ancients, he gives us the character of several philosophers and governors of provinces. But the full title of this work, which is extant in the library of Worcester cathedral, is “Summa de virtutibus Antiquorum Principum, et Philosophorum.” The same library contains a work by Albricius, entitled “Mythologia.” None of these have been printed. In the “Mythographi Latini,” Amsterdam, 1681, 2 vols. 12tno, is a small treatise “De Deorum imaginibus,” written by a person of the same name; but it is doubtful whether this was not Albricus, bishop of Utrecht in the eighth century. The abbé de Bceuf attributes it to the bishop; but D. Rivet in his literary history thinks it was of older date than either.

, a celebrated Arabian surgeon; called also Albucasa, Albuchasius, Buchasis, Bulcaris-Ga-Laf, Alsaharavius, and Azaravius, but whose proper name was Aboul-Casem-Khalaf-Ben-Abbas, was a native of Alzahrah, a city of Spain. He is supposed to have lived about the year 1085; but Dr. Freind thinks he is not so ancient, as in treating of wounds, he describes the arrows of the Turks, a nation which scarcely made any figure until the middle at least of the twelfth century. From what he says of surgery being in a manner extinct in his time, the same historian supposes that he lived long after Avicenna; as in the time of the latter, surgery was in good repute. Albucasis, however, revived it, and is the only one among the ancients who has described the instruments in each operation, and explained the use of them; and the figures of these instruments are in both the Arabic manuscripts now in the Bodleian library (Marsh, N 54, and Huntington, N 156.) The use of the cautery was very common with him, and he appears to have ventured upon incisions of the most hazardous kind. In Dr. Freind’s history is a very elaborate analysis of his works and practice. His works, collected under the title of “Al-Tacrif,” or the method of practice, have been translated and often printed in Latin, Venice, 1500, and 1520, folio; Augsburgh, 1519; Strasburgh, 1532; and Basil, 1541.

, or Abou-Machar, a noted Arabian astrologer and philosopher, was born at Balkh in the Khorasan, about the year 805 or 806. For a long time he was addicted to the Mahometan traditions, and a determined enemy to philosophy; but in his forty-seventh year he began to study the sciences, and acquired the reputation of an astronomer and astrologer; and, although he is now principally known by his writings on astrology, he cannot be refused a place among the most distinguished easterns, who have made astronomical observations. The table called Zydj Abou-Machar was calculated from his observations; but the work from which he derives his principal reputation, is his treatise on astrology, entitled “Thousands of years;” in which, among other singular positions, he maintains that the world was created when the seven planets were in conjunction in the first degree of Aries, and will end when they shall assemble in the last degree or Pisces. He died in 885. His astrological work was published at Venice, 1506, 8vo; with the title “De magnis conjunctionibus, annorum revolutionibus, ac eorum perfectionibus;” but his “Introductio ad Astronomiam” was printed before this in 4to,. Augsburgh, 1489; and reprinted at Venice, 1490, 1506, and 1515, 4to.

, an ancient lyric poet, was born at Mytilene, the capital of Lesbos, according to Eusebius, in the 44th olympiad, or in the year 604 B. C.; and was consequently the countryman and contemporary of Sappho, with whom he is said to have been violently enamoured. A verse in which he insinuated his passion, with her answer, is preserved in Aristotle, Rhet. lib. 1. cap. 9. He was born with a restless and turbulent disposition, and seemed at first inclined to adopt the profession of arms, which he preferred to every other pursuit. His house was filled with swords, helmets, shields, and cuirasses; but on his first essay in the field he shamefully fled, and the Athenians, after their victory, branded him with disgrace, by suspending his arms in the temple of Minerva at Sigseum. He made great pretensions to the love of liberty, but was suspected of harbouring a secret wish for its destruction. With his brothers, he first joined Pittacus, to expel Melanchrus, tyrant of Mytilene, and then took part with the malcontents to subvert the government of Pittacus, on whom he lavished the grossest epithets of personal abuse. At length he attacked Pittacus in a pitched battle, and his party being defeated, he became the prisoner of Pittacus, who generously gave him his life and liberty. After the failure of his political enterprizes he travelled into Egypt, but when he died is uncertain.

, a Spanish poet of the seventeenth century, who was born at Lisbon in 1599, and carried on the business of a merchant. Devoting his leisure hours to literature, he wrote a work entitled “Viridarium anagrammaticum,” and five “Novels,” which procured him, it is said, much reputation, not from their merit, but from their originality. In each of these novels, the author has contrived to get rid of one or other of the vowels: a is not to be found in the first, nor e in the second, &c. But this idle whim was not original, the same having been practised by Tryphiodorus, whom Addison so pleasantly ridicules as one of the lipogrammatists, or letterdroppers of antiquity. Moreri gives us the title of another work by this author, printed at Lisbon, 1664. “Psalteriurn quadruplex anagrammaticum, angelicum, immaculatum, Marianum, Deiparse dicatum, sexaginta anagrammata Latina complectens.” Alcala died Nov. 21, 1682.

, Alçazar, or Alcasar, (Louis D'), a Spanish Jesuit, was born at Seville in 1554, and entered among the Jesuits in 1569, against the will of his family, who were in possession of a large estate. After he had been a teacher of philosophy, he taught divinity at Cordova and at Seville, for abov e twenty years. M uch of his life was spent in endeavouring to explain the book of the Revelations, and his first volume on the subject, “Vestigatio arcani sensus in Apocalypsi,” is said to have been the result of twenty years’ study and investigation. This work was printed at Antwerp, fol. 1604 and 1619, and at Lyons, 1616, fol.; and is accounted one of the best commentaries which had been produced by any writer of the Romish church. It is said that Grotius was considerably indebted to it; but neither Grotius, nor any other writer has followed him in supposing that the prophecies of the Apocalypse have been accomplished to the twentieth chapter. Pursuing this investigation, however, his next work was a commentary on such parts of the Old Testament as have any connexion with the Apocalypse; this was published in 1631, Lyons, fol. under the title, “In eas veteris Testament! partes, quas respicit Apocalypsis, nempe Cantica Canticorum, Psahnos complures, multa Danielis aliorumque librorum capita, libri V.” There is a supplement to the first, on weights and measures, and to the second, on bad physicians. He died at Seville, June 16, 1613.

, or Abdelazyz, an Arabian astrologer, lived in the reign of Seif-Eddaulah, prince of the dynasty of the Hamdanites, or about the middle of the tenth century of the Christian sera. His reputation extended to Hurope, where John Hispalensis translated into Latin, about the twelfth or thirteenth century, his treatise “On judicial Astrology.” This was printed at Venice in 1503, 4to, under the title “Alchabitius cum commento,” and under the title a figure representing the circle and the armillary sphere. There is, however, an edition mentioned by Panzer of the date 1473, 4to, which is the most scarce and valuable. Bayle says that he wrote also a treatise on optics, which was found in a German convent.

Alciati died at Pavia, on the 12th of January, 1550, being then in his 58th year. After the death of his mother, who died in a very advanced age, he intended to have employed his wealth in the foundation of a college; but, having received an affront from some insolent scholars, he dropped that design, and chose for his heir Francis Alciati, his nephew, a promising youth, whom he had brought up at his house. Mr.Teissier says, that Andrew Alciati passed his life in celibacy; but this is a mistake, as may be seen from a passage of a letter he wrote to his friend Francis Calvus, after he had withdrawn from Milan to Avignon. He was a man of unquestionable abilities and learning, but tainted with avarice, which often obscured the lustre of his reputation. He was very young when his talents began to attract the admiration of his countrymen. His “Paradoxes of Civil Law,” or an explanation of the Greek terms which occur in the Digest, was written in his fifteenth year, and published in his twenty-second. His works have been collected and published at Lyons, 1560, 5 vols. folio; at Basil, 1571, 6 vols. folio; and there also 1582, 4 vols. folio; Strasburgh, 1616, 4 vols. folio; Francfort, 1617, 4 vols. folio. So many editions of a work of this magnitude afford a striking proof of the reputation of Alciati. Some of the contents of these volumes have been printed separately, as his “notes on Tacitus,” and a “treatise on Weights and Measures;” but besides these he wrote, 1. “Responsa nunquam antehac edita,” Lyons, 1561; Basil, 1582, folio; published by his heir Francis Alciati. 2. “De Formula Romani Imperii,” Basil, 1559, 8vo. 3. “Epigrammata selecta ex anthologia Latine versa,” Basil, 1521, 8vo. 4. “Rerum patriae, seu Historise Mediolanensis libri quatuor,” 1625, 8vo, reprinted in Graevius’ Thesaurus. 5. “De Plautinorurn carminum ratione,” and “De Plautinis vocabulis Lexicon,” in an edition of Plautus, Basil, 1568, 8vo. 6. “Judicium de legum interpretibus parandis,” printed with Conrad Page’s treatise “Methodica juris traditio,” 1566, 8vo. 7. “Encomium Historiae,” 1530, 4to. 8. “Palma,” inserted in the “Amphitheatrum sapientiae Socraticae Dornavii.” 9. “Judiciarii processus compendium,” 1566, 8vo. 10. “Contra vitam monastic-am,” 1695, 8vo. II. “Notae in Epistolas familiares Ciceronis,” printed with Thierry’s edition of these epistles, Paris, 1557, folio. 12. “Twentyseven letters in ‘Gudii Epistolas,’” 1697, 4to. Perhaps the work for which he is now most generally known is his “Emblems,” highly praised by the elder Scaliger. Of these there have been various editions and translations. The best is that of Padua, 1661, 4to. The piece above noticed, “Contra vitam monasticam,” was addressed to Bernard Mattius, and shews that Alciati entertained the same notions with his friend Erasmus concerning the religious orders of the church. Mattius, to whom this treatise, or rather letter, is addressed, was a learned, modest, and ingenious man, who suddenly left his friends and his aged mother to embrace the monastic life; but whether Alciati’s persuasions were effectual is not known.

, born at Milan 1522, the nephew and heir of the preceding, was likewise a lawyer of considerable eminence, and a professor of law at Pavia, where cardinal Borromeo was his pupil. Pius VI. employed him as datary or chancellor of Rome, and afterwards made him a cardinal. His contemporaries, particularly Vettori and Muret, applaud him as a man of general learning, and the ornament of his age. He died at Rome in 1580, and left several works which have not been printed.

, 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.

, a celebrated Athenian, of whom Barthelemi has justly remarked, that some historians have stigmatized his memory with every reproach, and others have honoured it with every eulogium, without its being possible for us to charge the former with injustice, or the latter with partiality. He was born in the eighty-second olympiad, about the year 450 B. C. Clinias, his father, was descended from Ajax of Salamis, and his mother, the daughter of Megacles, was of the family of the Alcmteonides. In his person, while a youth, he was beautiful, and when a man, remarkable for his comeliness; his fortune was large beyond most of the nobility of Athens. His abilities were so great, that an ancient author (C. Nepos) has asserted that nature in him had exerted her utmost force, since, whether we consider his virtues or his vices, he was distinguished from all his fellow-citizens; he was learned, eloquent, indefatigable, liberal, magnificent, affable, and knew exactly how to comply with the times; that is, he could assume all those virtues when he thought proper; for, when he gave a loose to his passions, he was indolent, luxurious, dissolute, addicted to women, intemperate, and impious. Socrates had a great friendship for him, corrected in some degree his manners, and brought him to the knowledge of many things of which he would otherwise have remained ignorant: he also prevented the Athenians from resenting many of those wanton acts of pride and vanity which he committed when a lad. His family had always been on good terms with the Lacedemonians; Clinias, his father, indeed, disclaimed their friendship, but Alcibiades renewed it, and affected to shew great respect to people of that country, until he observed the ambassadors of Lacedemon applied themselves wholly to Nicias, his rival, and his dependants; he then resented it very much, and used every influence on the minds of the Athenians to the prejudice of that people.

The Athenians, in the sixteenth year of the war, determined to send a fleet into Sicily, to the assistance of the Egistines; Nicias was appointed to command, and Alcibiades and Lamachus were his colleagues. During the preparations for this expedition, an accident happened which put the whole city of Athens into confusion: the Hermae, or statues of Mercury, of which there were a multitude in the city and neighbourhood, were all defaced in one night, nor could the authors of this fact be discovered, notwithstanding a proclamation was issued, offering impunity and a reward for the informer; yet, in consequence of a clause therein, inviting any person of what condition soever to discover any former sacrileges, some servants and slaves deposed, that a long time before, certain young men, heated with wine, had ridiculed some religious mystery, and that Alcibiades was among them. His enemies immediately commenced a prosecution against him, to which Alcibiades offered to answer, asserting his innocence, and protesting against accusations brought against him while he should be absent. His enemies, determined to attempt his destruction, procured others to move that he should have liberty to depart on his command, and that, after his return, a day of trial should be assigned him; to this proposition he was unwillingly obliged to consent.

Alcibiades, though an exile, endeavoured to restore the power of his country. He was in a small town of Phrygia, Under the government of Pharnabazus, when he was informed of the levies the younger Cyrus was making in Asia Minor, and concluding that this prince meditated an expedition against his brother Artaxerxes, he determined to repair to the court of the king of Persia, to apprise him cf the danger, and to obtain succours for the deliverance of his country. But assassins sent by the satrap suddenly surrounded his ho^use, and wanting the courage to attack him, set fire to it. Alcibiades rushed forth sword in hand through the flames, repulsed the barbarians, and fell beneath a shower of darts. This happened when he was only forty years old, in the ninety-fourtn olympiad, or 404 B.C.

That elevation of sentiment, says the abbe Barthelemi, which is produced by virtue, was not to be sought in the heart of Alcibiades; but in it was found that intrepidity which is inspired by the consciousness of superiority. No obstacle, no danger, could either surprize or discourage him; he seemed persuaded that when minds of a certain order do not perform all they wish, it is because they have not courage to attempt all they can. Compelled by circumstances to serve the enemies of his country, it was as easy for him to acquire their confidence by the ascendancy he had over them, as to govern them by the wisdom of his counsels: he possessed this pre-eminence peculiar to himself, that he uniformly procured a triumph for the party that he favoured, and that his numerous actions were never tarnished by a single reverse of fortune.

In negotiations, he sometimes employed the light of his understanding, which was as vigorous as profound; sometimes he had recourse to stratagems and perfidy, which no reasons of state can ever justify; on other occasions he availed himself of the pliability of a character which the thirst of power or the desire of pleasing accommodated without difficulty to every conjuncture and change of situation. In every nation he commanded respect, and swayed the public opinion. The Spartans admired his frugality; the Thracians his intemperance; the Boeotians his love of the most violent exercises; the lonians his taste for indolence and voluptuousness; the satraps of Asia a luxury they could not equal. He would have shown himself the most virtuous of men had he never known the example of vice; but vice hurried him on without making him its slave. It should seem as if the profanation of laws and the corruption of manners were considered by him only as so many victories gained over manners and the laws; it might be said too, that his faults were no more than the errors of his vanity. Those excesses of levity, frivolity, and imprudence which escaped his youth or idle hours, were no longer sjeen on occasions that demanded firmness and reflection. He then united prudence with activity, and pleasure never stole from him any of those moments which were necessary to the advancement of his glory, or the promotion of his interest.

After Alcuinus had spent many years in the most intimate familiarity with Charlemagne, he at length, with great difficulty, obtained leave to retire to his abbey of St. Martin’s, at Tours. Here he kept up a constant correspondence with the emperor, and the contents of their letters show their mutual love of religion and learning, and their anxiety to promote them in the most munificent manner. In one of these letters, which Dr. Henry has translated, there is a passage which throws some light on the learning of the times “The employments of your Alcuinus in his retreat are suited to his humble sphere; but they are neither inglorious nor unprofitable, I spend my time in the halls of St. Martin, in teaching some of the noble youths under my care the intricacies of grammar, and inspiring them with a taste for the learning of the ancients; in describing to others the order and revolutions of those shining orbs which adorn the azure vault of heaven; and in explaining to others the mysteries of divine wisdom, which are contained in the holy scriptures: suiting my instructions to the views and capacities of my scholars, that I may train up many to be ornaments to the church of God, and to the court of your imperial majesty. In doing this, I find a great want of several things, particularly of those excellent books in all arts and sciences, which I enjoyed in my native country, through the expence and care of my great master Egbert. May it therefore please your majesty, animated with the most ardent love of learning, to permit me to send some of our young gentlemen into England, to procure for us those books which we want, and transplant the flowers of Britain into France, that their fragrance may no longer be confined to York, but may perfume the palaces of Tours.” Mr. Warton, who in his History of Poetry gives some account f the learned labours of Alcuinus, endeavours to undervalue his acquirements. This, in an enlightened age like the present, is easy, but is scarcely candid or considerate. Alcuinus was one of the few who went beyond the learning of his age, and it is surely impossible to contemplate his superiority without veneration. Mr. Warton has likewise asserted, what is a mistake, that Alcuinus advised Bede to write his Ecclesiastical History. He probably copied this from Leland, without examining the dates. Alcuinus must have been a mere child, if born at all, when Bede wrote his history. But there was another Alcuinus, an abbot of Canterbury, who was strictly contemporary with Bede, and may have been his adviser.

, a learned Italian, was born at Venice, of poor parents of the lowest class, about the end of the fifteenth century. Alcyonius, or Alcyonio, was not his family name, but he is supposed to have adopted it, according to the custom of his age, to give himself an air of antiquity or classical origin. Whatever the meanness of his birth, he had the merit of applying in his youth to the learned languages with such success, as to become a very accomplished scholar. He was corrector of the press a considerable time for Aldus Manutius, and is entitled to a share in the praises given to the editions of that learned printer. He translated into Latin several treatises of Aristotle; but Sepulveda wrote against these versions, and pointed out so many errors in them, that Alcyonius had no other remedy than buying up as many copies as he could get of Sepulveda’s work, and burning them. The treatise which Alcyonius published concerning Banishment contained so many fine passages, with others quite the reverse, that it was thought he had interwoven with somewhat of his own, several fragments of Cicero’s treatise De Gloria; and that afterwards, in order to save himself from being detected in this theft, he burnt the manuscript of Cicero, the only one extant. Paulus Manutius, in his commentary upon these words of Cicero, “Libruni tibi celeriter mittam de gloria,” has the following passage relating to this affair: “He means (says he) his two books on Glory, which were handed down to the age of our fathers; for Bernard Justinian, in the index of his books, mentions Cicero de Gloria. This treatise, however, when Bernard had left his whole library to a nunnery, could not be found, though sought after with great care, and nobody doubted but Peter Alcyonius, who, being physician to the nunnery, was intrusted with the library, had basely stolen it. And truly, in his treatise of Banishment, some things are found interspersed here and there, which seem not to savour of Alcyonius, but of some higher author.” Paul Jovius repeated this accusation, and it was adopted as a fact by other writers. Alcyonius, however, has been amply vindicated by some late biographers, particularly Tiraboschi, who has proved that the charge was not only destitute of truth, but of probability.

, 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:

Such is the account that has been commonly given of this extraordinary man. We shall now advert to some circumstances upon which modern research has thrown a new light. All the accounts represent Aldhelm as having been a very considerable man for the time in which he lived. It is evident, says Dr, Henry, from his works, which are still extant, that he had read the most celebrated authors of Greece and Rome, and that he was no contemptible critic in the languages in which these authors wrote. In the different seminaries in which he was educated, he acquired such a stock of knowledge, and became so eminent for his literature, not only in England but in foreign countries, that he was resorted to by many persons from Scotland, Ireland, and France. Artville, a prince of Scotland, sent his works to Aldhelm to be examined by him, and entreated him to give them their last polish, by rubbing off their Scotch rust. Besides the instructions which Aldhelm received from Maildulphus, in France and Italy, he had part of his education, and as it would seem the most considerable part, at Canterbury, under Theodore, archbishop of that city, and Adrian, the most learned professor of the sciences, who had ever been in England. The ardour with which he prosecuted his studies at that place, is well represented in a letter written by him to Hedda, bishop of Winchester; which letter also gives a good account of the different branches of knowledge in the cultivation of which he was then engaged. These were, the Roman jurisprudence, the rules of verses ard the musical modulation of words and syllables, the doctrine of the seven divisions of poetry, arithmetic, astronomomy, and astrology. It is observable, that Aldhelm speaks in very pompous terms of arithmetic, as a high and difficult attainment: though it is now so generally taught, as not to be reckoned a part of a learned education. In opposition to what has been commonly understood, that Aldhelm was the first of the Saxons who taught his countrymen the art of Latin versification, Mr. Warton, in his History of Poetry, informs us, that Conringius, a very intelligent antiquary in this sort of literature, mentions an anonymous Latin poet, who wrote the life of Charlemagne in verse, and adds that he was the first of the Saxons that attempted to write Latin verse. But it ought to have been recollected, that Aldhelm died above thirty years before Charlemagne was born. Aldhelm’s Latin compositions, whether in prose or verse, as novelties, were deemed extraordinary performances, and excited the attention and adruiration of scholars in other countries. His skill in music has obtained for hhn a considerable place in sir John Hawkins’s History of Music.

, the first bishop of Durham, was promoted to that see in the year 990, being the twelfth of the reign of king Ethelred. He was of a noble family; but, according to Simeon of Durham, more ennobled by his virtues and religious deportment. He sat about six years in the see of Lindisfarne, or Holy Island in Northumberland, during which time that island was frequently exposed to the incursions of the Danish pirates. This made him think of removing from thence; though Simeon of Durham says, he was persuaded by an admonition from heaven. However, taking with him the body of St. Cuthbert, which had been buried there about 113 years, and accompanied by all the monks and the rest of the people, he went away from Holy Island; and after wandering about some time, at last settled with his followers at Dunelm, now called Durham, where he gave rise both to the city and cathedral church. Before his arrival, Dunelm consisted only of a few scattered huts or cottages. The spot of ground was covered with a very thick wood, which the bishop, with the assistance of the people that followed him, made a shift to cut down, and clear away. After he had assigned the people their respective habitations by lot, he began to build a church of stone; which he finished in three years time, and dedicated to St. Cuthbert, placing in it the body of that saint. From that time the episcopal see, which had been placed at Lindisfarne by bishop Aidan (see Aidan), remained fixed at Durham; and the cathedral church was soon endowed with considerable benefactions by king Ethelred, and other great men.

, 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.

, an eminent scholar and divine, was son of Henry Aldrich of Westminster, gentleman, and born there in 1647. He was educated at Westminster under the celebrated Busby, and admitted of Christ Church, Oxford, in 1662. Having been elected student, he took the degree of M. A. in April 1669; and, entering soon after into orders, he became an eminent tutor in his college. Feb. 1681, he was installed canon of Christ Church; and in May accumulated the degrees of B. and D. D. In the controversy with the papists under James II. he bore a considerable part; and Burnet ranks him among those eminent clergj T men who “examined all the points of popery with a solidity of judgment, a clearness of arguing, a depth of learning, and a vivacity of writing, far beyond any thing which had before that time appeared in our language.” In short, he had rendered himself so conspicuous, that, at the Revolution, when Massey, the popish dean of Christ Church, fled beyond sea, the deanry was conferred upon him, and he was installed in it June 17, 1689. In this station he behaved in a most exemplary manner, zealously promoting learning, religion, and virtue in the college where he presided. In imitation of his predecessor bishop Fell, he published generally every year some Greek classic, or portion of one, as a gift to the students of his house. He wrote also a system of logic, entitled “Artis Logicae compendium;” and many other things. The publication of Clarendon’s History was committed to him and bishop Sprat; and they were charged by Oldmixon with having altered and interpolated that work; but the charge was sufficiently refuted by Atterbury. In the same year that he became dean of Christ Church he was appointed one of the ecclesiastical commissioners who were to prepare matters for introducing an alteration in some parts of the church service, and a comprehension of the dissenters. But he, in conjunction with Dr. Mew, bishop of Winchester, Dr. Sprat, bishop of Rochester, and Dr. Jane, regius professor of divinity in the university of Oxford, either did not appear at the meetings of the committee, or soon withdrew from them. They excepted to the manner of preparing matters by a special commission, as limiting the convocation, and imposing upon it, and they were against all alterations whatever. Besides attainments in polite literature, classical learning, and an elegant turn for Latin poetry, of which some specimens are in the Musae Anghcanae, he possessed also great skill in architecture and music; so great, that, as the connoisseurs say, his excellence in either would alone have made him famous to posterity. The three siues of the quadrangle of Christ Church, Oxford, called Peck water-square, were designed by him; as was also the elegant chapel of Trinity college, and the church of All-Saints in the High-street; to the erection of which Dr. Ratcliff, at his solicitation, was a liberal contributor. He cultivated also music, that branch of it particularly which related both to his profession and his office. To this end he made a noble collection of church music, and formed also a design of writing a history of the science; having collected materials, which are still extant in the library of his own college. His abilities indeed as a musician have caused him to be ranked among the greatest masters of the science: he composed many services for the church, which are well known; as are also his anthems, to the number of near 20. In the “Pleasant Musical Companion,” printed 1726, are two catches of his; the one, “Hark the bonny Christ Church Bells,” the other entitled “A Smoking Catch;” for he himself was, it seems, a great smoaker. Besides the preferments already mentioned, he was rector of Wem in Shropshire. He was elected prolocutor of the convocation in February 1702, on the death of Dr. Woodward, dean of Sarum. He died at Christ Church, December 14, 1710. The tracts he published in the popish controversy were two, “Upon the Adoration of our Saviour in the Eucharist,” in answer to O. Walker’s discourses on the same subject, printed in 1687, and 1688, 4to. We have not been able to get an account of the Greek authors he published, except these following: 1. Xenophontis Memorabilium, lib. 4, 1690, 8vo. 2. Xenophontis Sermo de Agesilao, 1691, 8vo. 3. Aristese Historia 72 Interpretum, 1692, 8vo. 4. Xenophon, de re equestri, 1693, 8vo. 5.Epictetus etTheophrastus, 1707, 8vo. 6. Platonis, Xenopliontis, Plutarchi, Luciani, Symposia, 1711, 8vo. This last was published in Greek only, the rest in Greek and Latin, and all printed at Oxford. His logic is already mentioned. He printed also Elements of Architecture, which was elegantly translated and published in 1789, 8vo. with architectural plates, by the rev. Philip Smyth, LL. B. fellow of New College, and now rector of Worthing, Shropshire. He had a hand in Gregory’s Greek Testament, printed at Oxford in 1703, folio; and some of his notes are printed in Havercamp’s edition of Josephus.

When he was senior proctor, he was employed by the university to write three letters to the king, and the following curious entry in the proctor’s book for 1527, proves this fac-L “Magistro Aldryg pro tribus literis missis ad Dominum regem, IDs.” He was a correspondent of Erasmus, who termed him, when young, “blandae eloquentiae juvenis,” and appears to have associated with him during his residence at Cambridge. Fuller is of opinion that he belongs to the light rather than the dark side of the reformation; but Strype seems to doubt whether he was well affected to this great change. He was certainly, however, not a persecutor; and the mildness or timidity of his disposition may account for his retaining his offices during reigns of opposite principles. It yet remains to be noticed that in 1523, he was one of the Cambridge university-preachers, who were sent out by the university to preach in different parts of the nation, as the judges now go their circuits; there being at. that time very few men of ability in any county.

His compilation, or, what at least was compiled upon his plan, consists of several volumes in folio, some of which were printed after his death. He himself published his Ornithology, or History of Birds, in three folio volumes, in 1599; and his seven books of Insects, which make another volume of the same size. The volume of Serpents, three of Quadrupeds, one of Fishes, that of exsanguineous Animals, the history of Monsters, with the Supplement to that of Animals, the treatise on Metals, and the Dendrology, or History of Trees, were published at several times after his death, by the care of different persons.

The volume “of Serpents” was put in order, and sent to the press by Bartholomseus Ambrosinus; that “of Quadrupeds which divide the Hoof” was first digested by John Cornelius Uterverius, and afterwards by Thomas Dempster, and published by Marcus Antouius Bernia and Jerome Tamburini; that of “Quadrupeds which do not divide the Hoof,” and that “of Fishes,” were digested by Uterverius, and published by Tamburini; that “of Quadrupeds with Toes or Claws,” was compiled by Ambrosinus; the “History of Monsters,” and the Supplements, were collected by the same author, and published at the charge of Marcus Antonius Bernia; the “Dendrology” is the work of Ovidius Montalbanus. “Aldrovandus,” says l'abbé Gallois, “is not the author of several books published under his name; but it has happened to the collection of natural history, of Which those books are part, as it does to those great rivers which retain during their whole course the name they bore at their first rise, though in the end the greatest part of the water which they carry into the sea does not belong to them, but to other rivers which they receive: for as the first six volumes of this great work were by Aldrovandus, although the others were composed since his death by different authors, they have still been attributed to him, either because they were a continuance of his design, or because the writers of them used his memoirs, or because his method was followed, or perhaps that these last volumes might be the better received under so celebrated a name.” All the above-mentioned volumes were reprinted at Francfort, but it is difficult to procure them all of the same edition. Those on the minerals are more scarce than the others, and the volume which contains the monsters should have also the supplement to the history of animals, which is wanting in most copies. Aldrovandus has been considered by modern naturalists as an enormous compiler without taste or genius, and much of his plan and materials is borrowed from Gessner. Buffon says, with justice, that his works might be reduced to a tenth part, if all that is useless and superfluous were expunged. When, adds that eminent naturalist, Aldrovandi treats of the natural history of the cock or the ox, he gives you all that has been said of cocks and oxen; all that the ancients have thought, all that can be imagined of their virtues, their character, their courage, and their employments; all the stories which good women have told, all the miracles performed by them in certain religions, all the subjects of superstition which they have furnished, all the comparisons which the poets have given, all the attributes which certain nations have discovered in them, all the hieroglyphics in which they have been represented, all the armorial bearings in which they are seen; in a word, every history and every fable that has been related of cocks and oxen. Buffon, however, allows that if he is redundant, he is exact in important points; and in his works are unquestionably many curious accounts not easily to be found elsewhere.

. See Manuzio, or Manutius.

Many high encomiums have been passed on him by his contemporaries, most of which, or the substance of them, may be seen in Fontanini. His principal works are: 1. “Psalmi pœnitentiales, versibus elegiacis expressi,” Tarvisii, 1593, 4to. 2. “Caii, veteris jurisconsulti, institutionum fragmenta cum commentario,” Venice, 1600, 4to. 3. “Explicatio antiques tabula marmorese, solis effi gie, symbolique exculptae, explicatio sigillorum zonae ve terem statuam marmoream cingentis,” Rome, 1616, 4to; reprinted several times, and inserted in Graevius’s Thesaurus. 4. “Carmina varia,” printed with those of the three Amalthei, to whom he was nephew by the mother’s side, and whose works he published, Venice, 1627, 8vo. 5. “La Lagrime di penitenza, ad imitazione de sette Salmi penitenziali,” Rome, 1623, 8vo. In his dedication he informs us that he wrote this volume when in his sixteenth year; and some Italian critics have praised the poetry and style. 6. “Difesa dell' Adone, poema del Cavalier Marino,” part first, Venice, 1629; part second, 1630, 12mo. Some other works of less note are enumerated by Niceron, and by Mazzuchelli, and he left a great many manuscripts in the Barberini library, which Fontanini once undertook to publish.

, was born in the environs of Seville in Spain, about the middle of the sixteenth century, and for twenty years of his life had a place at court. Although we know little of his history or character, he deserves this short notice, as the author of a very popular novel, or romance, entitled “Guzman d'Alfarache,” which was reprinted in Spain above thirty times, and has been translated into Italian, German, English, and into French by Bremont and Le Sage. Le Sage abridged it considerably, and Scarron was much indebted to it. The English is a large folio, literally translated, and too tedious, and with too frequent interruptions of moral discussion, to be much relished in the present day. In 1609 Aleman was at Mexico, but on what errand is not known. About this time, however, he produced his “Ortografia Castellan,” 4to, a very scarce work, and of some reputation; and in 1604 he published a life of St. Antony of Padua in Spanish, with encomiastic Latin verses, which are not inelegant. This was reprinted at Valencia in 1608, 8vo. The first edition of his Guzman appeared in 1599, 4to, Madrid.

Two years after his election to a place in the academy, he published his treatise on Dynamics. The new principle developed in this treatise consisted in establishing equality, at each instant, between the changes that the motion of a body has undergone, and the forces or powers which have been employed to produce them; or to express them otherwise, in separating into two parts the action of the moving powers, and considering the one as producing alone the motion of the body, in the second instant, and the other as employed to destroy that which it had in the first.

While the studies of M. d‘Alembert were confined to geometry, he was little known or celebrated in his native country. His connections were limited to a small society of select friends: he had never seen any man in high office except Messrs. d’Argenson. Satisfied with an income which furnished him with the necessaries of life, he did not aspire after opulence or honours; but his reputation at length made its way to the throne, and rendered him the object of royal attention and beneficence. He received also a pension from government, which he owed to the friendship of count d'Argenson.

Some time after this, d‘Alembert published his Philosophical, Historical, and Philological Miscellanies: these were followed by the Memoirs of Christina queen of Sweden; in which M. d’Alembert brought forward those abstract and impracticable notions respecting the natural rights of mankind which desolated his country; and was bold. enough to assert them as unanswerable propositions. His Essay on the Intercourse of Men of Letters with Persons high in rank and office, was intended, and too well calculated, to excite popular contempt for the privileged orders, of, in the language of Condorcet, to “expose to the eyes of the public the ignominy of those servile chains, which they feared to shake off, or were proud to wear.” A lady of the court, hearing one day the author accused of having exaggerated the despotism of the great, and the submission they require, answered slyly, “If he had consulted me, I would have told him still more of the matter.”

In the year 1765, he published his dissertation on the Destruction of the Jesuits. This is said to be an impartial piece, although it had not the good fortune to please either party, a circumstance which seems to mark an indecision of argument or of system. It was, however, but very feebly answered.

Beside the works already mentioned, he published nine volumes of memoirs and treatises, under the title of Opuscules; in which he has solved a multitude of problems relative to astronomy, mathematics, and natural philosophy; of which Condorcet gives a particular account, more especially of those which exhibit new subjects, or new methods of investigation.

, a native of Norfolk, was elected fellow of C. C. C. Cambridge in 1536, proceeded M. A. the year following, became their steward in 1539, and not long after obtained leave of the society to go and study abroad for a limited time; which he afterwards procured to be extended for two years more. By assiduous application he became, as Strype informs us, not only a great proficient in the Greek and Latin tongues, but an “eminent Protestant divine, and a learned minister of the gospel.” His works, indeed, which are written with much plainness and simplicity, but at the same time with great strength of reasoning and argument, sufficiently shew that he ought to be ranked in the list of the most considerable reformers. This extraordinary merit, while it obliged him to continue an exile during the reign of queen Mary, recommended him powerfully to the favour of her sister Elizabeth; who no sooner came to the crown than she appointed him one of her chaplains, gave him a commission to act under her as an ambassador, and nominated him to the vacant see of Rochester; but after a long absence, he either died on his return, or soon after, and never became possessed of the bishopric. It is said he was buried in the church of St. Thomas Apostle, in London, Aug. 30, 1559.

, a Jesuit, born, in Brescia, in the republic of Venice. He travelled into the eastern countries, and arrived at Maca in 1610, where he taught mathematics. From thence he went to the empire of China, where he continued to propagate the Christian religion for 36 years. He was the first who planted the faith in the province of Xanfi, and he built several churches in the province of Fokien. He died in August 1649, leaving behind him several works in the Chinese language: 1. “The Life of Jesus Christ,” in eight volumes. 2. “The Incarnation of Jesus Christ.” 3. “Of the Sacrifice of the Mass.” 4. “The Sacrament of Penitence.” 5. “The Original of the World.” 6. “Proof of the Existence of a Deity.” 7. “Dialogues.” 8. “The Dialogue of St. Bernard betwixt the Soul and Body,” in Chinese verse. 9. “A Treatise on the Sciences of Europe.” 10. “Practical Ge metry, in four books.” 11. “The Life of P. Matthew Ricci.” 12. “The Life of Dr. Michael Yam, a Chinese convert.” 13. “The Theatre of the World, or Cosmography.”

At fifteen years of age, Alexander was delivered to the tuition of Aristotle. He discovered very early a mighty spirit, and symptoms of that vast and immoderate ambition which was afterwards to make him the scourge of mankind and the pest of the world. One day, when it was told him that Philip had gained a battle, instead of rejoicing, he looked much chagrined, and said, that “if his father went on at this rate, there would be nothing left for him to do.” Upon Philip’s shewing some wonder, that Alexander did not engage in the Olympic games, “Give me,” said the youth, “kings for my antagonists, and I will present myself at once.” The taming and managing of the famous Bucephalus is always mentioned among the exploits of his early age. This remarkable horse was brought from Thessaly, and purchased at a very great price; but upon trial he was found so wild and vicious, that neither Philip nor any of his courtiers could mount or manage him; and he was upon the point of being sent back as useless, when Alexander, expressing his grief that so noble a creature should be rejected, merely because nobody had the dexterity to manage him, was at length permitted to try what he could do. Alexander, we are told, had perceived, that the frolicksome spirit and wildness of Bucephalus proceeded solely from the fright which the animal had taken at his own shadow: turning his head, therefore, directly to the sun, and gently approaching him with address and skill, he threw himself upon him; and though Philip at first was extremely distressed and alarmed for his son, yet when he saw him safe, and perfectly master of his steed, he received him with tears of joy, saying, “O, my son thou must seek elsewhere a kingdom, for Macedonia cannot contain thee.” One more instance of this very high spirit may suffice. When Philip had repudiated Olympias for infidelity to his bed, the young prince felt a most lively resentment on the occasion; yet, being invited by his father to the nuptials with his new uife, he did not refuse to go. In the midst of the entertainment, Attalus, a favourite of Philip, had the imprudence to say, that the Macedonians must implore the gods to grant the king a lawful successor. “What, you scoundrel do you then take me for a bastard r” says Alexander; and threw a cup that instant at his head. Philip, intoxicated with wine, and believing his son to be the author of the quarrel, rushed violently towards him with his sword; but, slipping with his foot, fell prostrate upon the floor; upon which Alexander said insultingly, “See, Macedonians, wnat a general you have for the conquest of Asia, who cannot take a single step without falling;” for Philip had just before been named for this expedition in a common assembly of the Greeks, and was preparing for it, when he was murdered by Pausanius at a feast.

It was at Anchyala, a town of Cilicia, that he was shewn a monument of Sardanapalus, with this inscription “Sardanapalus built Anchyala and Tarsus in a day Passenger, eat, drink, and enjoy thyself all else is nothing.” This, probably, moved his contempt very strongly, when he compared such petty acquisitions to what he projected. From Cilicia he marched forwards to Phoenicia, which all surrendered to him, except Tyre; and it cost him a siege of seven months to reduce this city. The vexation of Alexander, atbeing unseasonably detained by this obstinacy of the Tyrians, occasioned a vast destruction and carnage; and the cruelty he exercised here is among the deepest stains on his character. After besieging and taking Gaza, he went to Jerusalem, where he was received by the high priest; and, making many presents to the Jews, sacrificed in their temple. He told Jadduas (for that was the priest’s name), that he had seen in Macedonia a god, in appearance exactly resembling him, who had exhorted him to this expedition against the Persians, and given him the firmest assurance of success. Afterwards, entering Ægypt, he went to the oracle of Jupiter Ammon, and upon his return built the city of Alexandria. It was now that he took it into his head to assume divinity, and to pretend himself the son of the said Jupiter Ammon, for which his mother Olympias would sometimes rally him, not unpleasantly, “Pray,” she would say, “cease to be called the son of Jupiter: thou wilt certainly embroil me in quarrels with Juno.” Policy, however, was at the bottom of this: it was impossible that any such belief should be really rooted in his breast, but he found by experience that this opinion inclined the barbarous nations to submit to him; and therefore he was content to pass for a god, and to admit, as he did, of divine adoration. So far, indeed, was he from believing this of himself, that he used among his friends to make a jest of it. Thus, afterwards, when he was bleeding from a wound he had received, “See here,” says he, “this is your true genuine blood, and not that ixpp, or thin fine liquor, which issues, according to Homer, from the wounds of the immortals.” Nay, even his friends sometimes made free with this opinion, which shews that he did not hold it sacred: for once, when it thundered horridly loud, and somewhat terrified the company, the philosopher Anaxarchus, who was present, said to Alexander, “And when wilt thou, son of Jupiter, do the like” “Oh,” said Alexander, “I would not frighten my friends.”

The character of this hero is so familiar, that it is almost needless to draw it. It was equally composed of very great virtues and very great vices. He had no mediocrity in any thing but his stature: in his other properties, whether good or bad, he was all extremes. His ambition rose even to madness. His father was not at all mistaken in supposing the bounds of Macedon too small for his son: for how could Macedon bound the ambition of a man, who reckoned the whole world too small a dominion He wept at hearing the philosopher Anaxarchus say, that there was an infinite number of worlds: his tears were owing to his despair of conquering them all, since he had not yet been able to conquer one. Livy, in a short digression, has attempted to inquire into the events which might have happened, if Alexander, after the conquest of Asia, had brought his arms into Italy Doubtless things might have taken a very different turn with him; and all the grand projects, which succeeded so well against an effeminate Persian monarch, might easily have miscarried if he had had to do with hardy Roman armies. And yet the vast aims of this mighty conqueror, if seen under another point of view, may appear to have been confined within a very narrow compass; since, as we are told, the utmost wish of that great heart, for which the whole earth was not enough, was, after all, to be praised by the Athenians. It is related, that the difficulties which he encountered in order to pass the Hydaspes, forced him to cry out, “O Athenians, could you believe to what dangers I expose myself for the sake of being celebrated by you?” But Bayle affirms, that this was quite consistent with the vast unbounded extent of his ambition, as he wanted to make all future time his own, and be an object of admiration to the latest posterity; yet did not expect this from the conquest of worlds, but from books. And he was right, continues that author, “for if Greece had not furnished him with good writers, he would long ago have been as much forgotten as the kings who reigned in Macedon before Amphitryon.”

Alexander has been praised upon the score of continency, and his life might not be quite regular in that respect, yet his behaviour to the Persian captives shews him to have had a great command over himself in this particular. The wife of Darius was a finished beauty; her daughters likewise were all beauties; yet this young prince, who had them in his power, not only bestowed on them all the honours due to their hisfh rank, but consulted their reputation with the utmost delicacy. They were kept as in a cloister, concealed from the world, and secured from the reach not only of every dishonourable attack, but even from imputation. He gave not the least occasion to censure, either by his visits, his looks, or his words: and for other Persian dames his prisoners, equally beautiful in face and shape, he contented himself with saying gaily, that they gave indeed much pain to his eyes. Notwithstanding these facts, he has been accused of those licentious gallantries common to princes in his age and country.

, 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.

, a Neapolitan lawyer of great learning, who flourished towards the end of the fifteenth and beginning of the sixteenth century, was descended of the ancient and noble family of the Alexandri of Naples. He was born according to some, in 1461. He followed the profession of the law, first at Naples, and afterwards at Rome; but devoted all the time he could spare to the study of polite literature; and at length entirely left the bar, from scruples of conscience respecting the practice of tke law, that he might lead a more easy and agreeable life with the muses. “When I saw,” says he, “that the counsellors could not defend nor assist any one against the power or favour of the mighty, I said it was in vain we took so much pains, and fatigued ourselves with so much study in controversies of law, and with learning such a variety of cases so exactly reported, when I saw the judgments passed according to the temerity of every remiss and corrupt person who presided over the laws, and gave determinations not according to equity, but favour and affection.” The particulars of his life are to be gathered from his work entitled “Genialium Dierum:” It appears by it that he lodged at Rome in a house that was haunted; and he relates many surprising particulars about the ghost, which show him to have been credulous, although perhaps not more so than his contemporaries. He says also, that when he was very young, he went to the lectures of Philetphus, who explained at Rome the Tusculan questions of Ci'cero; he was there also when Nicholas Perot and Domitius Calderinus read their public lectures upon Martial. Some say that he acted as prothonotary of the kingdom of Naples, and that he discharged the office witn great honour; but this is not mentioned in his work. Apostolo Zeno fixes his death in 1523, and it is generally agreed that he died at Rome, aged about sixty-two. His work, the “Genialium Dirrum,” is a miscellany of learning and philology, somewhat on the model of the “Noctes Atticae” of Aulus Gellius. The first edition was printed at Rome, 1522, fol. under the title of “Alexandri de Alexandro dies Geniales.” Andrew-Tiraqueau bestowed a commentary on it, entitled “Semestria,” Lyons, 1586, fol. Notes have also been added to it by Christopher Colerus, and Dennis Gotefrid, or Godfrey, which were printed with Tiraqueau’s commentary, Francfort, 1594, fol. The edition of Paris, 1582, is held in estimation, but the best is that of Leyden, 1675, 2 vols. 8vo. There is another work of his, published before the Genialium Dierum, but afterwards incorporated with it, entitled “Alexandri J. C. Napolitani Dissertationes quatuor de rebus admirundis, &c.” Rome, 4to, without date, or printer’s name. Mr. Roscoe, who has introduced him in his life of Leo as a member of the academy of Naples, says that his works prove him to have been a man of extensive reading, great industry, and of a considerable share of critical ability, and perhaps as little tinctured with superstition as most of the writers of the age in which he lived.

, one of the most celebrated followers of Aristotle, flourished about the year 200. He was so called from Aphrodisea, a town in Caria, where he was born. He penetrated, with such success, into the meaning of the most profound speculations of his master, that he was not only respected by his contemporaries as an excellent preceptor, but was followed by subsequent Aristotelians among the Greeks, Latins, and Arabians, as the best interpreter of Aristotle. On account of the number and value of his commentaries, he was called, by way of distinction, “The Commentator.” Under the emperor Septimus Severus he was appointed public professor of the Aristotelian philosopln r, but whether at Athens or Alexandria is uncertain. In his works he supports the doctrine of Divine Providence; upon this head he leaned towards Platonism, but on most other subjects adhered strictly to Aristotle. In his book concerning the soul, he maintains that it is not a distinct substance by itself, but the form of an organized body.

, bishop of Cappadocia, and afterwards of Jerusalem, in the early part of the third century, was the scholar of Pantaenus and Clement of Alexandria, to whom he acknowledges his obligations. About the year 204, when bishop of Cappadocia, he suffered imprisonment for the profession of the Christian faith, and remained in prison for some years, under the reign of Severus. His faithfulness and constancy in suffering induced the church at Jerusalem, after his release from prison, to appoint him colleague to their bishop Narcissus, who was now an hundred and sixteen years old. The account which Jerom and Eusebius give of his election, and of his arrival, being supernaturally revealed to Narcissus and the clergy, will not now probably obtain belief; but it is certain that he was gladly welcomed thither, and afterwards succeeded Narcissus in the see, over which he presided for the long space of forty years, with zeal, approbation, and success, in his ministry. When Decius revived the persecution of the Christians, Alexander was again cast into prison, where, from ill usage or old age, he died about the year 25 1. None of his writings remain, except some fragments of letters in Eusebius, who also informs us that Alexander founded a library in Jerusalem into which he collected all the Christian epistles and documents that could be procured; and as this was extant in the time of Eusebius, the latter acknowledges his obligations to it in the compilation of his history.

, a young writer of very promising talents, was born in Ireland in 1736, whither his father, a dissenting teacher at Stratford upon Avon, had removed; and from whence, on his death, the widow and family returned to England. After having gone through a grammatical education, John was sent to the dissenting academy at Daventry, where he prosecuted his studies with commendable diligence, and was afterwards put under the tuition of Dr. Benson, who had sometimes young students under his care, after they had finished their university or academical education, for the purpose of instructing them in a more critical acquaintance with the sacred writings. He afterwards entered into the ministry, which he exercised in and near Birmingham, but principally at a small village called Longdon, about twelve miles from that place. On Saturday, Dec. 28, 1765, he returned to rest, in perfect health, between eleven and twelve o'clock, intending to officiate at Longdon next day but at six in the morning he was found dead in his bed; an event which was sincerely deplored by his friends, both as a private and a public loss.

, 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.

, grand duke of Russia, and a saint of the Russian church, is so often mentioned on account of the order of knighthood instituted to his honour by Peter the Great, and yet is so little known out of Russia, that an article may well be allowed him here. He was born in 1218, and seems to have been a man of strong character, of personal courage, and bodily strength. The almost incessant wars in which his father Yaroslauf was engaged with Tshingis khan and the neighbouring horcles of Mongoies, inspired him early in life with a passion for conquest. Probably too an unhappy conceit entertained by the princes of those times and those countries, might have contributed somewhat to prepare Alexander for the part of the hero he. afterwards performed. This was the custom of conferring on young princes particular provinces as apanages or viceroyalties. Yaroslauf had in 1227 changed his residence at Novgorod for that of Pereyaslaf, leaving in the former place his two eldest sons, Feodor and Alexander, as his representative, under the guidance of two experienced boyars. However small the share that a boy of ten years old, as Alexander then was, could take in the government; yet it must have been of advantage to him to be thus initiated in a situation preparatory to the exercise of that power he was one day to enjoy in his own right. Five years afterwards Feodor died; and now Alexander was alone viceroy of Novgorod he was not an apanaged prince till 1239, when his father took possession of Vladimir. He now married a princess of the province of Polotzk, and the first care of his government was to secure the country against the attacks of the Tshudes (among whom are particularly to be understood the Esthonians), who were partly turbulent subjects, and partly piratical neighbours of the principality of Novgorod. To this end he built a line of forts along the river Shelonia, which falls into the Ilmenlake. But a more imminent danger soon furnished him with an opportunity of performing far greater service to his nation. Incited by the oppressions exercised by the Tartars on southern Russia, the northern borderers formed a league to subdue Novgorod; and thought it necessary to begin their enterprise the sooner, as, from the accounts they had received by one of their chiefs, who had gained a personal knowledge of Alexander at Novgorod, the young prince would shortly be too powerful for them. The warlike king of Denmark, Valdemar II. at that time possessed a considerable portion of Esthonia, together with Reval, which he had lately built . He had long been in alliance with the Teutonic knights of Livonia, which he renewed in 1233; ift which treaty they agreed upon a combined expedition against the Russians. This was accordingly undertaken in 1239. A very considerable fleet came to land on the banks of the Neva, while the Swedes were coming down from Ladoga to attack them by land. An embassy was sent to Alexander, commanding him immediately to submit, or to stake his fortunes on a decisive battle. He made choice of the latter. Too near the enemy, and too distant from his father, he had no hope of any foreign succour, and his army was extremely weak. In the presence of his people he solemnly implored the assistance of heaven, was certified of it by the formal benediction of the archbishop; and thus raised the efficacy of the only support he had, the courage of his soldiers. Having their strength increased by the persuasion that the hosts of heaven were on theic­'side, they went to battle, and began the attack. This was at six in the morning. The two armies were closely engaged during the whole day, and the slaughter continued till night put an end to the contest. The field was covered with the bodies of the slain. Three ship-loads of them were sunk in the sea, and the rest were thrown together in pits. On the side of the Novgorodians only 20 men were killed, say the chronicles; perhaps by an error of the writers, perhaps in the meaning that only the principal citizens of Novgorod are reckoned. But most likely this statement is one of those poeac extravagancies which are not to be mistaken in perusing the Russian accounts of this battle. In the ancient history of all nations a certain lively colouring is used in describing the decisive transactions of early times; a natural consequence of the intimate concern the chronologer takes in the successes of his conntry, and the enthusiasm with which he wishes to represent it as a nation of heroes. Thus the old historians mention six mighty warriors, who, by some signal act in this battle, have handed down their names to the latest posterity. It is impossible not to imagine we are perusing a fragment of romance, when we read, that Gavriela Alexiri pursued a king’s son on horseback into a ship, fell into the sea, came back unhurt, and slew a general and two bishops. Sbislauf was armed only with an axe, Jacob Polotshanin with nothing but a sword, and both killed a multitude of the ene r my. Sava rushed into the enemy’s camp, destroyed the tent of the general, &c. Alexander, our heroic saint, is also indebted to this poetical colouring (perhaps to a vulgar ballad) for his canonization and his fame. He sprung like a lion upon the leader of the hostile troops, and cleft his face in two with a stroke of his sword. This personage, according to the Russian annalists, was no less a man than the king of the northern regions himself. And this act it was that procured our Alexander the surname of Nevskoi, i.e. the conqueror on the banks of the Neva. Peter the Great took a politic advantage of the enthusiasm of the nation, for this Alexander, in order to procure a religious interest for his new city of Petersburg. On the spat where, according to the common opinion, the holy hero had earned the glorious name of Nevskoi, he caused the foundations of a monastery to be laid in 1712, to which he afterwards, in 1723, caused the bones of the great duke to be brought. Peter gave orders that the relics of the saints of Volodimer should be brought to Petersburg (a distance of 700 miles) attended by great solemnities. Between 300 and 400 priests accompanied the procession. On their arrival, the emperor himself, with all his court, went out to meet them; and the coffin, inclosed in a case of copper strongly gilt, was deposited in the monastery with great ceremony. This monastery of St. Alexander Nevskoi is about five versts from the castle at Petersburg, in an agreeable situation on the bank of the Neva. It has gradually been enlarged by the several sovereigns since the emperor Peter; and the present empress has built a magnificent church within its walls, and a sumptuous mausoleum for herself and her descendants. The shrine of the saint is of massy silver, of great value, but both the workmanship and the inscription in a bad taste. The order of knighthood of St. Alexander Nevskoi was properly instituted by Peter the Great in 1722; but he died before he had appointed the knights. This was done by Catherine I. in June 1725. The number of the knights are at present about 135, among whom are one or more crowned heads.

, 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.

, of Paris, a writer of romance in the twelfth century, was a native of Bernay in Normandy, and one of the authors of the romance of “Alexander,” written in verses of twelve feet, which have been since called Alexandrines, from the name of the hero, and not of the poet, who was not the inventor of them. This romance was begun by Lambert li Cors (the little) of Chateaudun; and various other poets, besides our Alexander, assisted in completing it. Manuscripts of all their performances are in the imperial library at Paris, under the three titles of: 1. “Le roman d'Alexandre,” by Lambert li Cors, and Alexander of Paris 2. “Le Testament d'Alexandre,” by Pierre de St. Cloud: 3. “Li Roumans de tote Chevalerie ou Ja Geste d'Alisandre,” by Thomas de Kent. This last is written in the French language introduced into England by William the Conqueror, a mixture of the Norman and Anglo-Saxon. 4. “La Vengeance d'Alexandre,” by Jehan le Venelais, or li Nivelois. 5. “Vœu de Paon,” partly by Jehan Brise-Barre. The other writers who contributed to this collection are, Guy de Cambray, Simon de Boulogne, surnamed le Cterc, or the learned, Jacques de Longuyon, and Jehan de Motelec. The first part of the romance of Alexander appeared about the year 1210, under the reign of Philip Augustus, and not that of Louis VII. as has been asserted. It contains many flattering allusions to the events of the reigns of both those princes, and is very well written for the time; many of the verses are harmonious, and the descriptive part animated, but this character belongs chiefly to the first part: the continuators were very unequal to the task. In the 16th century, an abridgement of the romance appeared at Paris, printed by Bonfons, but without date, under the title “Histoire du tres-noble et tres-vailiant roi Alexandre-le-Grant, jadis roi et seigneur de tout le monde, avec les grandes prouesses qu'il a faites en son temps.”

, a learned physician and philosopher, of the 6th century, was born at Tralles, in Asia Minor. His father, also a physician, had five sons distinguished for their talents: the two most celebrated were Anthemius, an architect, and Alexander. The latter, after travelling for improvement into France, Spain, and Italy, took up his residence at Rome, where he acquired great reputation. He and Aretatæus may be considered as the best Greek physicians after Hippocrates. Alexander describes diseases with great exactness, and his style is elegant; but he partook of the credulity of his times, and trusted too much to amulets and nostrums. He added something, however, to the more judicious practice of the art, having been the first who prescribed opening the jugular, and the first who administered steel in substance. He is much fuller, and more exact than his predecessors in Therapeutics, and collected those remedies principally which he had found to be most effectual. Dr. Freind has given an elaborate analysis of his practice. There are various editions of his works; one in Greek, Paris, 1548, fol. corrected by Goupil, from a manuscript furnished by Duchatel, bishop of Macon and grand almoner of France. There is also an old and bad Latin translation, which Fabricius thinks must have been taken from some Arabic original, published under the title of “Alexandri iatros practica, cum expositione glossae interlinearis Jacobi de Partibus, et Simonis Januensis,” Leyden, 1504, 4to. This was retrenched by Albanus Taurinus, but without the Greek being consulted, and published at Basil, fol. 1533. Another translation, by Gouthier d'Andernac, was improved from the Greek, and has often been reprinted. Among the works of Mercurialis is a small treatise in verse, attributed to Alexander. Haller published a Latin edition of all his works, in 1772, 2 vols. 8vo, with Freind’s account of his practice. In 1734, an abridgement was published at London by Edward MiUvard, M. D. entitled “Trallianus Redivivus, or an account of Trallianus one of the Greek authors who flourished after Galen; showing that these authors are far from deserving the imputation of mere tforrtpilators,” 8vo. This was intended as a supplement to Dr. Freind’s History.

, a poet and statesman of Scotland, is said to have been a descendant of the ancient family of Macdonald. Alexander Macdonald, his ancestor, obtained from one of the earls of Argyle a grant of the lands of Menstrie in the comity of Clackmanan, and our author’s sirname was taken from this ancestor’s proper name. He was born about the year 1580, and from his infancy exhibited proofs of genius, which his friends were desirous of improving by the best instruction which the age afforded, Travelling was at that time an essential branch of education, and Mr. Alexander had the advantage of being appointed tutor, or rather companion, to the earl of Argyle, who was then about to visit the continent.

On his return to Scotland, he betook himself for some time to a retired life, and endeavoured to alleviate the sorrows of ill-requited love by writing those songs and sonnets which he entitled “Aurora.” Who his mistress was, we are not told; but it appears by these poems that he was smitten with her charms when he was only in his fifteenth year, and neither by study or travel could banish lier from his affections. When all hope, however, was cut off by her marriage, he had at last recourse to the same remedy, and obtained the hand of Janet the daughter and heiress of sir William Erskine.

With these productions king James is said to have been delighted, and honoured the. author with his conversation, calling him his philosophical poet. He began likewise to bestow some more substantial marks of his favour, as soon as Mr. Alexander followed him to the court of England. In the month of July 1613, he appointed him to be one of the gentlemen ushers of the presence to prince Charles; but neither the manners nor the honou s of the court made any alteration in the growing propensity of our author’s muse towards serious subjects. From having acquired the title of a philosophical, he endeavoured now to earn that pf a divine poet, by publishing, in 1614, his largest work, entitled “Doomsday, or the Great Day of Judgment,” printed at Edinburgh, in 4to, afterwards in the same size in London, and aoain in folio with his other works. In 1720, the first two books were edited by A. Johnstoun, encouraged by the favourable opinion of Addison who, however, did not live to see the edition published.

But whatever opposition or censure he encountered from the public in this affair, he still remained in high credit with the king, who, in 1626, appointed him secretary of state for Scotland, and in 1630, created him a peer of that kingdom by the title of viscount Canada, lord Alexander pf Menstrie. About three years after, he was advanced to the title of earl of Stirling, at the solemnity of his majesty’s coronation in Holyrood house. His lordship appears to have discharged the office of secretary of state for Scotland with universal reputation, and endeavoured to act with moderation during a crisis of peculiar delicacy, when Laud was endeavouring to abolish presbytery in Scotland, and to establish episcopacy.

Besides the writings already enumerated, the earl of Stirling published, in 1621, folio, “A Supplement of a defect in the third part of Sidney’s Arcadia,” printed, according to Mr. Park, at Dublin; and “A Map and Description of New England, with a Discourse of Plantation and the Colon es, &c.” Lond. 1630, 4to. He has also Sonnets prefixed to Dray ton’s Heroical Epistles to Quin’s Elegiac Poem on Bernard Stuart, Lord Anbume to Abernethy’s “Christian and heavenly treatise, concerning Physicke for the Soule:” and several are interspersed among the works of Drummond, as are a few of his letters, and “Anacrisis,” or a censure of the poets, in the folio edition of Drummond’s works, which last Mr. Park considers as very creditable to his lordship’s critical talents. Two pieces in Ramsay’s Evergreen, entitled “The Comparison,” and the “Solsequium,” are ascribed to him by lord Hailes. His works were added to the late edition of the English poets, 21 vols. 8vo, 1810.

, an eminent Italian poet of the last century, was born at Asti, in Piedmont, Jan. 17, 1749, of an ancient family, and sent for education to Turin, where he was principally under the care of the count Benoit Alfred, his father’s cousin. His progress, however, was for some time very slow, partly owing to bad health, and partly to temper; and when his tutor died, he left the academy at the age of sixteen, almost as ignorant as he entered it, and without having acquired a taste for any thingbut riding. His next passion was for travelling, in which he appeared to have no-other object than moving from one place to another. In less than two years he visited a great part of Italy, Paris, England, Holland, and returned to Piedmont, without having sought to know any thing, to study any thing, or to gratify any curiosity. His second tour was yet more extensive and more rapid: in eighteen months he travelled through Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Russia, Prussia, and returning through the Spa and Holland, went again to England. During this second visit to London, he engaged in affairs of gallantry, and discovered many oddities of behaviour, but in neither of his visits did he give himself the trouble to learn the language. After remaining in London seven months, he returned, with the utmost expedition, by Holland, France, Spain, and Portugal, and arrived at Turin, May 5, 1772. A violent attachment to a lady of quality of this place engrossed his mind for two years, but had the happy effect of first inspiring him with a taste for poetry and poetical composition. After some imperfect attempts, he wrote a sort of tragedy, called “Cleopatra,” which he procured to be acted at Turin, June 16, 1775, with a small piece “The Poets,” by way of farce, in which the author endeavoured to turn his own tragedy into ridicule. The success of these two pieces, although confined to only two representations, decided Alfieri to become an author, and proved the commencement of a new life. At this time, he knew French very imperfectly, scarcely any thing of Italian, and nothing of Latin. The French he determined to forget altogether, but to cultivate Italian and Latin, and study the best authors in both. The study, accordingly, of the Latin and the pure Tuscan languages, and of dramatic composition, upon a new plan of his own invention, occupied all his time, and gave employment to that activity and sprightliness of mind and fancy which had hitherto been dissipated on trifles. His first two tragedies were “Philip II.” and “Polinice;” and these were followed at short intervals, by “Antigone,” “Agamemnon,” &c. to the amount of fourteen, within less than seven years; and within the same space, he wrote several pieces in prose and verse, a translation of Sallust, “A Treatise on Tyranny,” “Etruria avenged,” in four cantos, and five “Odes” on the American revolution. He afterwards recommenced his travels, and added to his collection of tragedies, “Agis,” “Sophonisba,” “Brutus I.” “Brutus II.” and others. Although he had a dislike to France, he came thither to print his theatre, and with him the lady of his affections, the princess of Schomberg, the wife of the last prince of the house of Stuart, who, when set at liberty by the death of her husband, bestowed her hand on Alfieri. On his arrival in France, he found that nation ripe for a revolution, to the principles of which he was at first inclined, and expressed his opinion very freely in “Parigi Shastigliato,” an ode on the taking of the Bastille; but the horrors of revolutionary phrenzy which followed, induced him to disavow publicly the principles which he had professed, and he resolved to lose the property that he had acquired in France, rather than to appear to maintain them any longer. Accordingly he left France ia August 1792, and the following year, his property in the funds was confiscated, and his furniture, papers, and books sequestered and sold at Paris. In 1794, he published a declaration in the gazette of Tuscany, in which he avowed some of the works left behind him, and disavowed others which he thought might be found among his papers, or altered without his consent, and published as his. Among the latter was his “Etruria avenged,” and the “Treatise on Tyranny” above mentioned; but it is certain that he had caused an edition of these and some other pieces of the same stamp to be published at Kell, about the time he arrived in France, and now disavowed them merely because he had changed his opinions. From this time, ruminating on the unjust treatment he had received at Paris, he never ceased to express his contempt of the French nation in what he wrote, but he resumed his pen and his studies with more eagerness than ever. At the age of forty-eight he began the study of Greek, and continued it with his usual ardour, and the rest of his life was employed in making translations from that language, and in writing comedies, tragedies, and satires. His incessant labours at length brought on a complaint of which he died at Florence (where he had resided from the time of his leaving France), Oct. 8, 1803, and was interred in the church of St. Croix, where his widow erected a splendid monument to his memory, executed by Canova, between the tombs of Machiavel and Michael Angelo. The inscription was written by himself, and is as flattering as his life, written also by himself, and published at Paris, 1809, and in English at London, 1810, 2 vols. His posthumous works, in 13 volumes, were published in 1804, at Florence, although with London on the title: they consist of a number of translations, and some original dramas in a singular taste, and not very likely to be adopted as models. A French translation of his dramatic works was published at Paris, 1802, 4 vols. 8vo. Petitot, the translator, has added some judicious reflexions on the forms given to the Italian tragedy by Alfieri, and notwithstanding its weak parts, this collection is a mine which some new authors have frequently worked. His lofty expression, or attempt at expression, and his anxious search for forcible thoughts, sometimes render him obscure; and he appears to have encumbered his genius with more designs than it could execute. Of his personal character, various accounts have been given. In his “Life,” he is sufficiently favourable to himself; but there are few traits in his character that are not rather objects of warning than of imitation. From his youth he appears to have been the slave of passion and temper, averse to the restraints of a well-regulated mind, and consequently many of his opinions, whether good or bad, were hastily conceived, and hastily abandoned.

, Alfergani, or Fargani, was a celebrated Arabic astronomer, who nourished about the year 800. He was so called from the place of his nativity, Fergan, in Sogdiana, now called Maracanda, or Samarcand, anciently a part of Bactria. He is also called Ahmed (or Muhammed) Ben-Cothair, or Katir. He wrote the Elements of Astronomy, in 30 chapters or sections. In this work the author chiefly follows Ptolomy, using the same hypotheses, and the same terms, and frequently citing him. There are three Latin translations of Alfragan’s work. The first was made in the twelfth century, by Joannes Hispalensis; and was published at Ferrara in 1493, and at Nuremberg in 1537, with a preface by Melancthon. The second was by John Christman, from the Hebrew version of James Antoli, and appeared at Francfort in 1590. Christman added to the first chapter of the work an ample commentary, in which he compares together the calendars of the Romans, the Egyptians, the Arabians, the Persians, the Syrians, and the Hebrews, and shews the correspondence of their years.

, 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.

After some years respite, Alfred was again called into the field; as a body of Danes, being worsted in the west of France, appeared with a fleet of 250 sail on the coast of Kent, and having landed, fixed themselves at Appletree. Shortly after, another fleet of eighty vessels coming up the Thames, the men landed, and built a fort at Middleton. Before Alfred marched against the enemy, he obliged the Danes, settled in Northumberland and Essex, to give him hostages for their good behaviour. He then moved towards the invaders, and pitched his camp between their armies, to prevent their junction. A great body, however, moved off to Essex; and, crossing the river, came to Farnham in Surrey, where they were defeated by the king’s forces. Meanwhile the Danes settled in Northumberland, in breach of treaty, and notwithstanding the hostages given, equipped two fleets; and, after plundering the northern and southern coasts, sailed to Exeter, and besieged it. The king, as soon as he received intelligence, marched against them; but, before he reached Exeter, they had got possession of it. He kept them, however, blocked up on all sides, and reduced them at last to such extremities, that they were obliged to eat their horses, and were even ready to devour each other. Being at length rendered desperate, they made a general sally on the besiegers, but were defeated, though with great loss on the king’s side. The remainder of this body of Danes fled into Essex, to the fort they had built there, and to their ships. Before Alfred had time to recruit himself, another Danish leader, whose name was Laf, came with a great army out of Northumberland, and destroyed all before him, marching on to the city of Werheal in the west, which is supposed to be Chester, where they remained the rest of that year. The year following they invaded North Wales; and, after having plundered and destroyed every thing, they divided, one body returning to Northumberland, another into the territories of the east Angles; from whence they proceeded to Essex, and took possession of a small island called Meresig. Here they did not long remain; for having parted, some sailed up the river Thames, and others up the Lea-road; where drawing up their ships, they built a fort not far from London, which proved a great check upon the citizens, who went in a body and attacked it, but were repulsed with great loss. At harvest-time the king himself was obliged to encamp with a body of troops in the neighbourhood of the city, in order to cover the reapers from the excursions of the Danes. As he was one day riding by the side of the river Lea, after some observation, he began to think that the Danish ships might be laid quite dry; which he attempted, and so succeeded therein, that the Danes deserted their fort and ships, and marched away to the banks of the Severn, where they buikt a fort, and wintered at a place called Quatbrig . Such of the Danish ships as could be got off, the Londoners carried into their own road; the rest they burnt and destroyed. The Danes in a little time began again to invade the territories of the West Saxons both by land and sea; but they did more mischief as pirates than as robbers, for, having built long and largeships, they became masters at sea, and depopulated all the coast. Alfred built some large gallies, and sent them to cruize on the coasts of the Isle of Wight and Devonshire, the sea thereabouts being greatly infested by six piratical vessels, which were all taken or destroyed except one: and such of the Danes as landed when their ships ran ashore, were taken prisoners, and brought before the king at Winchester, who sentenced them to be hanged as piratical murderers and enemies to mankind.

Alfred enjoyed a profound peace during the three last years of his reign, which he chiefly employed in establishing and regulating his government for the security of himself and his successors, as well as for the ease and benefit of his subjects in general. Before his reign, though there were many kings who took the title, yet none could properly be called monarch of the English nation; for notwithstanding there was always, after the time of Egbert, a prince who held a kind of pre-eminence over the rest, yet he had no dominion over their subjects, as Alfred had in the latter part of his reign; for to him all parts of England, not in the possession of the Danes, submitted, which was greatly owing to the fame of his wisdom and mildness of his government. He is said to have drawn up an excellent system of laws, which are mentioned in the Mirror of Justice, published by Andrew Home, in the reign of Edward I. as also a collection of Judgments; and, if we may credit Harding’s chronicle , they were used in Westminster-hall in the reign of Henry IV. In the chronicle said to be written by John Brompton, we meet some laws ascribed to king Alfred. They are in number 51; and before them is a preface, wherein the king recites many things concerning the excellency and use of laws. In the close he says, he collected from the laws of his ancestor king Ina, such as seemed to him most reasonable; and having communicated them to the learned men of his kingdom, he, with their assent, published them to be the rule of his people’s actions. These laws borrowed from king Ina were, if we believe himself, many of them taken from the British constitutions; and those, if credit is to be given to their authors, were excerpts from the Greek and Trojan laws. Although there remain but few laws which can be positively ascribed to Alfred, yet his biographers inform us, that to him we owe many of those advantages which render our constitution so dear and valuable, and that to him we are indebted for trial by jury; and if we rely on sir John Spelman’s conjecture, his institutions were the foundation of what is called the common law, so styled either on account of its being the common law of all the Saxons, or because it was common both to Saxons and Danes 1. It is said also, but this is a disputed point, that he was the first who divided the kingdom into shires; what is ascribed to him is not a bare division of the country, but the settling a new form of judicature; for, after having divided his dominions into shires, he subdivided each shire into three parts, called tythings, which though now grown out of date, yet there are some remains of this ancient division in the ridings of Yorkshire, the laths of Kent, and the three parts of Lincolnshire. Each tything was divided into hundreds or wapentukes, and these again into tythings or dwellings of ten householders each of these householders stood engaged to the king, as a pledge for the good behaviour of his family, and all the ten were mutually pledges for each other; so that if any one of the tything was suspected of an offence, if the headboroughs or chiefs of the tything would not be security for him, he was imprisoned; and if he made his escape, the ty thing and hundred were fined to the king. Each shire was under the government of an earl, under whom was the reive, his deputy, since, from; ji cs, called shire-reive, or sheriff . Alfred also framed a book called the Book of Winchester, and which contained a survey of the kingdom; and of which the Doomsday book, still preserved in the exchequer, is no more than a second edition.

In the management of affairs of state, after the custom of his ancestors the kings of the West Saxons, he made use of the great council of the kingdom, consisting of bishops, earls, the king’s aldermen, and his chief thanes or barons. These, in the first part of his reign, he convoked as occasion served; but when things were better settled, he made a law, that, twice in the year at least, an assembly or parliament should be held at London, there to provide for the well-governing of the commonwealth; from which ordinance his successors varied a little, holding such assemblies not in any place certain, but wherever they resided, at Christmas, Easter, or Whitsuntide. As to extraordinary affairs, or emergencies, which would not admit of calling great councils, the king acted therein by the advice of those bishops, earls, and officers in the army, who happened to be about his person. He was certainly a great and warlike prince; and though the nation could never boast of a greater soldier, yet he never willingly made war, or refused peace when desired. He secured his coasts by guardships, making the navy his peculiar care; and he covered his frontiers by castles well fortified, which before his time the Saxons had never raised. In other affairs he was no less active and industrious; he repaired the cities demolished by the Danes; he erected new ones, and adorned and embellished such as were in a decayed condition . It is affirmed that one sixth part of his revenues was applied to the payment of his workmen’s wages, wha had besides meat and drink at the king’s expence. In respect to religious foundations, as Alfred was remarkable for his piety, so he excelled most of his predecessors in this particular; for, besides re-edifying and restoring almost every monastery in his dominions, which the poverty of the times or the fury of the Danes had brought to ruin, he built many, and improved more, besides other acts of munificence towards the church . He is said by some to have founded the university of Oxford; yet this matter is warmly disputed, and has employed several learned pens; but Anthony Wood has insisted upon it: so much, however, is certain, that Alfred settled and restored that university, endowed it with revenues, and placed in it famous professors . Though he had always a very numerous court, and took particular pleasure in seeing his nobility about him, yet he found out a method of doing this without prejudice to the public. He formed three different households, each under a separate lord chamberlain: and these waited in their turns, a month every quarter; so that during the year, each of the king’s servants was four months at court, and eight at home.

In private life, Alfred was the most amiable man in his dominions; of so equal a temper, that after he had once taken the crown, he never suffered any sadness or unbecoming gaiety to enter his mind; but appeared always of a palm, yet cheerful disposition, familiar to his friends, just, even to his enemies, kind and tender to all. He was a remarkable oeconomist of his time; and Asserius has given us an account of the method he took for dividing and keeping an account of it. He caused six wax-candles to b made, each of twelve inches long, and of as many ounces weight on the candies the inches were regularly marked; and having found that one of them burnt just four hours, he committed them to the care of the keepers of his chapel, who from time to time gave him notice how the hours went; but as in windy weather the candles wer wasted by the impression of the air on the flame, to remedy this inconvenience he invented lanthorns, there being then no glass in his dominions . When Alfred came to the crown, learning was at a very low ebb in his kingdom f; but by his example and encouragement, he used his utmost endeavours to excite a love for letters amongst his subjects. He himself was a scholar; and had he not been illustrious as a king, would have been famous as an author . When we consider the qualifications of this prince, and the 'many virtues he possessed, we need noj; wonder that he died universally lamented, which happened after a reign of above 28 years, and on the 28th of October, A. D. 900, as some writers inform us; though there is a disagreement in this particular, even amongst our best historians. He was buried in the cathedral of Winchester; but the canons of that church pretending they were disturbed by his ghost, his son and successor Edward caused his body to be removed to the new monastery, which was left unfinished at his death. Here it remained till the dissolution of monasteries, when Dr. Richard Fox, bishop of Winchester, caused the bones of all our Saxon kings to be collected and put into chests of lead, with inscriptions upon each of them, shewing whose bones they contained; these chests he took care to have placed on the top of a wall of exquisite workmanship, built by him to inclose the presbytery of the cathedral. Here they remained undisturbed until the cathedral was pillaged by the parliamentary soldiers, under sir William Waller, during the rebellion in 1642, when the chests were thrown down, and most of their contents dispersed.

The preceding account of this illustrious prince, taken from various authorities, exhibits altogether so pleasing a picture of Alfred, that we have not interrupted it by any of those objections which more modern research has discovered. For all the facts of Alfred’s history we are completely at the mercy of the monkish writers; and as we can have little now to disprove their assertions, most historians have implicitly followed their engaging narrative. In some respects, however, there is reason to question their authenticity. There is, in the first place, much reason to believe that the trial by jury is of older date than the time of Alfred: and secondly, there is still more reason to question the assertions in the note p. 448, respecting his having founded the university of Oxford. In addition to other objections which have been made to this origin of the university, we may now refer the reader to a work in which the question seems to be decided beyond all future controversy. The work we allude to is, “The Life of St. Neot, the oldest of all the brothers of king Alfred,” by the late John Whitaker, B. D. 1809. In section II. of this life, it is very clearly demonstrated that Alfred could not possibly have founded any university in Oxford, which was without the kingdom of West-Saxony in his days; and that the only university, or rather school, which he founded, was at Winchester. As to the broad assertion in the preceding note, that “Alfred is universally acknowledged the founder of University college, Oxford;” this is so far from being the case, that the historian of that college, Mr. Smith, a member of it, has clearly proved that Alfred had no hand whatever in it, and that the real founder was William of Durham.

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.

, an Arabian philosopher, was born at Thous in 1058, studied in the college of the celebrated Iman-Al-Haremein, and became a man of great learning. On the death of his preceptor he presented himself to the vizir Neddham El-mulk, who bestowed many gifts and honours upon him, and gave him, the superintendance of a college which he had founded at Bagdad. Algazeli, after retaining this office four years, embraced a solitary life, travelled into Syria and Palestine, and employed himself in the composition of his works, until his death in 1111. Among his papers was a treatise censuring with great freedom some articles of the Mahometan faith; this was of course immediately committed to the flames. He left, however, many other works, some of which have been translated either into Latin or Hebrew. His treatise on “Religious Sciences” is highly celebrated in the East. In 1506 was published at Cologn, another of his works under the title of “Philosophica et logica Algazeli,” 4to. Averroes, who lived after him, wrote against his philosophical opinions, in a piece entitled “Destructio destructionum philosophise Algazeli,” and which is printed in the 9th vol. of his Aristotle. In all, except the first mentioned work, Algazeli is a strenuous supporter of the Mahometan religion.

, or Algerus, a learned priest of the church of Liege, in the twelfth century, was distinguished for a love of study and retirement, which induced him to refuse many tempting offers of promotion. In 1121, he shut himself up at Cluni, and passed his time in the strict observance of monastic discipline. He died in 1131. He wrote, 1. “A treatise on Mercy and Justice,” published by Martenne in the 5th vol. of his “Anecdotes.” 2. “A treatise on the Sacrament,” in three books, which may be seen in the Bibl. Patruro; but the most singular part of its history is, that Erasmus published an edition of it in 1530, at Fribourg, and declared that by the perusal of it he had been confirmed in the opinion of the real presence. 3. A small piece on “Free Will,” published by father Fez in the fourth vol. of his “Anecdotes.” Algerus wrote many letters, and a history of the church of Liege, which remain in manuscript.

, 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.

, Allacen, or Abdilazum, was a learned Arabian, a native of Bassorah. He wrote upon Astrology; and his work upon optics was printed in Latin, at Basil, in 1572, under the title of “Opticae Thesaurus,” by Risner. Alhazen was the first who shewed the importance of refractions in astronomy, so little known to the ancients. He is also the first author who has treated on the twilight, upon which he wrote a work, and takes occasion to speak also of the height of the clouds. He first, however, distinguished himself as a projector. He boasted frequently that he could construct a machine to prevent the inundations of the Nile. This being reported to the caliph, he offered him presents, workmen, and every species of encouragement; but Alhazen, having soon discovered the impossibility of accomplishing his scheme, and dreadinothe anger of the caliph, put on a feigned madness, which he continued as long as the caliph lived. The rest of his life he spent, in writing, or in copying books, which he sold. He died at Cairo in 1038. Casiri, in his Bibl. Arab. Hisp. gives a long catalogue of his works, some of which are in the Bodleian, and some in the library of Leyden. The work above mentioned, edited by Risner, is supposed to have been of service to Kepler.

, the cousin and son-in-law of Mohammed, ought, perhaps, to have been caliph after Mohammed’s death; but beipg opposed by Omar and Othman, he retired into Arabia, and there made a collection of the doctrines of Mohammed, and in this he permitted some things condemned by Abubeker, which gained him many proselytes. After the death of Othman, he was declared caliph by the Egyptians and the inhabitants of Mecca and Medina, in the year of the hegira 35, and of our Lord 655; but after a reign of four years and three quarters, he was mortally tvounded in a mosque, and died three or four days after, A. D. 661. Ali had nine wives, who brought him fourteen sons and eighteen daughters. If we consider him, with regard to his courage, moderation, piety, and understanding, he will be found one of the greatest men that was ever born among the Arabians. The Persians annually celebrate the day of his martyrdom, follow his doctrine, and hold the memory of Abubeker, Omar, and Othman, in abhorrence, while the Turks reverence them, and detest Ali.

, an adventurer, who acted a most distinguished part against the Ottoman empire in the last century, was born in Natolia in 1728, and received at his birth the name of Joseph. His father was a Greek priest, of a distinguished family, who educated him with great care, designing him to succeed him: but, at thirteen years of age, Joseph being hunting in a neighbouring forest, robbers fell on his company, and carried him off to Grand Cairo: here he was sold to Ibrahim, a lieutenant of the janisaries, who had him circumcised, clothed him in the dress of the mamalukes, and called him Ali: he gave him masters in the Turkish and Arabic languages, and in horsemanship, and, by kind treatment, made him by degrees satisfied with his new station. In a course of years, he succeeded in these languages, shewed wonderful dexterity in the use of his arms, and became so dear to his master, that he raised him rapidly in his household, and created him a cachef or governor, at the age of twenty-two.

In this station, he manifested his equity and good administration of justice, improved the discipline of the mamalukes, and laid the foundation of his future greatness. Here he gained the favour of the pasha Rahiph, who, discovering his merit, became his protector. He remained several years in this station, until his patron Ibrahim was elected emir al hagi, or prince of the caravan, who took him with him to escort the pilgrims: in their march they were attacked by the Arabs; Ali fell upon them at the head of the mamalukes, repulsed the enemy, and killed a great number on the spot. On his return, several tribes being collected were determined to avenge their defeat: the young cachef gave them battle, and obtained a signal victory. Ibrahim did justice to the services of his lieutenant in full council, and proposed to create him a sangiak, which, after some opposition, was accomplished.

, or Ali-Beigh, first interpreter to the sultan Mahomet IV. was born at Leopold, in Poland, under the name of Bobrowski, about the beginning of the seventeenth century. Dr. Hyde calls him Albert Bobowski. He was carried away while a youth by the Tartars, and sold to the Turks, who, perceiving his talents, had him brought up in the seraglio, where he spent twenty years. After this he went into the service of a man of rank, to Egypt, where, in consequence of his excellent behaviour, he was made free, and, according to the custom of the Turks, had a new name given him, that of Ali-Bey. On his return to Constantinople, his general knowledge of the Western and Eastern languages, gradually advanced him to the rank of Tergjuman Bashi, or first interpreter of the Porte. He composed a grammar and a lexicon of the Turkish language, about the year 1653, and translated at the request of Dr. Basire, the catechism of the church of England into the Turkish language. At the request of another gentleman, he translated the whole Bible, which was sent into Europe to be printed, but remains in manuscript in the library at Leyden. Dr. Hyde had the Psalms translated, and written, in Ali’s hand. His death, which took place at Constantinople in 1675, was much regretted by the Christians at Constantinople, but particularly by the English, for whom he had great affection and esteem, and to whom he often intimated his desire to have come over to England, and to return into the bosom of the Christian church. It is said indeed that this design was on foot when he died. In 1691, Dr. Hyde published “Tractatus Alberti Bobovii. &c. de Turcarum Liturgia, peregratione Meccana, circumcisione, aegrotorum visitatione, &c.” with notes, Oxford. This curious work was brought over by Dr. Thomas Smith, who presented it to Dr. Hyde, and advised him to translate it. It is the most succinct and probably one of the most authentic accounts we have of the religious ceremonies of the Turks. The “Dialog! Turcici” of Ali Bey, and his translation of Commenius’s Janua Linguarum, are in the royal library at Paris. It is thought that he furnished Ricaut with valuable materials for his history of the Turkish empire, and that he had a principal hand in the translation into Turkish of Grotius on the truth of the Christian religion.

, whom Crescembini has placed among the poets of Italy, but who more properly belongs to the class of historians, or antiquaries, lived in the latter part of the fourteenth and the beginning of the fifteenth century. He was educated in the house of Louis de Gonzaga, the first of that name, and captain of Mantua, and he appears to have made considerable proficiency in the study of law and philosophy. He afterwards embraced a military life and served under Guy and Louis de Gon­/aga; and when more advanced in years, was employed in. political aftairs. He is supposed to have died in 1417. The only work attributed to him is a metrical chronicle or history of Mantua, which Muratori has published in the fifth Yolume of his “Antiquitates Italian mediae aevi,” but in which he cautions his readers against expecting poetry or truth. The only valuable part is what concerns his own time in Mantua, which Muratori thinks future historians may consult with advantage.

, a supposed writer, whose name leads to a dissertation, rather than a life, passes for the author of a poem in old German, and very popular in Germany, under the title of “Reineke de Voss,” or “Reynard the Fox.” It is a kind of satire on the manners of the times during the ‘feudal system. All that is known of Alkmar is, that he lived about the year 1470, and was governor, or preceptor, of one of the dukes of Lorraia. The first edition of Reynard was printed at Lubeck in 1498, and it was frequently reprinted at Rostock, Francfort, ancl Hamburgh; and as the name of H. d’ Alkmar occurs in the preface of the Lubeck edition, which was long considered to be the first, he has as uniformly passed for the author of the poem. There is, however, in the library of the city of Lubeck, a copy of a work with the same title and nearly the same contents, but more full, and in prose, which was printed at Delft in 1485; and one has been discovered still older, printed at Goudesor Tergow, by Gerard Leew, in 1479. These two Reynards are exactly the same, written in the Dutch or Flemish dialect, which differs little from thatof Friesland, Westphalia, or Lower Saxony. It would appear then, that Alkmar had done no more than to versify 'and enlarge the fictions of the old Reynard. He says himself, in the preface, that he translated the present work from the Welch, and the French. Whatever may be the case with the Welch, , as he mentions the French, his evidence accords with known facts, and with the opinion of Le Grand d'Aussay, in his “Notices et Extraits des manuscrits de la bibliotheque de Paris” (vol. V. p. 249), namely, that the poem of Reynard is of French origin, and that Pierre de St. Cloud was the author, whose Reynard was written in prose in the thirteenth century; and that the poem of the same name, the production of Jaquemars Gélée or Giellée, at Lisle, is only an imitation of the former. There are, however, many resemblances to Reynard in the German poets of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, from which it may perhaps be inferred that Reynard is of German origin, and older than the work of Pierre de St. Cloud. It has always been a very popular work in Germany, and the grammarian Gottsched published a fine edition, with an introduction, interpretation, and plates, while the celebrated Goethe has taken great pains to restore the text, and paraphrase it in hexameters. It has also been translated into Latin, Italian, Danish, Swedish, and English. Caxton’s edition, 1481, is described by Ames and Herbert, and more fully by Mr. Dibdin in his new edition of Ames’s Typographical Antiquities, vol. I. The Latin edition of Schopperus is very elegant, and has often been reprinted. Dreyer, syndic of Lubeck, published a curious work in 1768, 4to, on the use that may be made of Reynard the Fox in studying German antiquities and law. It yet remains to be noticed that Tiaden, a German writer, ascribes Reynard to one Nicholas Baumann, who died in 1503; but the opinions already given, and the dates of the ancient editions, seem to render this very improbable.

, was born at Chartres, and died at Paris the 2d of May, 1753. He gave to the French theatre several comedies that met with tolerable success; and to the Italian theatre, “l'Embarras des Richesses,” which was far better received; the “Tour de Carnaval,” and some other pieces. His “Ecole des Bourgeois,” abounds in that true comic humour which characterises the plays of Moliere. There are likewise of his: 1. “Les Bigarrures Calotines.” 2. “Lettres à Milord * * *, concerning the Baron and the Demoiselle le Couvreur.” 3. “Anecdotes of Russia, under Peter I.” 1745, 12mo. 4. “Connoissauce de la Mythologie,” 1762, 12mo. This last work is methodical and well digested; but he was only the editor of it. It was written by a Jesuit, who gave it to M. Boudot. Allainval lived in great poverty, sleeping generally in hackney chairs, or coaches in the streets, and died equally poor, in the hotel de Dieu, to which he was carried when struck with the palsy.

, an English writer of the 17th century, was the son of Andrew Allam, a person of mean rank, and born at Garsington, near Oxford, in April 1655. He had his education in grammar learning at a private school atDenton, in the parish ofCuddesdon, near his native place, under Mr. William Wildgoose, of Brazen-nose college, a noted schoolmaster of that time. He was entered a batteler of St. Edmund’s hall, in Easter term, 1671. After he had taken his degrees in arts, he became a tutor, moderator, lecturer in the chapel, and at length vice-principal of his house. In 1680, about Whitsuntide, he entered into holy orders; and in 1683, was made one of the masters of the schools. His works that are extant, are, “The learned Preface, or Epistle to the Reader, with a dedicatory Epistie, in the printer’s name, prefixed to the Epistle Congratulatory of Lysimachus Nicanor, &c. to the Covenanters of Scotland,” Oxon. 1684. “The Epistle containing an account of Dr. Cosin’s life, prefixed to the doctor’s book, entitled, Ecclesix Anglicanae Politeia in tabulas digesta,” Oxon. 1684, fol. “The Preliminary Epistle, with a review and correction of the book, entitled, Some plain Discourses on the Lord’s Supper, &c. written by Dr. George. Griffith, bishop of St. Asaph,” Oxon. 1684, 8vo. “Additions and Corrections to a book, entitled, Angliae Notitia, or The present state of England.” They appeared in the edition of that book, printed at London in 1684; but the author of the “Notitia” did not acknowledge the assistance contributed by Mr. Allam. “Additions to Helvicus’s Historical and Chronological Theatre,” printed with that author in 1687. Mr. Aliarn laid the foundation of a work entitled “Notitia Ecclesiae Anglicance, or a History of the Cathedral Churches, &c. of England;” but death prevented his completing this design. He likewise translated the “Life of Iphicrates,” printed in the English version of Plutarch by several gentlemen of Oxford, 1684, 8vo. And lastly, he assisted Wood in his Ath. Oxonienses, and is mentioned by that author as highly qualified for such a work, by an uncommon acquaintance with religious and Ik terary history. He died of the small-pox, June 17, 1685, and was buried in the church of St. Peter in the East, at Oxford.

, a Scotch portrait and historical painter of the preceding century, was a native of Edinburgh, and patronised by sir William Erskine. He received the rudiments of his art in the academy of painting instituted, and carried on for a considerable time, by Messrs. Foulis, in Glasgow, Thence'he went to Italy, where he spent many years in unremitting application to the study of the great models of antiquity. At Rome in 1773, he gained the prize medal given by the academy of St. Luke for the best specimen of historical composition, and it is believed he was the only Scotchman (Gavin Hamilton excepted) who had then attained; that honour. After his return in 1777, he resided a few years in London; but about 1780 he went to Edinburgh, and was appointed director and master of the academy established in that metropolis by the board of trustees for manufactures and improvements, for the purpose of diffusing a knowledge of the principles of the fine arts, and elegance of design, in the various manufactures and works which require to be figured and ornamented; a charge for which he was peculiarly well qualified, by the extensive knowledge he possessed of every branch of the art. He was much admired for his talents in composition, the truth with which he delineated nature, and the characteristic humour that distinguished his pictures, drawings, and etchings. There are several engravings from his pictures, one “The Origin of Painting, or the Corinthian maid drawing, the shadow of her lover;” and four, in aqua tfnta, by Paul Sandby, from drawings made by Allan when at Rome, representing the sports during the carnival. Several of the figures introduced in them, are portraits of persons well known to the English who visited Rome between 1770 and 1780. Mr. Allan died Aug. 6, 1796. In private life, his character was marked by the strictest honour and integrity, and his manners were gentle, unassuming, and obliging.

, 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.”

, the son of a clergyman of the same name, rector of Ditchet, Somersetshire, for fifty years, was born at that place in 1611; the first part of his education under his father fitted him for the university in 1627. That year he entered a commoner of St. Alban’s hall, in Oxford, where he took the degree of bachelor of arts. Thence he removed to New Inn Hall, where he took his master’s degree, and entering into orders, became an assistant to his father, who bei,;g inclined to puritanism, die son fell into the same opinions; and possessing great zeal and learning, he soon acquired a proportionable reputation. In March 1641, he succeeded to the living of Batcomb, in Dorsetshire, the duty of which he performed with much industry and fidelity, but being a zealous covenanter, had some disturbances with the king’s forces in those parts. He was, however, a great enemy to that enthusiastic spirit which prevailed in this country, on the ruin of the established church; this appears by his subscribing a representation, entitled “The Testimony of the Ministry of Somersetshire to the Truth of Jesus Christ, and to the Solemn League and Covenant,” printed in 1648. His industry and affection to the cause procured himself and his father to be constituted assistants to the commissioners appointed by parliament, for ejecting scandalous ministers. This was in 1654; and Mr. Wood tells us, what is probable enough, that they acted with great severity. However, on the Restoration, Mr. Allein shewed a disposition to yield obedience to the government, but could not accede to the terms of conformity, which occasioned his being ejected from his living, after he had held it upwards of twenty years. After this, he continued to exercise his function privately, preaching sometimes in his own house, at others in the houses of gentlemen in the neighbourhood. He was once apprehended at the seat of Mr. Moore, who had been a member of parliament, and who had invited him thither to preach to his family and some of his neighbours. Mr. Moore paid the tine, which was rive pounds, for him. He still went on in the way of his profession, notwithstanding he was often summoned to the quarter sessions, and severely reprimanded as the keeper of a conventicle. He, however, escaped imprisonment, as his great learning, piety, and exemplary life, had gained him so high a reputation, that it would have been very unpopular to have sent him to a gaol. After the five mile act passed, he was obliged to leave Batcomb, and retire to Frome Selwood, where he continued in the constant exercise of his ministry, notwithstanding the dangers he was exposed to. He died the 22d of December 1681, being upwards of 64 years of age. He was distinguished for his plain, practical manner of preaching, and for the delight he took in the pastoral office. His writings, which were mostly tracts on religious subjects, were much esteemed and often printed. The principal of these is a work entitled “Vindicise Pietatis, or a Vindication of Godliness,” which was, and is, in high reputation among persons of Calvinistic sentiments. It consists of three parts, published 1664 6. As it was printed without a licence, the king’s bookseller caused the copies to be seized, but afterwards purchased them from the king’s kitchen, where they were sent as waste-paper, and bound them up and sold them; being however discovered, he was obliged to make submission to the privy council, and the hooks were ordered to be destroyed. This occasioned the first edition to be long scarce, and created the mistakes as 10 date into which both Wood and Calamy have fallen, and which are not rectified by the editor of the Biographia Britannica, who does not appear to have examined the book. Although a zealous non-conformist, Mr. Allein was not tinctured either with spleen to the church, or disloyalty to his prince; on the contrary, he lived in a fair correspondence with the clergy of his neighbourhood, and the gentry paid him great respect, although of opposite sentiments.

, or rather Allen (Thomas), a pious English divine, was born about 1682, and educated at Wadham college, Oxford, where he probably took only his bachelor’s degree, as we do not find him in the list of upper graduates. In 1714 he was presented to the rectory of Kettering, in Northamptonshire, on which he resided the whole of his life, and was exemplary in all the duties of the pastoral office, nor less indefatigable as a writer, although his success in this last character bore little proportion to the magnitude of his labours. Of his printed works we know only, 1. “The Practice of an Holy Life; or the Christian’s Daily Exercise, in Meditations, Prayer, &c.” London, 1716, 8vo. 2. “The Christian’s sure Guide to Eternal Glory,” both popular works, and afterwards translated into the Russian language. 3. “A Sermon before the Criminals in Newgate,” 1744. 4. “The New Birth, or Christian Regeneration, in Miltonic or blank verse,” 1753, 8vo. Besides these, he wrote “Pandects of Christianity” “The harmony and agreement between Moses and Christ” “The Primitive and Apostolic Fathers, with their genuine Writings” “God the best interpreter of his law” “The Divine Worship and Service of the Church of England,” with some others, for which he issued proposals, but was obliged to desist from want of encouragement. Lists of these Mss. he sent to various clergymen, requesting they would bear the expence, &c.; and accompanied them with letters in an eccentric style, and with no small portion of conceit. Mr. Allen died May 31, 1755, suddenly, as he was reading prayers in his church.

, an English lawyer and antiquary, was born at Great Hadham in Hertfordshire, about the end of the seventeenth century, and was educated at Eton; whence he went to King’s college, Cambridge, and took his bachelor’s degree in 1707, and his master’s in 1711. He afterwards studied law, was called to the bar, and by the influence of Arthur Onslow, speaker of the house of commons, became a master in chancery. His reputation as a lawyer was inconsiderable, but he was esteemed a good classical scholar, and a man of wit and convivial habits. He became afterwards an alderman of the corporation of Guildford, and an useful magistrate in that neighbourhood. He died April 11, 1754, and was buried in the Temple church. He collected a biographical account of the members of Eton college, which by his will, dated 1753, he ordered to be placed in the libraries of the two colleges, and a third copy to be given to his patron, Mr. Onslow. He also compiled, at his leisure hours, or rather made collections for, an English dictionary of obsolete words, of words which have changed their meaning, as villain, knave, and of proverbial or cant words, as helter-skelter, which he derived from hiiariter cderiter. It is not known what became of this manuscript. He bequeathed his fortune, and probably his books, to a brother who was a Turkey merchant.

, 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.

, an eminent mathematician of the sixteenth century, was born at Uttoxeter in Staffordshire, Dec. 21, 1542, and was a descendant, through six generations, of Henry Allen, or Alan, lord of the manor of Buckenhall in that county. He was admitted scholar of Trinity college, Oxford, June 4, 1561, became fellow in 1565, and in 1567, took his master’s degree. From a strong inclination to a retired life, and a dislike to entering into holy orders, to which, according to the statutes, he ftmst have been called, he quitted the college, resigned his fellowship, and went to Gloucester-hall (now Worcester college), in 1570. Here he studied very closely, and acquired a high reputation for his knowledge in antiquity, philosophy, and mathematics. Having received an invitation from Henry earl of Northumberland, a great friend and patron of the mathematicians, he spent some time at the earl’s house, where he became acquainted with those celebrated mathematicians Thomas Harriot, John Dee, Walter Warner, and Nathanael Torporley. Robert earl of Leicester had a particular esteem for Mr. Allen, and would have conferred a bishopric upon him, but his love of solitude and retirement made him decline the offer. He was also highly respected by other celebrated contemporaries, sir Thomas Bodley, sir Henry Savile, Mr. Camden, sir Robert Cotton, sir Henry Spelman, Mr. Selden, &c. His great skill in the mathematics made the ignorant and vulgar look upon him as a magician or conjuror: and the author of a book, intituled “Leicester’s Commonwealth,” has absurdly accused him of using the art of figuring, to bring about the earl of Leicester’s schemes, and endeavouring, by the black art, to effect a match betwixt him and queen Elizabeth. It is more certain the earl placed such confidence in Allen, that nothing material in the state was transacted without his knowledge, and he had constant information, by letter from Allen, of what passed in the university. Allen was very curious and indefatigable in collecting scattered manuscripts relating to history, antiquity, astronomy, philosophy, and mathematics, which collections have been quoted by several learned authors, &c. There is a catalogue of them, bearing date 1622, among Anthony Wood’s papers in the Ashmolean museum. He published in Latin the second and third books of Ptolemy, “concerning the Judgment of the Stars,” or, as it is commonly called, of the quadripartite construction, with an exposition. He wrote also notes on many of Lilly’s books, and some on John Bale’s work, “De scriptoribus Maj. Britanniae.” Having lived to a great age, he died at Gloucester-hall, Sept. 30, 1632, and was buried with a solemnity suited to the greatness of his character. He bequeathed a valuable portrait of himself, which has since been engraven, to the president of Trinity college and his successors. Mr. Burton, the author of his funeral oration, calls him not only the Coryphaeus, but the very soul and sun of all the mathematicians of his time. Mr. Selden mentions him as “omni eruditionis genere summoque judicio ornatissimus, cele-” berrimae academies Oxoniensis dec us insignissimum; a person of the most extensive learning and consummate judgment, the brightest ornament of the university of Oxford.“Camden says, he was” Plurimis optimisque artibus Ornatissimus; skilled in most of the best arts and sciences.“Mr. Wood has transcribed part of his character from a manuscript in the library of Trinity college, in these words:” He studied polite literature with great application; he was strictly tenacious of academic discipline, always highly esteemed both by foreigners and those of the university, and by all of the highest stations in the church of England and the university of Oxford. He was a sagacious observer, and an agreeable companion.

, an eminent English divine, was born in March 1619, at Uppington near the YVrekin in Shropshire. He was at first educated at a free-school in that neighbourhood, and afterwards removed to one at Coventry, taught by Philemon Holland the translator. In 1636, he was sent to Oxford, and entered a commoner in Christ-church, under the tuition of Mr. Richard Busby, afterwards master of Westminster school. Six months after his settlement in the university, Dr. Fell, dean of Christ-church, having observed the parts and industry of young Allestry, made him a student of that college, where he applied himself to his books with great assiduity and success. When he had taken the degree of bachelor of arts, he was chosen moderator in philosophy, in which office he continued till the disturbances of the kingdom interrupted the studies and repose of the university. In 1641, Mr. Allestry, amongst other of the Oxford students, took ar;ns for the king, under sir John Biron, and continued therein till that gentleman withdrew from Oxford, when he returned to his studies. Soon after, a party of the parliament forces having entered Oxford and plundered the colleges, Mr. Allestry narrowly escaped being severely handled by them. Some of them having attempted to break into the treasury of Christ-church, and having forced a passage into it, met with nothing but a single groat and a halter, at the bottom of a large iron chest. Enraged at their disappointment, they went to the deanry, where having plundered as much as they thought fit, they put it all together in a chamber, locked it up, and retired to their quarters, intending next day to return and dispose of their prize; but, when they came, they found themselves disappointed, and every thing removed out of the chamber. Upon examination it was discovered, that Mr. Allestry had a key to the lodgings, and that this key had been made use of. Upon this he was seized, and would probably have suffered severely, had not the earl of Essex called away the forces on a sudden, and by that means rescued him from their fury. In October following, he took arms again, and was at the battle fought betwixt the king and the parliament’s forces under the command of the earl of Essex upon Keinton-field in Warwickshire; after which, understanding that the king designed immediately to march to Oxford, and take up his residence at the deanry of Christ-church, he hastened thither to make preparations for his majesty’s reception; but in his way was taken prisoner by a party of horse from Boughton-house, which was garrisoned by lord Say for the parliament: his confinement, however, was but short, as the garrison surrendered to the king. And now Mr. Allestry returned again to his studies, and the spring following took his degree of master of arts. The same year he was in extreme danger of his life by a pestilential distemper, which raged in the garrison at Oxford; but as soon as he recovered, he entered once more into his majesty’s service, and carried a musquet in a regiment formed out of the Oxford scholars. Nor did he in the mean time neglect his studies, “but frequently (as the author of the preface to Dr. Allestry’s Sermons expresses it) held the musquet in one hand and the book in the other, unitinEf the watchfulness of a soldier with the lucubrations of a student.” In this service he continued till the end of the war; then went into holy orders, and was chosen censor of his college. He had a considerable share in that test of loyalty, which the university of Oxford gave in their decree and judgment against the Solemn League and Covenant. In 1648, the parliament sent visitors to Oxford, to demand the submission of that body to their authority: those who refused to comply were immediately proscribed; which was done by writing their names on a paper, and affixing it on the door of St. Mary’s church, signifying that such persons were, by the authority of the visitors, banished the university, and required to depart the precincts within three days, upon pain of bein,; taken for spies of war, and proceeded against as such. Mr. Allestry, amongst many others, was accordingly expelled the university. He now retired into Shropshire, and was entertained as chaplain to the honourable Francis Newport, esq. and upon the death of Richard lord Newport, that gentleman’s father, in France, whither he had Hed to avoid the violence of the prevailing party, was sent over to France to take care of his effects. Having dispatched this affair with success, he returned to his employment, in which he continued till the defeat of king Charles II, at Worcester. At this time the royalists wanting an intelligent and faithful person to send over to his majesty, Mr. Allestry was solicited to undertake the journey, which he accordingly did; and having attended the king at Roan, and received his dispatches, returned to England. In 1659, he went over again to his majesty in Flanders; and upon his return was seized at Dover by a party of soldiers, but he had the address to secure his letters, by conveying them to a faithful hand. The soldiers guarded him to London, and after being examined by a committee of the council of safety, he was sent prisoner to Larnbeth-house, where he contracted a dangerous sickness. About six or eight weeks after, he was set at liberty; and this enlargement was perhaps owing to the prospect of an approaching revolution; for some of the heads of the republican party, seeing every thing tend towards his majesty’s restoration, were willingby kindnesses to recommend themselves to the royal party.

, a celebrated comedian in the reigns of queen Elizabeth and king James, but more justly celebrated as the founder of the college at Dulwich, in Surrey, was born in London, in the parish of St. Botolph without Bishopsgate, Sept. 1, 1566, as appears from a memorandum of his own writing. Dr. Fuller says, that he was bred a stage-player; and that his father would have given him a liberal education, but that he was ntft turned for a serious course of life. He was, however, a youth of good capacity, of a cheerful temper, and tenacious memory, and in his person of a stately port and aspect; all which advantages are qualifications for, and sometimes incitements to, the theatrical profession. By several authorities we find he must have been on tue stage some time before 1592; for at this time he was in high favour with the town, and greatly applauded by the best judges, particularly by Ben Jonson. Haywood, in his prologue to Mariow’s -Jew of Malta, calls him Proteus for shapes, and Roscius for a tongue. He usually played the capital parts, and was one of the original actors in Sluikspeare’s plays; in some of Ben Jonson’s he was also a principal performer: but what characters he personated in either of these poets, is difficult now to determine. This is owing to the inaccuracy of their editors, who did not print the names of the players opposite to the characters they performed, as the modern custom is, but gave one general list of actors to the whole set of plays, as in the old folio edition of Shakspeare; or divide one from the other, setting the dramatis personae before the plays, and the catalogue of performers after them, as in Jonson’s.

It may appear surprising, how one of Mr. Alleyn’s profession should be enabled to erect such an edifice as Dulwich college, and liberally endow it for the maintenance of so many persous. But it must be observed that he had some paternal fortune, which, though small, probably laid the foundation of his future affluence; and it is to be presumed that the profits he received from acting, to one of his provident and managing disposition, and one who by his excellence in playing drew after him such crowds of spectators, must have considerably improved his fortune: besides, he was not only an actor, but master of a playhouse, built at his own expence, by which he is said to have amassed considerable wealth. This was the Fortune play-house, near Whitecross street, by Moorfields. There is a tradition in the neighbourhood of this place, that in digging the foundation of this house, there was found a considerable treasure; so that it is probable the whole or greatest part of it might fall to Mr. Alleyn. He was also keeper of the king’s wild beasts, or master of the royal bear-garden, which was frequented by vast crowds of spectators: and the profits arising from these sports are said to have amounted to 500l. per annum. He was thrice married; and the portions of his two first wives, they leaving him no issue to inherit, probably contributed to this benefaction. Such donations have been frequently thought to proceed more from vanity and ostentation than real charity; but this of Mr. Alleyn has been ascribed to a very singular cause. Mr. Aubrey mentions a tradition, that Mr. Alleyn, playing a daemon with six others, in one of Shakspeare’s plays, was, in the midst of the play, surprised by an apparition of the devil, which so worked on his fancy, that he made a vow, which he performed by building Dulwich college. Whatever may be in this story, he began the foundation of this college, under the direction of Inigo Jones, in 1614; and the buildings, gardens, &c. were finished in 1617, in which he is said to have expended about 10,Ooo/. After the college was built, he met with some difficulty in obtaining a charter for settling his lands in mortmain; for he proposed to endow it with 800l. per annum, for the maintenance of one master, one warden, and four fellows, three whereof were to be clergymen, and the fourth a skilful organist; also six poor men, and as many women, besides twelve poor boys, to be educated till the age of fourteen or sixteen, and then put out to some trade or calling. The obstruction he met with arose from the lord chancellor Bacon, who wished king James to settle part of those lands for the support of two academical lectures; and he wrote a letter to the marquis of Buckingham, dated Aug. Is, 1618, entreating him to use his interest with his majesty for that purpose . Mr. Alleyn’s solicitation was, however, at last complied with, and he obtained the royal licence, giving him full power to lay his foundation, by his majesty’s letters patent, bearing date the 2 1st of June, 1619; by virtue whereof he did, in the chapel of the said new hospital at Dulwich, called “The College of God’s Gift,” on the 13th of September following, publicly read, and published, a quadripartite writing in parchment, whereby he created and established the said college; he then subscribed it with his name, and fixed his seal to several parts thereof, in presence of several honourable persons, and ordered copies of the writings to four different parishes. Those honourable persons were Francis lord Verulam lord chancellor; Thomas earl of Arundel, earl marshal of England; sir Edward Cecil, second son to the earl of Exeter; sir John Howard, high sheriff of Sussex and Surrey; sir Edward Bowyer, of Camberwell; sir Thomas Grymes of Peckham; sir John Bodley, of Stretham; sir John Tonstal, of L'arshalton; and divers other persons of great worth and respect. The parishes in which the said writings were deposited, were St. Botolph’s without Bishopsgate, St. Giles’s without Cripplegate, St. Saviour’s in Southwark, and the parish of Camberwell in Surrey. The contents or heads of the said statutes, or quadripartite writings, containing the laws and rules of this foundation, are as follow: 1. A recital of king James’s letters patent. 2. Recital of the founder’s deed quadripartite. 3. Ordination of the master, warden, &c. 4. Ordination of the assistant members, &c. 5. The master and warden to be unmarried, and always to be of the name of Alleyn or Allen. 6. The master and warden to be twenty-one years of age at least. 7. Of what degree the fellows to be. 8. Of what degree the poor brothers and sisters to be. 9. Of what condition the poor scholars are to be. 10. Of what parishes the assistants are to be. 11. From what parishes the poor are to be chosen, and the members of this college. 12. The form of their election. 13. The warden to supply when the master’s place is void. 14. The election of the warden. 15. The warden to be bound by recognizance. 16. The warden to provide a dinner for the college upon his election. 17. The form of admitting the fellows. 18. The manner of electing the scholars. 19. Election of the poor of Camberwell. 20. The master and warden’s oath. 21. The fellow’s oath. 22. The poor brother’s and sister’s oath. 23. The assistant’s oath. 24. The pronunciation of admission. 25. The master’s office. 26. The warden’s office. 27. The fellow’s office. 23. The poor brother’s and sister’s office. 29. Thac of the matron of the poor scholars. 30. The porter’s office. 31. The office of the thirty members. 32. Of residence. 33. Orders of the poor and their goods. 34. Of obedience. 35. Orders for the chapel and burial. 36. Orders for the school and scholars, and putting them forth apprentices. 37. Order of diet. 38. The scholars’ surplices and coats. 39. Time for viewing expences. 40. Public audit and private sitting days. 41. Audit and sitting chamber. 42. Of lodgings. 43. Orders for the lands and woods. 44. Allowance to the master and warden of diet for one man a piece, with the number and wages of the college servants. 45. Disposition and division of the revenues. 46. Disposition of the rent of the Blue-house. 47. The poor to be admitted out of other places, in case of deficiency in the parishes prescribed. 48. The disposition of forfeitures. 49. The statutes to be read over four several times in the year. 50. The dispositions of certain tenements in St. Saviour’s parish, Southwark.

, a celebrated Piedmontese physician, and professor of -Botany, in the university of Turin, was born in 1725, and died in 1804. On account of his high reputation for learning, he was elected a member of many scientific societies, such as the institute of Bologna, and the royal societies of London, Montpellier, Gottingen, Madrid, &c. Of his numerous medical and botanical publications, the following are the principal: 1, “Pedemontii stirpium rariorum specimen primum,” Turin, 1755, 4to, containing the description and figures of thirty plants, either new or little known, which grow on the mountains of Piedmont. 2. “OryctographiiE Pedemontan;e specimen,” Paris, 1757, 8vo; an account of the fossils in Piedmont. 3. “Tractatio de miliarium origine, progressu, natura, et curatione,” Turin, 1758, 8vo; a medical treatise much esteemed. 4. “Stirpium præcipuarum littoris et agri Nicaeensis enumeratio methodica, cum elencho aliquot animalium ejusdem maris,” Paris, 1757, 8vo. This work is often quoted by naturalists under the abridged title of “Enumeratio stirpium Nicaeensis.” The principal part of it was collected by John Giudice, a botanist at Nice, and a friend of Allioni, to whom he bequeathed his papers. 5. “Synopsis methodica horti Taurinensis,” Turin, 1762, 4to, a methodical catalogue of the plants in the botanic garden of Turin, divided into thirteen classes. 6. “Flora Pedemontana, sive enumeratio methodica stirpium indigenarum Pedemontii,” Turin, 1785, 3 vols. fol. This splendid work, which is illustrated with ninety-two plates, was the fruit of long labour and study, and added greatly to the author’s reputation. In it he describes 2813 plants, which he found growing wild in the duchy of Piedmont, of which those in the third volume are new. It has been, however, said, that those already known acquire a kind of novelty by his descriptions, which are drawn from nature, and not from books; and the work derives an additional value, especially on the spot, from the very cautious manner in which he speaks of the medical properties of any of these plants. The arrangement resembles that of Haller in his history of the Swiss plants. Haller had a great regard for Allioni, and corresponded with him till his death. 7. “Auctuarium ad Flora Pedemontana,” Turin, 1789, containing some additions and corrections to the former. Besides these works, he wrote several papers in the memoirs of the academy of Turin; and from all his writings seems to deserve an honourable place among those who have contributed to the advancement of the botanical and medical sciences. Loeffling consecrated a genus to his memory, under the name of Allionia, which Linnæus has adopted. It is a genus of the monogynia order belonging to the tetrandria class of plants.

In 1685, when the above edict was revoked, and the Protestant religion banished from France, Mr. Allix came into England, either in that or the following year, and met with a most favourable reception, on account of his extensive learning, and especially his knowledge in ecclesiastical history. Soon after his arrival, his first object was to acquire the English language, which he attained in a high degree of perfection. In 1690, he was complimented with the degree of D. D. by the university of Cambridge, and in the same year he had the treasurership of the church of Salisbury given to him; and some foreign memoirs say he was made canon of Windsor, but this does not appear to have been the case. It was proposed that he should have published here an authentic “History of the Councils,” for which laborious and important work he was well qualified; but by some accidents intervening, and for want of encouragement, this undertaking miscarried. He wrote and published, however, several treatises relating to ecclesiastical history, which displayed great learning, were very interesting, and very useful to the Protestant cause, which was then in considerable danger. These pieces, of which we shall give a list, were remarkably well received, and the author became in as great credit here, as ever he had been in France, for his ingenious and solid defences of the reformed religion, from reason and authority, and from the practice of early ages, as well as the precepts of the gospel. In 1699 he wrote a very learned treatise in defence of the Trinity, which has always been considered as an able and argumentative performance, and is mentioned with great respect by the late bishop Horsley, in his letters to Dr. Priestley. He wrote several other learned and ingenious treatises on curious and important subjects, and was, for upwards of thirty years, a strenuous and affectionate defender of the established church. Some of these pieces exposed him, however, to very severe censures; and among the rest, Bayle, who had formerly complimented him very highly, attacked him with contemptuous language; but the opinion of Bayle, where orthodoxy is concerned, is not deserving of much respect. One of his antagonists, Mr. Stephen Nye, rector of Hormead, accuses him of Tritheism; and in Moreri’s Dictionary, printed in 1740, it is insinuated that he was inclined to Socinianism, a charge the most absurd and incredible that could be brought. Dr. Allix, however, continued steady and fixed in his principles, and was so well known to be a zealous defender of the doctrine of the church of England on that subject, that Whiston thought proper to consult him, when he first proposed writing in support of his own opinions, as appears by what he says on this subject in his “Historical Preface,” which, however, Dr. Allix found it necessary to correct in a short relation of his interview with Whiston.

Dr. Allix enjoyed a very uncommon share of health and spirits, as appears by his latest writings, in which there is not only all the erudition, but all the quickness and vivacity that appeared in his earliest pieces. Those who knew him, derived the same pleasure from his conversation, that the learned found in his productions; for, with an extensive share of learning, he had a remarkable liveliness of temper, and expressed himself on the driest subjects with much sprightliness, and in a manner out of the common road. He was consulted by the greatest men of his age, on the deepest and most intricate parts of learning, and received the praise of the ablest critics of his time. It was not any single branch of literature, or a few related to each other, that could occupy his thoughts, but the whole circle of sciences which fall under the cognizance of a general scholar and sound divine. His sermons shew him to have been an admirable orator, and at the same time a profound scholar, and the several ancient authors whose writings he published, testify his skill in criticism, and his perfect acquaintance with antiquity. His treatises on ecclesiastical history discover a vast fund of reading, and an exact comprehension of his subject, with a warm zeal for the Protestant religion. He laboured also to serve it by the tracts he rescued froro oblivion, to shew, which they did effectually, that the charge of novelty on which the Papists insisted so loudly, was not only unreasonable, but entirely groundless. His thorough acquaintance with Hebrew and Rabbinical learning was displayed in his laborious performance in defence of the doctrine of the Trinity, in which his sincerity is as conspicuous as his learning. If in the prosecution of those deep and recondite studies, he sometimes mistook his way, and erred in his computations, as when he fixed the year of Christ’s second coming at 1720, it was no more than had befallen the greatest men who have travelled this road before him, particularly Joseph Mede and bishop Lloyd; neither have these instances convinced other eminent men that the roads are impassable, since the very learned dean Prideaux, and the sagacious sir Isaac Newton, have devoted many of their hours to the like inquiries. Dr. Allix continued his application to the last, and died at London, Feb. 21, 1717, in the seventy-­sixth year of his age, leaving behind him the reputation of a man, equally assiduous in the right discharge of all the offices of public and private life, and every way as amiable for his virtues and social qualities, as venerable from his uprightness and integrity, and celebrated for his various and profound learning.

His works are, 1. “Response a la Dissertation sur Bertram et Jean Scot, ou Erigene,” printed at the end of Claude’s answer to M. Arnaud’s Perpetuity of the Faith, 1670. 2. “Ratramne, ou Bernard, Pretre, du Corps et du Sang du Seigneur,” Lat. et Fr. Rouen, 1672, 12mo. 3. “Dissertatio de Trisagii origine,” Rothomagi, 1674, 8vo. Maimbourg erroneously ascribes this to another person. 4. “Dissertatio de Sanguine D. N. J. Christi,” date uncertain. 5. “Dissertatio de Tertulliani vita, et scriptis.” 6. “Dissertatio de Conciliorum quorumvis definitionibus ad examen revocandis,” 8vo, circa 1680. 7. “Anastasii, Sinaitæ contemplationum in Hexahemeron liber xii hactenus desideratus,” Gr. et Lat. cum notis, &c. Lond. 1682, 4to. 8. “Douze Sermons sur divers textes,” Rotterdam, 1685, 12mo. 9. “Les Maximes du vrai Chretien,” which was printed at Amsterdam, 1687, and joined with “Bonnes et saintes pensées pour touts les jours du mois.” 10. “L'Adieu de St. Paul aux Ephesiens, Sermon,” Amst. 1688, 12mo. This was his intended farewell sermon noticed above. 11. “Reflections upon the books of the Holy Scripture, to establish the truth of the Christian Religion,” Loud. 1688, 2 vols. This work was dedicated to king James II. from whom the author had received some obligations. The dedication, which is wanting in some editions, may be seen in the Biographia Britannica. Bishop Watson, in his late “Tracts,” republished these Reflections, which he says have always been held in great repute for the plainness and erudition with which they are written. 12. “Determinatio F. Joannis Parisiensis cle modo existendi Corpus Christi in sacramento Allans, &c. cui est prefixa prefatio historica de dogmate Transubstantiationis,” Lond. 1686, 8vo. 15. “Some remarks upon the ecclesiastical history of the ancient Churches of Piedmont,” Lond. 1690, 4to. This is a very elaborate work, in which the author traces the history of opinions with great acuteness and fidelity. 14. “Remarks upon the ecclesiastical history of the ancient Churches of the Albigenses,” Lond. 1692, 4to; a performance of a similar kind with the former, and throwing much light on the opinions of the reformed churches. 15. “The judgment of the ancient Jewish Church, against the Unitarians, in the controversy upon the Holy Trinity, and the divinity of our blessed Saviour,” Lond. 1689, 8vo. This was occasioned by the controversy between bishop Bull and the Unitarians, and is the able defence of the doctrine of the Trinity to which we have already alluded. 16. “De Messiæ duplici adventu dissertationes duæ adversus Judeos,” Lond. 1701, 12mo. It was in this treatise our author fell into the erroneous computation respecting Christ’s second coming. 17. “Preface and arguments on the Psalms.” 18. “Nectarii Patriarchte Hierosolymitani confutatio Imperil Papæ in Ecclesiam,” Lond. 1702, 8vo; a translation from the original in Greek. 19. “Aug. Hermanni Franke manuductio ad lectionem Scrip. Sac.” Lond. 1706, 8vo; our author wrote only a short prefatory recommendation to this book. 20. “Dissertatio de J. C. Domini nostri anno et mense natali,” Lond. 1707 and 1710. 21. “The Prophecies which Mr. Whiston applies to the times immediately following the appearance of the Messiah, considered and examined,” Lond. 1707, 8vo. 22. “Preparations a la Cene,” 8vo, often printed at Geneva. 23. “Remarks upon some places of Mr. Whiston’s books, either printed or in manuscript,” Lond. 1711, 8vo. This pamphlet is uncommonly scarce. Besides these, the late Dr. Flexman assured Dr. Kippis that the following pieces may be attributed to our author, “Theses Theologicæ de ultimo judicio,” Salmur, 1660, 4to, probably academical exercises; “A discourse concerning Penance,” Lond. 1688, 8vo; “An historical discourse concerning the necessity of the Ministers’ intention in administering the Sacrament,” 1688, 8vo; “An Examination of the scruples of those who refuse to take the Oaths,” 1689, 4to; “Animadversions on Mr. Hill’s Vindication of the primitive Fathers, against the right rev. Gilbert, bishop of Sarum,” 1695, 4to.

, called also Bronzing, was the son and disciple of the preceding, and born in Florence in 1577. For some time he followed the manner of Alexander, but, afterwards studying design from the works of Santi di Titi, md colouring from the lively and elegant tints of Cigoli, he formed to himself a manner entirely different. He executed several large designs for altars, yet had a particular excellence in painting small pictures, in which he introduced a number of minute figures, so exquisite for correctness of drawing, so round and relieved by the colouring, and touched with so much delicacy, that it seemed surprising how either the hand or the eye could execute them. His portraits were also in high esteem. His best pictures were those of Judith, St. Francis, and St. Julian. The last mentioned, long one of the chief ornaments of the Pitti palace, is now in the imperial collection at Paris, and shews him to have been one of the finest colourists of the Florentine school. He died at the age of forty-two, in consequence of a wound in his foot. Amputation was recommended, but he refused his consent, and continued deliberately using his pencil to the last moment of his life.

, caliph of Bagdat, a philosopher and astronomer in the beginning of the ninth century, ascended the throne in the year 814. He was the son of Harun-AlRashid, and the grandson of Almanzor. His name is otherwise written Mamon, Almaon, Almamun, Alamoun, or Al-Maimon. Having been educated with great care, and with a love for the liberal sciences, he applied himself to cultivate and encourage them in his own country. For this purpose he requested the Greek emperors to supply him with such books on philosophy as they had among them; and he collected skilful interpreters to translate them into the Arabic language. He also encouraged his subjects to study them; frequenting the meetings of the learned, and assisting in their exercises and deliberations. He caused Ptolemy’s Almagest to be translated in the year 827; and in his reign, and doubtless by his encouragement, an astronomer of Bagdat, named Habash, composed three sets of astronomical tables. Almamon himself, however, made many astronomical observations, concerning the obliquity of the ecliptic, and caused skilful observers to procure proper instruments to be made, and to exercise themselves in such observations. Under his auspices also a degree of the meridian was measured; and he revived the sciences in the East so successfully that many learned men were found, not only in his own time, but after him, in a country where the study of the sciences had long been forgotten. This learned king died near Tarsus in Cilicia, by having eaten too freely of dates, on his return from a military expedition, in the year 833, in the 48th or 49th year of his age.

, was abbot of the monastery of St. Austin in Canterbury, at the time that Alphage, the archbishop, was barbarously murdered by the Danes, in 1011, when the city was betrayed to them. Almarus, however, was suffered by those plunderers to go at liberty; and in the year 1022, was made bishop of Sherborne in Dorsetshire, which bishopric was afterwards translated to Salisbury. Godwin mentions him as a bishop, but adds that he knows nothing of him but his name. Almarus was not inclined either to leave his abbey, or to become a bishop; but was at last prevailed on to take upon him that dignity, which he discharged with great constancy and vigour, until he had the misfortune to lose his sight. On this he resigned his bishopric with more alacrity than he had accepted it, returning back to his abbey, where he lived in a cell in the infirmary, in great innocence and devotion to his last hour. When he was near his death, he directed that he should be buried not as a bishop, but as a monk, which was complied with. He was interred in the church of the monastery, before the altar of St. John, and his memory held in great veneration. The chronicles relate some superstitious stories of him, to which little credit will now be given.

From hence he sailed with his fleet for Melinda, but by tempestuous weather was driven three leagues beyond; from thence they proceeded to the island of Anchidive, where he built a fort, and sent some of his ships out to cruize. Here he received deputies from the king of Onor, to treat of peace, and also the submission of a piratical chief, of the name of Timoia; but a circumstance soon happened to shew the former was not sincere, and the viceroy saited to Onor, and burned some ships i:i the harbour. A day or two after, he sent his son to burn the other ships, when a smart action ensued, and the Portugueze were obliged to retreat. Almeida sailed next day to Cananor, where he found it necessary to build a strong fort to protect his countrymen against the Arabians, who, jealous of the Portugueze, did them every injury in their power. While Almeida remained here, he had the happiness to receive an embassy from the king of Narsinga, offering friendship, and his daughter as a wife for John the son of Emanuel. He had also a visit from the king of Cananor, from whom he obtained liberty to build his fort. From this place he dispatched his son on an expedition to Caulan.

On the arrival of Cugna with a reinforcement from Portugal, and on receiving intelligence of several Arabian ships richly laden being in the port of Panama (about 50 miles off) escorted by a fleet of ships of war of Calicut, he resolved to attack them in the harbour. He sailed for that purpose with 12 ships of war. On his passage he was informed that the ships were not yet afloat, but lay in the docks, under cover of a rampart, and a strong garrison of 4000 men. Almeida had only 700, and with these he resolved to attack the enemy. He attempted to land and burn the ships; and after a violent conflict succeeded. This was a strong proof of the superiority of the Portugueze at this time in war, for the enemy fought with desperate, courage, there being many among them who had taken an oath to conquer or die. These devotees had all their heads shaven, and were destroyed to a man. Almeida, having made good his landing, advanced to the city, and set it on fire, being fearful of the consequences of permitting his men to plunder it. The men murmured at being deprived of such a rich booty, but this the viceroy disregarded; and to keep them employed, dispatched his son with a squadron to cruize against the Arabians, who in an engagement with the enemy’s fleet lost his life. Almeida, who had often shewn that he possessed great fortitude, now gave a striking proof of it; and to those who lamented the death of young Almeida with too much sorrow, he said, “That he had never wished a long, but a glorious life for his son; and for his part, he thanked God for honouring him with so glorious a death.”

, a Portugueze priest, who had the courage in Portugal to study and teach philosophy, xipon more rational and experimental principles than had ever been known in that country, was born in 1722. His most celebrated work, written in Portuguese, and entitled “Itecreaceo Filosofica,” 5 vols. 8vo, 1751, occasioned a revolution in the philosophical studies of the Portugueze, and would probably have involved the author in much danger, had not the Jesuits been soon after banished from that kingdom. He was nevertheless a zealous advocate for the pretensions of the court of Rome, at the time of the famous rupture between Joseph II. and that court; and this rendered him so obnoxious to the marquis de Pombal, that he was obliged to seek an asylum in France, during the ministry of that nobleman. On his return to Portugal, the royal academy of sciences of Lisbon was eager to admit him a member; but it was soon evident that Almeida had not kept pace with the progress which the nation had made in twenty-five years, and he was suffered to eclipse himself, although without losing any of the respect due to his former services in promoting liberal science. He published, after his return to Lisbon, a moral romance, called “The Happy Independant,” which had little success; and it was said that a better title would have been “The Happy Impertinent.” He died in 1805, leaving behind him several manuscripts, for the publication of which he had obtained the permission of the Censor. His works altogether are said to amount to forty volumes, besides five of translations; but we have not been able to obtain a list of their titles or subjects. At the time of his death he was a member of the Royal Academy of Lisbon, and of the Royal Society of London.

, an eminent Dutch physician, but more eminent as a general scholar and editor, was born July 24, 1657, at Midrecht, or Mydregt, near Utrerht, where his father was a Protestant clergyman. His grandfather was Cornelius Almeloveen, a senator of Utrecht, who died in 1658. His mother was Mary Janson, daughter of the celebrated Amsterdam printer, so well known for his many fine editions, and for the atlas which he published in six folio volumes. As the printer had no male issue, the name of Janson was added to Almeloveen, probably by our author’s father. He studied first at Utrecht, and then at Goude or Tergou, where James Tollius was at the head of the schools of that place, and when Tollius removed to Noortwick, near Leyden, Almeloveen followed him, and it appears by his writings that he always acknowledged him as his master. In 1676, he returned to Utrecht, and studied the belles lettres in that city under the celebrated Graevius, and as his father intended him for the church, he also studied Hebrew under Leusden, and philosophy under De Uries; but, taking disgust at the violence and illiberality with which theological disputes were sometimes conducted, he gave a preference to medicine, and attended the instructions of Vallan and Munniks. In 16 So, he maintained a thesis on sleep, and the following year, one on the asthma, and was then admitted to his doctor’s degree in that faculty. In 1687, he went to reside at Goude, where he? married. In 1697, he was invited to Harderwic to become professor of Greek and history; and in 1702, he was appointed professor of medicine, and remained in both offices until his death in 1712. He bequeathed to the public library at Utrecht his curious collection of the editions of Quintilian, which he had made at a great expence, and of which there is a catalogue in Masson’s critical history of the Republic of Letters, vol. V. Bibliography was his favourite study, in which he was ably assisted by his grandfather Jansson; and to this we probably owe the number of editions, with commentaries, which he published. Among these are: 1. “Hippocratis Aphorismi, Gr. Lat.” Amsterdam, 1685, 12mo. 2. “Aurelii Celsi de medicina,” with his own additions and those of Constantine and Casaubon, Amsterdam, 1687, 12mo; 1713, 8vo; Padua, 1722, 8vo; with “Serini Sammonici de medicina prsecepta salubfrrrima.” 3. “Apicii Caelii de obsoniis et condimentis, sive de arte coquinaria libri X.” with the notes of Martin Lister, Hamelbergius, Vander Linden, &c. Amsterdam, 1709, 8vo. 4. “Aurelianus de Morbis acutis et chronicis,” Amsterdam, 1709, 4to. 5. “Bibliotheca promissa et latens,” or an account of books promised, and never published, with the epistles of Velschius on such medical writings as have not been edited, Goude, 1688, 1698, 8vo; 1692, 12mo; Nuremberg, 1699, 8vo; with the additions of Martin Melsuhrerus. 6. “The anatomy of the Muscle,” in Flemish, with observations anatomical, medical, and chirurgical, Amst. 1684, 8vo. 7. “Onomasticon rerum inventarum et Inventa nov-antiqua, id est, brevis enarratio ortus et progressus artis medicæ,” ibid. 1684, 8vo; a history of the discoveries in medicine, with a marked preference to the merit of the ancients. 8. “Opuscula sive antiquitatum e sacris profanarum specimen conjectans veterum poetarum fraguienta et plagiarorum syllabus,” ibid. 1686, 8vo. 9. A new edition of Decker’s work, “De scriptis adespotis, pseudepigraphis, et supposititiis, conjecture,” ibid. 1686, 12mo. 10. An edition of “C. Rutilius Numantianus,” ibid. 1687, 12mo. 11. “Amdenitates theologico-philologicæ,” ibid. 1694, 8vo. Besides some critical pieces, this volume contains several letters of Bochart, Erasmus, Baudius, Scriverius, and others, and an attempt to prove that Erasmus was a native of Goude, and not of Rotterdam; because, according to the laws, the place where children are born accidentally, is not accounted their country. 12. “Dissertationes quatuor de mensis, lecticis, et poculis veterum,” Hanvick, 1701, 4to. These are theses composed by Alstorf, and maintained during the presidency of Almeloveen. 13. “Fasti Consulares,” Amst. 1705, 8vo. 14. A beautiful, but not very correct edition of “Strabo,” ibid. 2 vols. fol. 15. “De vitis Stephanoruni,” 1682, 8vo. Besides some other contributions of notes, &.c. to editions of the classics, he assisted Drakestein in the publication of the sixth volume of the “Hortus Malabaricus.”

, a bookseller, author, and editor, was born at Liverpool, about the year 1738, and was educated at Warrington. About 1748 he was put apprentice to a bookseller at Liverpool, but in 1756 he went to sea, as a common seaman. In 1758 or 1759, he returned to England, and came to London, where, it is said, he soon became known to several wits of the day, as Dr. Goldsmith, Churchill, Lloyd, and Wilkes. His turn, however, was for political writing; and in 1759 he published “The conduct of a late noble commander (lord George Sackville) examined.” This was followed by a compilation, in sixpenny numbers, of “A Military Dictionary,” or an account of the most remarkable battles and sieges from the reign of Charlemagne to the year 1760. Soon after, he wrote various political letters in the Gazetteer newspaper, which he collected and published under the title of “A collection of interesting letters from the public papers.” About the same time he published “A Review of his Majesty (George II.'s) reign” and when Mr. Pitt resigned in 1761, he wrote “A Review of his Administration.” His other publications were, “A Letter to the right hon. George Grenville;” “An history of the Parliament of Great Britain, from the death of queen Anne to the death of George II.;” “An impartial history of the late War from 1749 to 1763;” “A Review of lord Bute’s administration.” When Wilkes’s infamous essay on woman was brought to light, Mr. Almon wrote an answer to Kidgell, the informer’s, narrative. In 1763, he commenced bookseller in Piccadilly, and published “A Letter concerning libels, warrants, and seizure of papers, &c.;” “A history of the Minority during the years 1762 1765;” “The Political Register,” a periodical work, and the general receptacle of all the scurrility of the writers in opposition to government; “The New Foundling Hospital for Wit,” a collection of fugitive pieces, in prose and verse, mostly of the party kind: “An Asylum,” a publication of a similar sort; “Collection of all the Treaties of Peace, Alliance, and Commerce, between Great Britain and other powers, from the revolution in 1688 to the present time;” “The Parliamentary Register,” an account of the debates in parliament; “The Remembrancer,” another monthly collection of papers in favour of the American cause; “A collection of the Protests of the House of Lords;” “Letter to the earl of Bute,” 1772; “Free Parliaments, or a vindication of the parliamentary constitution of England, in answer to certain visionary plans of modern reformers;” “A parallel between the siege of Berwick and the siege of Aquilea,” in ridicule of Home’s tragedy, the Siege of Aquilea; “A Letter to the right hon. Charles Jenkinson,” 1782. These were mostly, if not all, anonymous, and they are enumerated here for the information of those who form collections of political pamphlets.

The works which he more publicly avowed are, “Anecdotes of the Life of the Earl of Chatham,” 2 vols. 4to, and 3 vols. 8vo; “Biographical, Literary, and Political Anecdotes of several of the most eminent persons of the present age, never before printed,” 3 vols. 8vo, 1797. Both contain many curious particulars of the political characters and contests of his day, picked up from the various members of parliament who frequented his shop, and confided in him. His last publication was a collection of Mr. Wilkes’s pamphlets and letters, with a life, in which he praises that gentleman in the most extravagant manner, while he relates facts concerning his character that elsewhere might have been accounted defamation. In all his political career he was attached to the party which supported Wilkes, and opposed the measures of government in the early part of the present reign. At that time it was not surprising that many of his pamphlets were popular, or that he should be able to boast of an intimacy with men of rank in the political world. He had the hardihood to publish writings which booksellers of established reputation would have rejected, and he ran little risk, as the expence of printing was defrayed by his employers, while he had the profits of the sale. Even of those which, upon his own authority, we have given as his productions, it is highly probable he was rather the editor than the author. In those wbich more recently appeared under his name, there is very little of the ability, either argumentative or narrative, which could give consequence to a political effusion. About the year 1782, he retired from business as a bookseller; but in a tew years he married the widow of Mr. Parker, printer of a newspaper called the General Advertiser, of which he then was proprietor and editor: the speculation however injured his fortune, and he became a prisoner in the king’s bench fora libel, and was afterwards an outlaw. Extricated at length from his difficulties, he retired again into Hertfordshire, where he died December 12, 1806, leaving his widow in great distress.

was born in Russia, of the imperial line. When that country was disturbed by intestine quarrels, in the latter end of the 16th century, and the royal house particularly was severely persecuted by impostors, this gentleman and his two brothers were sent over to England, and recommended to the care of Mr. Joseph Bidell, a Kussia merchant. Mr. Bidell, when they were of age fit for the university, sent them all three to Oxford, where the small-pox unhappily prevailing, two of them died of it. We know not whether this surviving brother took any degree, but it is very probable he did, since he entered into holy orders; and, in the year 1618, had the rectory of Wot) ley in Huntingdonshire, a living of no very considerable value, being rated at under 10l. in the king’s books. Here he did his duty with great cheerfulness and alacrity; and notwithstanding he was twice invited back to his native country, by some who would have ventured their utmost to have set him on the throne of his ancestors, he chose rather to remain with his flock, and to serve God in the humble station of a parish priest. Yet in 1643 he underwent the severest trials from the rage of the fanatic soldiery, who, not satisfied with depriving him of his living, insulted him in the most barbarous manner; for, having procured a file of musqueteers to pull him out of his pulpit, as he was preaching on a, Sunday, they turned his wife and young children out into the street, into which also they threw his goods. The poor man in this distress raised a tent under some trees in the church-yard, over against his house, where he and his family lived for a week. One day having gotten a few eggs, he picked up some rotten wood and dry sticks, and with these made a fire in the church porch, in order to boil them; but some of his adversaries, to show how far they could carry their rage against the church (for this poor man was so harmless, they could have none against him), came and kicked about his fire, threw down his skillet, and broke his eggs. After this, having still a little money, he made a small purchase in that neighbourhood, built a house, and lived there some years. He was encouraged to this by a presbyterian minister who came in his room, and honestly paid him a fifth part of the annual income of the living, which was the allowance made by parliament to ejected ministers, treated him with great humanity, and did him all the services in his power. It is a great misfortune that this gentleman’s name is not preserved, his conduct in this respect being the more laudable, because it was not a little singular. Walker calls him Mr. B, and the living is not mentioned by Calamy. Afterwards, probably on the death or removal of this gentleman, Mr. Alphery left Huntingdonshire, and came and resided at Hammersmith, till the Restoration pu,thim in possession of his living again. He returned on this occasion to Huntingdonshire, where he did not stay long; for, being upwards of 80, and very infirm, he could not perform the duties of his function. Having therefore settled a curate, he retired to his eldest son’s house at Hammersmith, where shortly after he died, full of years and of honour. It must be owned that this article is very imperfect; but the singularity of a Russian prince’s being a country minister in England is a matter of too much curiosity to be wholly omitted.

, king of Leon and Castile, who has been surnamed The Wise, on account of his attachment to literature, is now more celebrated for having been an astronomer than a king. He was born in 1203, succeeded his father Ferdinand III. in 1252, and died in 1284, consequently at the age of 81. The affairs of the reign of Alphonsus were very extraordinary and unfortunate, but we shall here only consider him in that part of his character, on account of which he has a place in this work, namely, as an astronomer and a man of letters. He acquired a profound knowledge of astronomy, philosophy, and history, and composed books upon the motions of the heavens, and on the history of Spain, which are highly commended. “What can be more surprising,” says Mariana, “than that a prince, educated in a camp, and handling arms from his childhood, should have such a knowledge of the stars, of philosophy, and the transactions of the world, as men of leisure can scarcely acquire in their retirements? There are extant some books of Alphonsus on the motions of the stars, and the history of Spain, written with great skill and incredible care.” In his astronomical pursuits he discovered that the tables of Ptolemy were full of errors, and was the first to undertake the task of correcting them. For this purpose, about the year 1240, and during the life of his father, he assembled at Toledo the most skilful astronomers of his time, Christians, Moors, or Jews, when a plan was formed for constructing new tables. This task was accomplished about 1252, the first year of his reign; the tables being drawn up chiefly by the skill and pains of Rabbi Isaac Hazan, a learned Jew, and the work called the Alphonsine Tables, in honour of the prince, who was at vast expences concerning them. He fixed the epoch of the tables to the 30th of May 1252, being the day of his accession to the throne. They were printed for the first time in 1483, at Venice, by Radtolt, who excelled in printing at that time; an edition extremely rare: there are others of 1492, 1521, 1545, &c.

, a celebrated physician and botanist, was born the 23d of November 1553, at; Marostica, in the republic of Venice. In his early years he was inclined to the profession of arms, and accordingly served in the Milanese; but being at length persuaded by his father, who was a physician, to apply himself to learning, he went to Padua, where in a little time he was chosen deputy to the rector, and syndic to the students, which offices he discharged with great prudence and address. This, however, did not hinder him from pursuing his study of physic, in which faculty he was created doctor in 1578. Nor did he remain long without practice, being soon after invited to Campo San Pietro, a little town in the territories of Padua. But such a situation was too confined for one of his extensive views; he was desirous of gaining a knowledge of exotic plants, and thought the best way to succeed in his inquiries, was, after Galen’s example, to visit the countries where they grow. He soon had an opportunity of gratifying his curiosity, as George Emo, or Hemi, being appointed consul for the republic of Venice in Egypt, chose him for his physician. They left Venice the 12th of September 1580; and, after a tedious and dangerous voyage, arrived at Grand Cairo the beginning of July the year following. Alpini continued three years in this country, where he omitted no opportunity of improving his knowledge in botany, travelling along the banks of the river Nile, and as far as Alexandria, and other parts of Egypt. Upon his return to Venice, in 1584, Andrea Doha, prince of Melfi, appointed him his physician; and he distinguished himself so much in this capacity, that he was esteemed the first physician of his age. The republic of Venice, displeased that a subject of theirs, of so much merit as Alpini, should continue at Genoa, when he might be of very great service and honour to their state, recalled him in 1593, to fill the professorship of botany at Padua, where he had a salary of 200 florins, afterwards raised to 750. He discharged this office with great reputation; but his health became very precarious, having been much injured by the voyages he had made. According to the registers of the university of Padua, he died the 5th of February 1617, in the 64th year of his age, and was buried the day after, without any funeral pomp, in the church of St. Anthony.

, Alvredus, or Aluredus, an ancient English historian, was born at Beverley in Yorkshire, and received his education at Cambridge. He returned afterwards to the place of his nativity, where he became a secular priest, one of the canons, and treasurer to the church of St. John, at Beverley. Tanner, in a note, informs us, that he travelled for improvement through France and Italy, and that at Rome he became domestic chaplain to cardinal Othoboni. According to Bale and Pits, he flourished under king Stephen, and continued his annals to the year 1136. Vossius is supposed to come nearer the truth, who tells us that he flourished in the reign of Henry I. and died in 1126, in which same year ended his annals. His history, however, agrees with none of these authors, and it seems probable from thence that he died in 1128 or 1129. He intended at first no more than an abridgment of the history of the ancient Britons; but a desire of pursuing the thread of his story led him to add the Saxon, and then the Norman history, and at length he brought it down to his own times. This epitome of our history from Brutus to Henry I. is esteemed a valuable performance; it is written in Latin, in a concise and elegant style, with great perspicuity, and a strict attention to dates and authorities: the author has been not improperly styled our English Florus, his plan and execution very much resembling that of the Roman historian. It is somewhat surprising that Leland has not given him a place amongst the British writers: the reason seems to have been that Leland, through a mistake, considers him only as the author of an abridgment of Geoffrey of Mou mouth’s history but most of the ancient writers having placed Geoffrey’s history later in point of time than that of Alredus, we have reason to conclude that Alredus composed his compendium before he ever saw the history of Geoffrey, We have also the authority of John Withamsted, an ancient writer of the fifteenth century, who, speaking of our author, says, that he wrote a chronicle of what happened from the settlement of Brutus to the time of the Normans, in which he also treated of the cities anciently founded in this kingdom, and mentioned the names by which London, Canterbury, and York were called in old times, when the Britons inhabited them; and this testimony agrees with the book, as we now have it. Some other pieces have been ascribed to Alredus; but this history, and that of St. John of Beverley, seem to have been all that he wrote. This last performance was never printed, but it is to be found in the Cotton library; though not set down in the catalogues, as being contained in a volume of tracts: it is entitled “Libertates ecclesias S. Johannis de Beverlik, cum privilegiis apostolicis et episcopahbus, quas magister Alueredus sacrista ejusdein ecclesiao de Anglico in Latinum transtulit: in hoc tractatulo dantur carta3 Saxonicsc R. R. Adelstani, Eadwardi Confessoris, et Willelmi, quas fecerunt eidem ccclesiae, sed imperito exscriptore mendose scriptas. The liberties of the church of St. John of Beverley, with the privileges granted by the apostolic see, or by bishops, translated out of Saxon into Latin, by master Alured, sacrist of the said church. In this treatise are contained the Saxon charters of the kings Adelstan, Edward the Confessor, and William the Conqueror, granted by them to this church; but, through want of skill in the transcriber, full of mistakes.” Mr. Hearne published an edition of Alredus’s annals of the British History, at Oxford, in 1716, with a preface of his own. This was taken, from a manuscript belonging to Thomas Rawlinson, esq. which Hearne says is the only one he ever saw.

, an English nonconformist of considerable note, was a native of Northamptonshire, and educated at St. John’s 'college, Cambridge, where he took the degree of master of arts. He afterwards received deacon’s orders from a bishop, and settled at Oakham in Rutlandshire, as assistant to the master of the free school. Being a man who possessed a lively pleasant wit, he fell into gay company, but was reclaimed by the admonition of the rev. Mr. King, a Puritan minister at or near Oakham, whose daughter he afterwards married; and becoming a convert to his principles, he received ordination in the presbyterian way, not being satisfied with that of the bishop, which extended only to deacon’s orders, and he was no longer willing to conform to the church by applying for those of a priest. He settled at Wilby, in the county of Northampton, whence he was ejected in 1662, for nonconformity. After which he ventured to preach sometimes at Oakham and at Wellingborough, where he lived; and was once committed to prison for six months, for praying with a sick person. The book he wrote against Dr. Sherlock, in a humorous style, made him first known to the world, and induced Mr. Cawton, an eminent nonconformist in Westminster, to recommend him to his congregation, as his successor. On receiving this invitation, he quitted Northampton, and came to London, where he preached constantly, and wrote several pieces, which were extremely well received by the public. His living in the neighbourhood of the court exposed him to many inconveniences, but he had the good fortune to escape imprisonment and fines, by the ignorance of the informers, who did not know his Christian name, which he studiously concealed; and even Anthony Wood, who calls him Benjamin, did not know it. His sufferings, however, ended with the reign of Charles II. at least in the beginning of the next reign, when his son, engaging in treasonable practices, was frequently pardoned by king James. After this, Mr. Alsop went frequently to court, and is generally supposed to have been the person who drew up the Preshy terians’ very fulsome address to that prince, for his general indulgence; a measure, however, which was condemned by the majority of nonconformists. After the revolution, Mr. Alsop gave very public testimonies of his affection for the government, but on all occasions spoke in the highest terms of respect and gratitude of king James, and retained a VI.Tv high sense of his clemency, in sparing his only son. The remainder of his life he spent in the exercise of the ministry, preaching once every Lord’s clay; besides which he had a Thursday lecture, and was one of the lecturers at Pinner’s hall. He lived to he a very old man, preserved his spirits to the last, and died May 8, 1703. On grave subjects he wrote with a becoming; seriousness but where wit might be shewn, he displayed it to considerable advantage. His funeral sermon was preached by Mr. Slater, and his memory will always be remembered by his own learned and elegant writings; the most remarkable of which are: 1. “Antisozzo,” in vindication of some great truths opposed by Dr. Sherlock, in whose treatise “Concerning the knowledge of Jesus Christ,” he thought he discovered a tendency towards Socinianism, and therefore entitled this work, which was published in 1675, “Antisozzo,” from the Italian name of Socinus. Sherlock and he had been pupils under the same tutor in the university. Dr. South allowed Alsop’s merit in this contest of wit, but Wood undervalues his talent. 2. “Melius Inquirendum,” in answer to Dr. Goodman’s Compassionate Inquiry, 1679, 8vo. 3. “The Mischief of Impositions;” in answer to Dr. Stillingfleet’s Mischief of Separation, 1680. 4. “Duty and interest united in praise and prayer for Kings.” 5. “Practical godliness the ornament of Religion,” 1696; and several sermons.

, a German protestant divine, and a voluminous writer, was some time professor of philosophy and divinity at Herboni in the county of Nassau; afterwards professor at Alba Julia in Transylvania, where he continued till his death, which happened in 1638, in his 50th year. Of his public character, we only know that he assisted at the synod of Dort. He applied himself chiefly to reduce the several branches of arts and sciences into systems. His “Encyclopaedia” has been much esteemed even by Roman catholics: it was printed at Herborn, 1610, 4to, ibid. 1630, 2 vols. fol. and at Lyons, 1649, and sold very well throughout all France. Vossius mentions the Encyclopaedia in general, but speaks of his treatise of Arithmetic more particularly, and allows the author to have been a man of great reading and universal learning. Jiaillet has the following quotation from a German author: “Alstedius has indeed many good things, but he is not sufficiently accurate; yet his Encyclopedia was received with general applause, when it first appeared, and may be of use to those who, being destitute of other helps, and not having the original authors, are desirous of acquiring some knowledge of the terms of each profession and science. Nor can we praise too much his patience and labour, his judgment, and his choice of good authors: and the abstracts he has made are not mere scraps and unconnected rhapsodies, since he digests the principles of arts and sciences into a regular and uniform order. Some parts are indeed better than others, some being insignificant and of little value, as his history and chronology. Jt must be allowed too, that he is often confused by endeavouring to be clear; that he is too full of divisions and subdivisions; and that he affects too constrained a method.” Lorenzo Brasso says, “that though there is more labour than genius in Alstedius’s works, yet they are esteemed; and his industry being admired, has gained him admittance into the temple of fame.” Alstedius, in his “Triumphax Bibliorum Sacrorum, seu Encyclopaedia Biblica,” Francfort, 1620, 1625, 1642, 12mo, endeavours to prove, that the materials and principles of all the arts and sciences maybe found in the scriptures, an opinion which has been since adopted by others. John Himmelius wrote a piece against his “Theologia Polemica,” which was one of the best performances of Alstedius. He also published in 1627, a treatise entitled “De Mille Annis,” wherein he asserts that the faithful shall reign with Jesus Christ upon earth a thousand years, after which will be the general resurrection and the last judgment. In this opinion, he would not have been singular, as it has more or less prevailed in all ages of the church, had he not ventured to predict that it would take place in the year 1694. Niceron has given a more copious list of his works, which are now little known or consulted.

, son of the preceding, was born in 1736, studied natural history, and was a pupil of Linnseus. He travelled over a considerable part of Europe, beginning with Spain, whence he sent some plants to Linnæus, who mentions him in his “Species plantaruni.” On landing at Cadiz, he saw in the house of the Swedish consul the flowers of a plant, a native of Peru. Struck with their beauty, he asked and obtained some seeds, which he immediately dispatched to Linnseus, with whom they succeeded, and became generally cultivated under the name of the lily of Alstroetner, or of the Incas. Linnæus perpeiuated the name by -Galling the genus Alstrpemeria. Alstroemer communicated with several societies for agriculture and natural history, but one paper only is mentioned of his in the memoirs of the academy of Stockholm, giving a description of the Simia Mammon, a species of, ape. He died in 1794.

, the descendant of an ancient patrician family of Fribourg in Swisserland, was born there in 1689, and died Feb. 17, 1771. In 1718 he was a captain in the Austrian service, but returned to his country, over which he long presided as avoyer, or magistrate, an appointment conferred upon him in 1737. He published a “Histoire de la Suisse” Fribourg, 1750 to 1753, 10 vols. 8vo, of which baron Zurlauben, a competent and impartial judge, says, that it would have deserved more praise, if besides the many faults of the language (French), he bad supported his facts by proofs; if he had omitted matters foreign to the history of Swisserland, which occupy a great deal of the work; if he had made his readers better acquainted with the Swiss government; and had described some of the cantons with more accuracy; if he had passed over in silence events not compatible with the plan of a general history, and if he had not espoused with too much warmth the cause of the catholic cantons.

, a German classical scholar critic, was born at Englesberg, in Silesia, in 1749, and died at Vienna March 29, 1804. He entered the society of the Jesuits, and was Greek teacher in the school of St. Anne, and the academy of Vienna, until his death. He has published two hundred and fifty volumes and dissertations, the titles of which are given in J. G. Meusel’s Allemagne Savante. One of his principal publications was “Novum Testamentum, ad codicem Vindobonensem Græce expressum: varietatem lectionis addidit Franc. C. Alter.” vol. I. 1786, vol. II. 1787, 8vo. The groundwork of this edition is the codex Lambecii in the imperial library at Vienna, with which the author has collated other manuscripts in that library, and the Coptic, Sclavonic, and Latin versions; the latter from the valuable fragments of the Vulgate, anterior to that of Jerome. It is thought that he would have succeeded better, if he had adopted as a basis the text of Wetstein or Griesbach, and if he had been more fortunate in arranging his materials. The merits of this edition are examined, with his usual acuteness, by Dr. Herbert Marsh in his supplement to Michaelis’s introduction to the New Testament. Of Alter’s other works, those in most esteem abroad are: 1. A German translation of Harwood’s View of the various editions of the Classics, with notes, Vienna, 1778, 8vo. 2. Various readings from the manuscripts in the imperial library, which he used in the editions printed at Vienna, of Lysias, 1785; Ciceroni’s Qusest. Acad. Tusc. 1780, 8vo; Lucretius, 1787, 8vo; Homeri Ilias, 1789—1790, 2 vols.; also with various readings from the Palatine library; Homeri Odyssea and min. poem. 1794. 3. Some of Plato’s Dialogues, 1784, 8vo. 4. Thucydides, 1785, 8vo. 5. The Greek Chronicle of George Phranza or Phranzes, not before printed, Vienna, 1796, fol. 6. Notices on the Literary history of Georgia, in German, 1798, 8vo. His numerous essays and dissertations, which are upon curious and recondite subjects, illustrations of Oriental and Greek manuscripts, &c. have appeared in the German literary journals at various periods, particularly in the Memorabilien of M. Paulus, and the Allg. Litt. Anzeiger da Leipzig.

, one of the Latin poets who flourished in Italy in the fifteenth century, was born at Basilicata, in the kingdom of Naples, or as some think, at Mantua. He studied, however, at Naples, which he made his residence, and associated with Pontanus, Sannazarius, and the other literati of that time and place, and acted as preceptor to prince Ferdinand, who came to the throne in 1495, by the resignation of his father Alphonsus II. According to Ughelli in his “Italia sacra,” Altilio was appointed bishop of Policastro in 1471, and died in 1484; but according to Mazzuchelli, whose authority in this instance appears preferable, he was not bishop until 1489, and died about 1501. He has left but few specimens of his poetry, but they are of acknouledged merit. The most celebrated is the epithalamium he wrote on the marriage of Isabella of Arragon, daughter of Alphonsus II. with John Galeas Sforca, duke of Milan. This is published in the Carm. Illust. Poet. Ital. and with a few of his other pieces, at the close of the works of Sannazarius, by Comino, 1731, 4to, where numerous testimonies are collected of the merits of Altilio. Some of these pieces had, however, been before printed with the works of Sannazarius, Daniel Cereti, and the brothers of the Amalthei, illustrated by the notes of Peter Vlamingii, Amst. 1728, 8vo, which may be united with the variorum classics. Notwithstanding the praises generally bestowed on Altilio, there are some critics who have undervalued his talenjts. In particular, Julius Scaliger thinks there is too great a profusion of thought and expression in this performance:“Gabriel Altilius,” says he, “composed an excellent epithalamium, which would have been still better, had he restrained his genius; but, by endeavouring to say every thing upon the subject, he disgusts the reader as much in some places, as he gives him pleasure in others: be says too much, which is a fault peculiar to his nation, for in all that tract of Italy they have a continual desire of talking.” k may appear singular that his Latin poetry 'should hare raised him to the dignity of a prelate; yet it certainly did, in a great measure, to the bishopric of Policastro. Some have also reproached him for neglecting the muses after his preferment, though they had proved so serviceable to him in acquiring it: “When he was made bishop,” says Paulus Jovius, “he soon and impudently left the muses, by whose means he had been promoted: a most heinous ingratitude, unless we excuse him from the consideration of his order, which obliged him to apply to the study of the holy scriptures.”

His works are, 1. “Notne in Decadem Problematum Joannis Behm de glorioso Dei et beatorum ccelo,” Heidelberg, 1618. 2. “Loci communes,” Amst. 1646, 3 vols. 3. “Exegesis Augustanae Confessionis,” Amst. 1647. 4. “Methodus Theologise,” Amst. 1650, or 1654, 4to. 5. “Explicatio catacheseos Palatince,” ibid. 1646, 4to. 6. “Historia ecclesiastica Palatina,” ibid. 1644, 4to.

, son of the above Henry, was born at Heidelberg the 27th of September 1618, at which time his father was deputy at the synod of Dort. He went through his studies at Groningen with great success; and being desirous to acquire knowledge in the Oriental languages, removed to Embden in 1638, to improve himself under the rabbi Gamprecht Ben Abraham. He came over to England in 1640, where he became acquainted with many persons of the greatest note; he preached here, and was ordained a priest of the church of England by Dr. Prideaux, bishop of Worcester. He had once resolved to pass his life in England, but afterwards accepted the Hebrew professorship at Groningen, offered him upon the death of Goraarus. He entered upon this office the 13th of January 1643, the very day that Samuel des Marets was installed in the professorship of divinity, which had been held by the same Gomarus. Alting was admitted doctor of philosophy the 21st of October 1645, preacher to the academy in 1647, and doctor and professor of divinity in 1667. He had visited Heidelberg in 1662, where he received many marks of esteem from the elector Palatine, Charles Lewis, who often solicited him to accept of the professorship of divinity, but he declined this offer. In a little time a misunderstanding arose betwixt him and Samuel des Marets, his colleague, owing to a difference in their method of teaching, and in many points in their principles. Alting kept to the scriptures, without meddling with scholastic divinity: the first lectures which he read at his house upon the catechism, drew such vast crowds of hearers, that, for want of room in his own chamber, he was obliged to make use of the university hall. His colleague was accustomed to the method and logical distinctions of the schoolmen; had been a long time in great esteem, had published several books, and to a sprightly genius had added a good stock of learning; the students who were of that country adhered to him, as the surest way to obtain church preferment, for the parishes were generally supplied with such as had studied according to his method. This was sufficient to raise and keep up a misunderstanding betwixt the two professors. Alting had great obstacles to surmount: a majority df voices and the authority of age were on his adversary’s side. Des Marets gave out that Alting was an innovator, and one who endeavoured to root up the boundaries which our wise forefathers had made between truth and falsehood; he accordingly became his accuser, and charged him with one-and-thirty erroneous propositions. The curators of the university, without acquainting the parties, sent the information and the answers to the divines of Leyden, desiring their opinion. The judgment they gave is remarkable: Alting was acquitted of all heresy, but his imprudence was blamed in broaching new hypotheses; on the other hand, Des Marets was censured for acting contrary to the laws of charity and moderation. The latter would not submit to this judgment, nor accept of the silence which was proposed. He insisted on the cause being heard before the consistories, the classes, and the synods; but the heads would not consent to this, forbidding all writings, either for or against the judgment of the divines of Leyden; and thus the work of Des Marets, entitled “Audi et alteram partem,” was suppressed. This contest excited much attention, and might have been attended with bad consequences, when Des Marets was called to Leyden, but he died at Groningen before he could take possession of that employment. There was a kind of reconciliation effected betwixt him and Alting before his death: a clergyman of Groningen, seeing Des Marets past all hopes of recovery, proposed it to him; and having his consent, made the same proposal to Alting, who answered, that the silence he had observed, notwithstanding the clamours and writings of his adversary, shewed his peaceable disposition; that he was ready to come to an agreement upon reasonable terms, but that he required satisfaction for the injurious reports disseminated against his honour and reputation; and that he could not conceive how any one should desire his friendship, whilst he thought him such a man as he had represented him to be. The person, who acted as mediator, some time after returned, with another clergyman, to Alting, and obtained from him a formulary of the satisfaction he desired. This formulary was not liked by Des Marets, who drew up another, but this did not please Alting: at last, however, after some alterations, the reconciliation was effected; the parties only retracted the personal injuries, and as to the accusations in point of doctrine, the accuser left them to the judgment of the church. Alting, however, thought he had reason to complain, even after he was delivered from so formidable an adversary. His complaint was occasioned by the last edition of Des Marets’s system, in which he was very ill treated: he said, his adversary should have left no monuments of the quarrel; and that his reconciliation had not been sincere, since he had not suppressed such an injurious book. The clergy were continually murmuring against what they called innovations; but the secular power wisely calmed those storms, which the convocations and synods would have raised, threatening to interdict those who should revive what had obtained the name of the Maresio-Altingian controversy. Alting enjoyed but little health the last three years of his life; and being at length seized with a violent fever, was carried off in nine days, at Groningen, August 20, 1679. His works, which consist of dissertations on various points of Hebrew and Oriental antiquities; commentaries on many of the books of the Bible; a Syro-Chaldaic Grammar; a treatise on Hebrew punctuation, &c. &c. were collected in 5 vols. fol. and published by Balthasar Boeker, Amst. 1687, with a life by the same editor.

, a Swiss historian and divine, was born in 1697, and, according to one authority, at Berne, where his father had been rector; or. according to another at Zofinguen, and died in 1758, curate of Inns, a village in the canton of Berne. In 1735 he was appointed moral and Greek professor at Berne, and afterwards published some valuable works on the geography, history, and antiquities of Swisserland. In conjunction with Breitinger, he compiled the collection entitled “Tempe Helvetica,” Zurich, 1735—43, 6 vols. 8vo. His other works are, 2. “Metelemata philoiogico-critica, quibus difficilioribus N. Test, locis ex antiquitnte lux affunditur,” Utrecht, 1753, 3 vols. 4to. 3. “A Description of the Glaciers,” in German, Zurich, 1751—53, 8vo. 4. “Principia Ethica, ex monitis legis naturæ et præceptis religionis Christianæ deducta,” Zurich, second edition, 1753, 2 vols. 8vo.

, an Italian scholar and mathematician, was a native of Ferrara, and lived in the fifteenth century. The three works on which his fame rests are, 1. “Observations on Petrarch,” which are inserted in the edition of that poet, Venice, 1539, 8vo. 2. “Le Richesse della Lingua Volgare,” Venice, 1545, fol. in which he has collected, alphabetically, the most elegant words and phrases used by Boccaccio. 3. “Della Fabbrica del Mondo,” Venice, 1526, 1556, 1557, 1558, 1562, consisting of ten books, in which are enumerated all the words used by the earliest Italian writers, but with no very happy arrangement. Alunno was likewise distinguished for a talent perhaps more curious than useful, that of being able to write an exceeding small hand. We are told, that when at Bologna he presented Charles V. with the belief and the first chapter of the gospel of St. John, in the size of a denier, or farthing; and Aretine adds, that the emperor employed a whole day in decyphering this wonderful manuscript.

, 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.

, a Spanish lawyer of great reputation in his country, was a native of Antequera, and afterwards professor of law at Ossuna and Salamanca. He was lastly a counsellor at Valladolid, where he died in 1640 or 1645. Rewrote “Observationes juris,” Salamanca, 1626, and “Commentaria in posteriores libros codicis Justiniani,” Lyons, 1639, Geneva, 1655.

, 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 poetical talents of Joannes or Giovanni Battista, the second brother, were not inferior to those of Hieronymus. We remark in his compositions equal harmony, combined with equal spirit; and critics have united them under the flattering title of “Musarum Deliciæ.” Besides the poems written in Latin, others by Giovanni Battista occur in his native language, which rank him among the best Italian poets. Some unfinished pieces of his are said to have been discovered at Rome, in the library of cardinal Ottoboni. Eminently distinguished for his accurate knowledge of the Greek and Latin languages, he passed the greater part of his life at the court of Rome, and stood high in the favour of three successive pontiffs. He discharged the office of secretary to the cardinals who were deputed to the council of Trent. We have his own evidence to prove that he was thus enabled to attain, if not to the most splendid and imposing affluence, at least to that moderate degree of it, which, combined with temperance and integrity, conduces most to real happiness. He died at Rome at the early age of forty-seven years.

, professor of the Hebrew tongue in the university of Franeker, was born in Friesland in the end of the sixteenth century (according to Saxiusin 1593), and studied under Drusius. The university of Leyden endeavoured, by offering him a larger salary, to draw him from the university of Franeker, in order to succeed Erpenius: Amama, without absolutely refusing this offer, yet would not accept of it unless he obtained permission from his superiors of Friesland, which they refused, and perhaps gave him such additional encouragement, that he had no reason to repent of not going to Leyden. The first book he published was a specimen of a great design he intended, viz. to censure the Vulgate translation, which the council of Trent had declared authentic; but before he had finished this work, he publisheda criticism upon the translation of the Pentateuch, entitled “'Censura Vulgatee Latina? editionis Pentateuchi,” 4to, 1620, Franeker, as a specimen of his more elaborate work. Whilst he was carrying on this, he was obliged to engage in another work, which was, to collate the Dutch translation of the scripture with the originals and the exactest translations: this Dutch translation had been taken from Luther’s version. He gave the public an account of this labour, in a work which appeared at Amsterdam, entitled, “Bybelsche conferencie,” Amsterdam, 1623. This employment of collating so much engaged Amama, that he was hindered for a considerable time from applying to his intended general censure of the Vulgate. However, he resumed his undertaking upon hearing that father Mersennus had endeavoured to refute his critical remarks on the first six chapters of Genesis, and he gave himself up entirely to vindicate his criticisms against that author. His answer is one of the pieces contained in the “Anti-barbarus Biblicus,” which he published in 1628; the other pieces are, his Censure of the Vulgate on the historical books of the Old Testament, on Job, the Psalms, and the books of Solomon, with some particular dissertations, one of which is on the famous passage in the Proverbs, “The Lord created me in the beginning of all his ways,” wherein he shews that those who accused Drusius of favouring Arianism were notorious calumniators. The “Anti-barbarus Biblicus” was to have consisted of two parts, each containing three books; the author, however, only published the first part. It was reprinted after his death in 1656, and a fourth book was added, containing the criticism of the Vulgate upon Isaiah and Jeremiah. It is impossible to answer the reasons, by which he shews the necessity of consulting the originals. This he recommended so earnestly, that some synods, being influenced by his reasons, decreed that none should be admitted into the ministry, but such as had a competent knowledge of the Hebrew and Greek text of the scripture. He published also another dissertation, entitled “De Nomine Tetragrammato,” Franeker, 1620, 8vo. When Sixtinuscame to Franeker, drunkenness and debauchery reigned in that university to a very great degree; he tells us, that all the new students were immediately enrolled in the service of Bacchus, and obliged to swear, with certain ceremonies, by a wooden statue of St. Stephen, that they would spend all their money: if any one had more regard to the oath he had taken to the rector of the university than to this bacchanalian oath, he was so persecuted by the other students, that he was obliged either to leave the university, or comply with the rest. Sixtinus contributed greatly to root out this rice, and he inveighed against it with great energy in a public speech made in 1621. He was so much beloved by the people of Friesland, that after his death, they shewed themselves very generous to his children; as Nicholas Amama, who was one of them, acknowledges in the epistle dedicatory to his “Dissertationum Marinarum decas,” 1651. For one circumstance in the life of Amama, we are indebted to Anthony Wood, who informs us that about the year 1613, he came over to England, and resided for some years at Oxford, in Exeter college, under the patronage of Dr. Prideaux, the rector of that college, afterwards bishop of Worcester. Amarna died in 1629, in the thirty-sixth year of his age, if the date of the birth above assigned, be correct.

, a learned Hindoo, and counsellor to the celebrated rajah Vikramaditeya, lived in the first century B. C. He is the author of a Dictionary of the Sanscrit, which is esteemed very correct and complete. It is called “Amara-Kocha,” or the treasure of Amara, and is not in the alphabetical order, but divided into sections, as the names of the gods, the stars, the elements, &c. in the manner of some vocabularies. It is written in a species of verse, and the explanations are given in the different Indian languages. Father Paulin, of St. Bartholomew, published at Rome in 1798, the first part of this dictionary under the title “Amara-Singha, sectio prima, de caelo, ex tribus ineditis codicibus manuscriptis,” 4to. There is a manuscript of the whole in the imperial library of Paris.

, 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.

, one of the most eminent fathers of the church, was by descent a citizen of Rome, but born at Aries, in France, then the metropolis of Gallia Narbonensis, in the year 333, according to Cave, or according to Du Pin, in the year 340. His father was the emperor’s lieutenant in that district; one of the highest places of trust and honour in the Roman empire. Ambrose was the youngest of three children, Marcellina and Satyrus being born before him. After his father’s death, his mother, with the family, returned to Rome, where he made himself master of all the learning that Greece and Rome could afford; and at the same time profited in religion by the pious instructions of his sister Marcellina, who had devoted herself to a state of virginity. When grown up, he pleaded causes with so much ability, as to acquire the good opinion of Anicius Probus, pretorian prefect, or emperor’s lieutenant in Italy, who made choice of him to be of his council; and having authority to appoint governors to several provinces, he gave Ambrose one of these commissions, saying: “Go, and govern more like a bishop than a judge.” In this office, Ambrose resided at Milan for five years, and was applauded for his prudence and justice; but his pursuit of this profession was interrupted by a singular event, which threw him into a course of life for which he had made no preparation, and had probably never thought of, and for which he was no otherwise qualified than by a character irreproachable in civil life, and improved by the pious instructions of his youth.

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.

Still, however, Justina, the empress, continued his enemy, although he had, by his talents in negociation, averted for a tune the invasion of Italy from the court of Milan. In the year 386, she procured a law to enable the Arian congregations to assemble without interruption; and Auxentius, a Scythian, of the same name with the Arian predecessor of Ambrose, was now introduced, under the protection of the empress, into Milan. He challenged Ambrose to hold a disputation with him in the emperor’s court, but the latter denied that it was any part of the emperor’s business to decide on points of doctrine; adding, “Let him come to church, and upon hearing, let the people judge for themselves; and if they like Auxuutius better, let them take him; but they have already declared their sentiments.” Auxentius then demanded that a party of soldiers might be sent to secure for himself the possession of the church called Basilica; and it was represented as a very unreasonable thing, that the emperor should not be allowed one place of worship agreeable to his conscience. This, however, was not the fair question, for the emperor, if he chose to exert his authority, might have commanded any, or all the churches. The fact was, that Ambrose was now requested to do what he could not do conscientiously; namely, by his own deed to resign a church into the hands of the Arians, and thereby, indirectly at least, acknowledge their creed. He therefore refused, telling the officers that if the emperor had demanded his house or land, money or goods, he would have freely resigned them, but that he could not deliver up that which was committed to his care. And although another attempt was made to obtain forcible possession of one or two churches, and violent commotions were about to ensue, Ambrose persisted in his principles of duty, and his resistance was effectual.

Notwithstanding this weight of personal character, which crushed every attempt of his enemies, we find some accounts of superstitious practices upon record, which it is difficult to reconcile to his general conduct. Being called upon by the people to consecrate a new church, he answered that he would comply, if he could find any relics of martyrs there, and we are told that it was revealed to him in a vision at night, in what place he might find the relics; but this last circumstance is not to be found in the epistle which he writes on the subject. He describes, however, the finding the bodies of two martyrs, Protasius, and Gervasius; the supposed miracles wrought on the occasion; the dedication of the church; the triumph of the Orthodox; and the confusion of Arianism, If these miracles were not real, we know not how to exculpate Ambrose from at least conniving at the imposture, or being deluded himself, neither of which are very consistent with the strength of understanding and independence of mind which he displayed on other occasions.

A more unpardonable instance of his weakness occurred at the beginning of the reign of Theodosius. This emperor, from a sense of justice, ordered some Christians to rebuild, at their own expence, a Jewish synagogue, which they had tumultuously pulled down. But Ambrose prevailed on him to set aside this sentence, from a mistaken notion, that Christianity should not be obliged to contribute to the erection of a Jewish synagogue. His eloquence on this occasion was, as usual, vigorous, but must surely have been used in support of arguments that could be listened to only in an age of remarkable superstition. Ambrose appears, however, to more advantage in another transaction with the emperor Theodosius, of a very extraordinary kind. At Thessalonica a tumult happened among the populace, and one of the emperor’s officers was murdered. Theodosius, who was of a passionate temper, ordered the sword to be employed. Ambrose interceded, and the emperor promised forgiveness; but the great officers of his court persuaded him to sign a warrant for military execution, and seven thousand persons were massacred in three hours, without trial or distinction.

It remains that we conclude this article with a short notice of his death. In the year 392, Valentinian the emperor being assassinated by the contrivance of Argobastus, and Eugenius usurping the empire, Ambrose was obliged to leave Milan, but returned the year following, when Eugenius was defeated. He died at Milan the 4th of April, 397; and was buried in the great church at Milan, He wrote several works, the most considerable of which is that “De officiis,” a discourse, divided into three books, upon the duties of the clergy. It appears to have been written several years after he had been bishop, and very probably about the year 390 or 391, when peace was restored to the church, after the death of the tyrant Maximus, He has imitated in these three books the design and disposition of Cicero’s piece De officiis. He confirms, says Mr. Du Pin, the good maxims which that orator has advanced, he corrects those which are imperfect, he refutes those which are false, and adds a great many others which are more excellent, pure, and elevated. He is concise and sententious in his manner of writing, and full of turns of wit; his terms are well chosen, and his expressions noble, and he diversifies his subjects by an admirable copiousness of thought and language. He is very ingenious in giving an easy and natural turn to every thing he treats, and is frequently not without strength and pathos. This is part of the character which Du Pin gives him as a writer; but Erasmus tells us that he has many quaint and affected sentences, and is frequently very obscure; and it is certain that his writings are intermixed with many strange and peculiar opinions; derived, as we have already remarked, from his early attachment to the manner of Origen. He maintained, that all men indifferently are to pass through a fiery trial at the last day; that even the just are to suffer it, and to be purged from their sins, but the unjust are to continue in for ever; that the faithful will be raised gradually at the last day, according to the degree of their particular merit; that the bow which God promised Noah to place in the firmament after the deluge, as a sign that he never intended to drown the world again, was not to be understood of the rainbow, which can never appear in the night, but some visible token of the Almighty. He carries the esteem of virginity and celibacy so far, that he seems to regard matrimony as an indecent thing. But it must be observed with regard to all those selections of opinions, that great injustice has been done to his memory by frauds and interpolations, and entire works have been attributed to him, which he never wrote. His works, indeed, are divided into, 1. Those that are genuine. 2. Those that are doubtful. 3. Those that are fictitious: and 4. Those that are not extant. Paulinus, who was his amanuensis, wrote his life, and dedicated it to St. Augustin; it is prefixed to St. Ambrose’s works; the best edition of which is reckoned to be that published by the benedictine monks, in two volumes in folio, at Paris, in 1686, and 1690. His life was also published in 1678, by Godfrey Herment.

, a celebrated French writer, was born at Saintonge in 1606. He maintained a close correspondence with the Fathers of the Oratory, a congregation of priests founded by Philip of Neri. He wrote the “Life of Charles de Gondren,” second superior of this congregation, and published it at Paris in 1643. In this piece he introduced a passage respecting the famous abbé de St. Cyran, which greatly displeased the gentlemen of Port Royal; who, out of revenge, published a pamphlet against him, entitled “Idee generate de l'esprit et du livre de pere Arnelot,” and he was so much provoked by this satire, that he did all in his power to injure them. They had finished a translation of the New Testament, known by the name of the Mons New Testament, and were desirous to have it published, for which purpose they endeavoured to procure an approbation from the doctors of the Sorbonne, and a privilege from the king. They had some friends m the Sorbonne, but at the same time very powerful enemies, and as to the privilege, it was impossible to prevail with, the chancellor Seguier to grant them one, as he hated them; so that father Amelotte, whose advice the chancellor generally followed in matters of religion, easily thwarted all their measures, not only out of zeal for what he thought the true doctrine, or out of aversion to the Port Royalists, but also from a view to his own interest; for he was about to publish a translation of his own of the New Testament, which, accordingly, with annotations, in four volumes 8vo, was printed in the years 1666, 1667, and 1668, but, according to F. Simon, it contains some very gross blunders. It was dedicated to M. de Perefixe, archbishop of Paris, whom he addresses in these words: “You will be confirmed in that zeal which obliged you to take up the holy arms to defend the true grace of God, and the decrees of the holy see, against the new heresy: you will daily strengthen yourself against these blind rebels, whose fury, impostures, and calumnies, add new splendour to your glory, which they endeavour to blemish. They place you in the same rank with the Athanasiuses and Hilaries, when they abuse you in the same manner as the Arians did those great and holy bishops.” In this translation he endeavoured to find expressions more proper and elegant than those of the former versions for which reason he committed his work into Mr. Conrart’s hands, to polish and correct whatever he should judge inelegant or improper. Amelotte wrote also an “Abridgment of Divinity,” a “Catechism for the Jubilee,” and a kind of “Christian Manual for every day, (Journee Chretienne.)” Though he had always been a very zealous Anti-Port-Royalist, yet he was but poorly rewarded for all his labour and trouble, since towards the end of his life he sued for a very small bishopric, that of Sarlat, and met with a refusal, though he had all the qualities requisite to a bishop. He could not forbear complaining of this usage to his friends; telling them that those, whom he had often served effectually, had been very cold to him on this occasion. He entered into the congregation of the Oratory in 1650, and continued amongst them till his death, which happened at Paris, Oct. 7, 1673. His dedication to M. Perefixe was suppressed after his death and the death of Perefixe, and one of a different cast substituted by M. de Harlay, in the edition of 1688, 2 vols. 4to, and the work has been often reprinted with and without notes. The chief objection made to him, on the score of veracity, is that he boasted of having consulted all the manuscripts of Europe, which he afterwards confessed he had not seen; but it is answered, that although he had not seen these manuscripts, he took great pains in procuring transcripts of their various readings.

, an Italian lawyer and miscellaneous writer, was born at Naples in 1659, and for the first fourteen years of his life, was obliged to be confined in a dark room, owing to a complaint in his eyes. On his recovery, he made very rapid progress in general science, went through a course of law, and had very considerable practice at Naples. His leisure hours he dedicated to polite literature, and particularly cultivated the Tuscan language, which he wrote with the greatest purity, and used in all his works. He died at Naples, July 21, 1719. His principal writings are, 1. Seven prose comedies, La Costanza, H Forca, la Fante, &c. which are, Baretti says, perhaps the wittiest we have in Italian; but the author makes some of his actors appear masked and speak the different dialects of Italy, especially the Neapolitan. 2. “Rapporti di Parnasso,” part I. the only one ever published, Naples, 1710, 4to. These are somewhat in the manner of Boccalini’s advertisements, but unlike them in their subjects, which are matters of literature and literary history. 3. “II Torto è il Diritto del non si puo, &c. esaminato da Ferrante Longobardi,” i. e. father Daniel Bartoli, whose work is here reprinted with. Amenta’s Observations, Naples, 1717, 8vo, 1728, 8vo; the latter edition has the remarks of the abbe Cito. 4. “Delia lingua Nobile d'Italia, &c.” another work on language divided into parts, Naples, 1723, 4to. 5. The lives of Scipio Pasquali, and Lionardo, a Neapolitan poet. 6. Twenty-four “Capitoli,” or satirical pieces, in the style of the capitoli of Berni, and other burlesque poets, Naples, 1721, 12mo. 7. “Rime,” or poetical pieces, published in various collections.

, the celebrated typographical historian, was descended from an ancient family in Norfolk, where they are to be traced back as far as the middle of the sixteenth century. He was born at Yarmouth, Jan. 23, 1688-9, and removed by his father, who appears to have been the master of a merchant ship trading from Yarmouth to London, and placed at a little grammar-school at Wapping. At the age of fifteen, it is said, he was put apprentice to a plane-maker in King or Queen-street near Guildhall, London; and it is added that after serving out his time with reputation, he took up his freedom, and became a liveryman of the Joiners’ Company, but on inquiry both at Joiners’ hall and at the Chamberlain’s office, it does not appear that he ever took up his freedom: he settled, however, near the Hermitage, in Wapping, in the business of a ship-chandler, or ironmonger, and continued there till his death.

Mr. Ames very early discovered a taste for English history and antiquities, in which he was encouraged by his two friends Mr. Russel, preacher at St. John’s Wappino-, and Mr. John Lewis, minister of Margate, an eminent divine and antiquary. Some time before 1720, in attending Dr. Desaguliers’ lectures, he formed an acquaintance with Mr. Peter Thompson, an eminent Hamburgh merchant, and member for St. Alban’s, a gentleman of great humanity, and strong natural parts, who supplied the want of a liberal education by a conversation with men and books. He was also a lover of our national antiquities, and many years fellow of the royal and antiquary societies. This friendship continued uninterrupted till the death of Mr. Ames. Some time before 1730, Mr. Lewis, who had himself collected materials for such a subject, suggested to Mr. Ames the idea of writing the history of printing in England. Mr. Ames declined it at first, because Mr. Palmer, a printer, was engaged in a similar work, and because he thought himself by no means equal to an undertaking of so much extent, But when Mr. Palmer’s book came out, it was far from answering the expectations of Mr. Lewis, or' Mr. Ames, or those of the public in general. Mr. Ames, therefore, at length consented to apply himself to the task, and after twenty-five years spent in collecting and arranging his materials, in which he was largely assisted by Mr. Lewis and other learned friends, and by the libraries of lord Oxford, sir Hans Sloane, Mr. Anstis, and many others, published, in one vol. 4to, 1749, “Typographical Antiquities, being an historical account of Printing in England, with some memoirs of our ancient Printers, and a register of the books printed by them, from the year 1471 to 1600; with an appendix concerning printing in Scotland and Ireland to the same time.” In his preface he speaks with great humility of his work, and of its imperfections; but it certainly has no faults but what may well be excused in the first attempt to accomplish an undertaking of such vast extent. He inscribed this work to Philip lord Hardwicke, lord high chancellor of Great Britain. Mr. Ames was at this time fellow of the royal and antiquary societies, and secretary to the latter of these learned bodies. He was elected F. A. S. March 3, 1736, and on the resignation of Alexander Gordon, previous to his going to settle in Carolina, 174], v.as appointed secretary. In 1754, the rev. W. Norris was associated with him, and on his decease became sole secretary till 1784. This office gave Mr. Ames further opportunities of gratifying his native curiosity, by the communication as well as the conversation of the literati; and these opportunities were further enlarged by his election into the royal society, and the particular friendship shewn to him by sir Hans Sloane, then president, who nominated him one of the trustees of his will.

Besides his great work, Mr. Ames printed a “Catalogue vf English Printers, from 1471 to 1700,” 4to, intended to accompany the proposals for the former; “An Index to lord Pembroke’s Coins;” “A Catalogue of English heads, or an account of about 2000 prints, describing what is peculiar on each, as the name, title, or office of the person, the habit, posture, age, or time when done, the name of the painter, graver, scraper, &c. and some remarkable particulars relating to their lives,” 1748, 8vo. This was a kind of index to the ten volumes of English portraits, which had been collected by Mr. John Nickolls, F. R. and A. Ss. of Ware in Hertfordshire, in four volumes folio, and six iii 4to; and which after his death in 1745, were purchased, for 50 guineas, by the late Dr. Fothergill. The last of Mr. Ames’s literary labours was the drawing up the “Parentalia, or Memoirs of the family of Wren,” 1750, in one volume folio, from the papers of Mr. Wren. At his expence two plates were engraved, one of a Greek inscription in honour of Crato, the musician of Pergamos; the other an ancient marble pillar, in his possession, with the Cufic inscription.

Mr. Ames married April 12, 1714, Marv, daughter of Mr. Wrayford, merchant of London, who died August 12, 1734, and by whom he had six children, one only of whom, a daughter, survived him, and was married to Edward Dampier, esq. lately deputy surveyor of shipping to the East India Company, and descended from, or related to the voyager of that name.

General Amherst now seeing that the whole continent qf North America was reduced in subjection to Great Britain, returned to New tfork, the capital of the British empire, and was received with all the respect due to his public services. The thanks of the House of Commons had already been transmitted to him; and, among other honourable testimonies of approbation, in 1761, he was created a knight of the Bath. He had also some time before been appointed commander in chief of all the forces in America, and governor-general of the British provinces there. But shortly after the peace was concluded, he resigned his command, and returned to England, arriving in London December 1763. His Majesty received him with most gracious respect and approbation, and the government of the province of Virginia was conferred upon him, as the first mark of royal favour. In 1768, there appears to have been a temporary misunderstanding between him and his royal master, which, however, soon terminated, as in the end of that year he was appointed colonel of the third regiment of foot, with permission to continue his command of the sixtieth, or royal American regiment, of four battalions; and in Oct. 1770, he was appointed governor of the island of Guernsey, and the castle of Cornet, with all its dependencies. To these promotions was added the office of lieutenant-general of the ordnance, in Oct. 1772, at which time he was sworn of the privy council. From this period, also, to the beginning of 1782, he officiated as commander in chief of the English forces, though he was not promoted to the rank of general in the army till March 1778, from which period to the time of his resignation, in March 1782, he acted as eldest general on the staff of England. Until his military promotion in 1778, he had no higher appointment in the army than that of eldest lieutenant-general on the English staff. In 1780, he resigned the command of the third regiment of foot, and was promoted to the second troop of horse grenadiers. Besides these military honours, he received the dignity of the British peerage on the 20th May, 1776, by the title of baron Amherst, of Holmesdale, in the county of Kent. His last public services were the means he adopted in quelling the dreadful riots in London in the month of June, 1780. The regulations and instructions of his lordship on this occasion were not less distinguished by wisdom and promptitude than by humanity.

, an English political and miscellaneous writer, was born at Marden in Kent, but in what year is uncertain, although by a passage in his Terras Filius, it would appear to be about 1706. Under the tuition of his grandfather, a clergyman, he received his grammatical education at Merchant-Taylor’s school in, London; and thence was removed to St. John’s college, Oxford, whence he was expelled on a charge of libertinism, irregularity, and his insulting 1 behaviour towards the president of the college. From his own account of the matter, in the dedication of his poems to Dr. Delaune, president of St. John’s, and in his “Teme Filius,” we may collect that he wished to have it understood, that he was solely persecuted for the liberality of his sentiments, and his attachment to the cause of the Revolution and of the Hanover-succession. Whatever were the causes of his expulsion, ius resentment, on the account of it, although violent, was impotent. He made it his business to satirize the learning and discipline of the university of Oxford, and to libel the characters of its principal members. This he did in a poem published in 1724, called “Oculus Britanniae,” and in his “Terrae Filius,” a work in which is displayed a considerable portion of wit, intermixed with intemperate satire. The full title of the work is, “Terrae Filius; or the secret history of the university of Oxford; in several essays. To which are added, Remarks upon a late book, entitled, University Education, by R. Newton, D. D. principal of Hart Hall,” 2 vols. 12mo, printed for R. Francklin, 1726. Amidst all the malignity and exaggeration with which the Terrae Filius abounds, it contains some curious anecdotes relative to the principles, manners, and conduct of several members of the university, for a few years after the accession of king George I.; but they are to be read with caution. It had been an ancient custom in the university of Oxford, at public acts, for some person, who was called Terrae Filius, to mount the rostrum, and divert a large crowd of spectators, who flocked to hear him from all parts, with a merry oration in the fescennine manner, interspersed with secret history, raillery, and sarcasm, as the occasions of the times supplied him with matter. Wood, in his Athenae, mentions several instances of this custom; and hence Mr. Amhurst took the title of his work. It was originally written in 1721, in a periodical paper, which came out twice a week, and consists of fifty numbers.

Soon after Mr. Amhurst quitted Oxford, he seems to have settled in London, as a writer by profession. He published a volume of “Miscellanies,” (principally written at the university), on a variety of subjects; partly originals, and partly paraphrases, imitations, and translations; and consisting of tales, epigrams, epistles, love-verses, elegies, and satires. They begin with a beautiful paraphrase on the Mosaic account of the creation, and end with a very humorous tale upon the discovery of that useful instrument a bottle-screw. Mr. Amhurst was -the author, likewise, of an “Epistle to sir John Blount,” bart. one of the directors of the South-Sea Company in 1720; of the “British General,” a poem sacred to the memory of his grace John duke of Marlborough; and of “Strephon’s revenge,” a satire on the Oxford toasts. Our poet, who had a great enmity to the clergy, and who had early, at Oxford, displayed his zeal against what he called priestly power, discovered this particularly in a poem entitled the “Convocation,” in five cantos; a kind of satire against all the writers who had opposed bishop Hoadly, in the famous Bangorian controversy. He translated also, Mr. Addison’s Resurrection, and some other of his Latin poems. But the principal literary undertaking of Mr. Amhurst was, his conducting “The Craftsman,” which was carried on for a number of years with great spirit and success; and was more read and attended to than any production of the kind which had hitherto been published in England. Ten or twelve thousand were sold in a day; and the effect which it had in raising the indignation of the people, and in controlling the power of the Walpole administration, was very considerable. This effect was not, however, entirely, or chiefly, owing to the abilities of Mr. Amhurst, He was assisted by lord Bolingbroke and Mr. Pulteney, and by other leaders of the opposition, whose fame and writings were the grand support of the “Craftsman.” Nevertheless, Mr. Amhurst’s own paper’s are allowed to have been composed with ability and spirit, and he conducted the “Craftsman” in the very zenith of-its prosperity, with no small reputation to himself. July 2, 1737, there appeared in that publication an ironical letter, in the name of Colley Gibber, the design of which was to ridicule the act that had just passed for licensing plays. In this letter, the laureat proposes himself to the lord chamberlain to be made superintendant of the old plays, as standing equally in need of correction with the new ones; and produces several passages from Shakspeare, and other poets, in relation to kings, queens, princes, and ministers of state, which, he says, are not now fit to be brought on the stage. The printer, &c. having been laid hold of by order of government, Mr. Amhurst hearing that a warrant from the duke of Newcastle was issued against him, surrendered himself to a messenger, and was carried before his grace to be examined. The crime imputed to hini was, that “he was suspected to be the author of a paper suspected to be a libel.” As no proofs were alleged against him, nor witnesses produced, an examination of this kind could not last long. As soon as it was over, he was told that the crime being bailable, he should be bailed upon finding sufficient securities to answer for his appearance and trial; but these terms being imposed upon him, be absolutely refused. Upon this refusal, he was remanded back into custody, and the next day brought his habeas corpus, and was then set at liberty, by consent, till the twelve Judges should determine the question, “Whether he was obliged to give bail for his good behaviour, as well as his appearance, before he was entitled to his liberty.” This determination was impatiently expected by the public, and several days were fixed for hearing counsel on both sides, but no proceedings of that kind took place, and the question remained undetermined until the days of Wilkes.

, one of the most learned French missionaries in China, and a Chinese historian, was born at Toulon in 1718. The last thirty years of the last century have been those in which we have acquired most knowledge of China. The French missionaries during that time have taken every pains to be able to answer the multitude of inquiries sent to them from Europe, and among them father Amiot must be considered as the first in point of accuracy, and extensive knowledge of the antiquities, history, languages, and arts of China. This learned Jesuit arrived at Macao in 1750; and at Pekin, to which he was invited by order of the emperor, in August 1751, and remained in that capital for the long space of forty-three years. In addition to the zeal which prompted him to become a missionary, he was indefatigable in his researches, and learned in those sciences which rendered them useful. He understood natural history, mathematics; had some taste for music, an ardent spirit of inquiry, and a retentive memory; and by continual application soon became familiar with the Chinese and Tartar languages, which enabled him to consult the best authorities in both, respecting history, sciences, and literature. The result of these labours he dispatched to France from time to time, either in volumes, or memoirs. His principal communications in both forms, were: 1. “A Chinese poem in praise of the city of Moukden,” by the emperor Kien Long, translated into French, with historical and geographical notes and plates, Paris, 1770, 8vo. 2. “The Chinese Military Art,” ibid. 1772, 4to, reprinted in vol. VII. of “Memoires sur les Chinois;” and in vol. VIII. is a supplement sent afterwards by the author. The Chinese reckon six classical works on the military art, and every soldier who aspires to rank, mttet undergo an examination on them all. Amiot translated the first three, and some parts of the fourth, because these alone contain the whole of the Chinese principles of the art of war. 3. “Letters on the Chinese characters,” addressed to the Royal Society of London, and inserted in vol. I. of the “Memoires sur les Chinois,” and occasioned by the following circumstance: in 1761, the ingenious Mr. Turberville Needham published some conjectures relative to a supposed connection between the hieroglyphical writing of the ancient Egyptians, and the characteristic writing now in use among the Chinese; founded upon certain symbols or characters inscribed on the celebrated bust of Isis, at Turin, which appeared to him to resemble several Chinese characters. From this he conjectured; first, that the Chinese characters are the same, in many respects, as the hieroglyphics of Egypt; and secondly, that the sense of the hieroglyphics may be investigated by the comparative and appropriated signification of the Chinese characters. But as the similarity between the two species of writing was contested, an appeal was made to the literati of China, and the secretary of the Royal Society, Dr. Charles Morton, addressed himself on the subject to the Jesuits at Pekin, who appointed Arniot to return an answer, which may be seen in the Phil. Transactions, vol. LIX. It in general gives the negative to Needham’s opinion, but refers the complete decision of the question to the learned society, which he furnishes with suitable documents, copies of inscriptions, &c.

, a painter and engraver, was born at Zurich, June 1539. His youth and studies are involved in obscurity, and the first notice we have of him is in 1560, when he went to Nuremberg, where he was admitted a burgess, and where he died in 1591. Here he began in designs on wood, paper, and copper, that career of incessant and persevering exertion which over-ran all Germany. History, allegory, emblem, sciences, trades, arts, professions, rural sports, heraldry, portrait, fashions, were all served in their turns, and often served so well, that his inventions may still be consulted by the artist with advantage. He painted with great brilliancy on glass. His drawings hatched with the pen, or washed, have Italian characteristics of style and execution.

, 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.

, a dissenting divine, was born at Hinckley in Leicestershire in 1736, and was for many years a preacher at Hampstead, near London, and afterwards at Coseley, in Staffordshire, from which he retired in his latter days to his native town, where he died June 8, 1803. He was a man of some learning in biblical criticism, as appears by his various publications on theological subjects. He wrote, 1. “An account of the occasion and design of the positive Institutions of Christianity, extracted from the Scriptures only,” 1774, 8vo. 2. “An essay towards an interpretation of the Prophecies of Daniel, with occasional remarks upon some of the most celebrated commentaries on them,” 1776, 8vo. 3. “Considerations on the doctrine of a Future State, and the Resurrection, as revealed, or supposed to be so, in the Scriptures; on the inspiration and authority of the Scripture itself; on some peculiarities in St. Paul’s Epistles; on the prophecies of Daniel and St. John, &c. To which are added, some strictures on the prophecies of Isaiah,” 1798, 8vo. In this work, which is as devoid of elegance of style, as of strength of argument, and which shows how far a man may go, to whom all established belief is obnoxious, the inspiration of the New Testament writers is questioned, the genuineness of the Apocalypse is endeavoured to be invalidated; and the evangelical predictions of Isaiah are transferred from the Messiah to the political history of our own times. The most singular circumstance of the personal history of Mr. Amner, was his incurring the displeasure of George Steevens, the celebrated commentator on Shakspeare. This he probably did very innocently, for Mr. Steevens was one of those men who wanted no motives for revenge or malignity but what he found in his own breast. He had, however, contracted a dislike to Mr. Amner, who was his neighbour at Hampstead, and marked him out as the victim of a species of malignity which, we believe, has no parallel. This was his writing several notes to the indecent passages in Shakspeare, in a gross and immoral style, and placing Mr. Amner’s name to them. These appeared first in the edition of 1793, and are still continued.

, an ingenious French mechanic, was born in Normandy the last day of August, 1663. His father having removed to Paris, William received the first part of his education in this city. He was in the third form of the Latin school, when, after a considerable illness, he contracted such a deafness as obliged him to renounce almost all conversation with mankind. In this situation he began to think of employing himself in the invention of machines: he applied therefore to the study of geometry; and it is said, that he would not try any remedy to cure his deafness, either because he thought it incurable, or because it increased his attention. He studied also the arts of drawing, of surveying lands, and of building, and in a short time he endeavoured to acquire a knowledge of those more sublime laws which regulate the universe. He studied with great care the nature of barometers and thermometers; and, in 1687, he presented a new hygroscope to the royal academy of sciences, which was tery much approved. He communicated to Hubin, a famous enameller, some thoughts he had conceived, concerning new barometers and thermometers; but Hubin had anticipated him in some of his thoughts, and did not much regard the rest, till he made a voyage into England, where the same thoughts were mentioned to him by some fellows of the Royal Society. Amontons found out a method to communicate intelligence to a great distance, in a very little time, which Fontenelle thus describes: Let there be people placed in several stations, at such a distance from one another, that by the help of a telescope a man in one station may see a signal made in the next before him; he must immediately make the same signal, that it may be seen by persons in the station next after him, who is to communicate it to those in the following station; and so on. These signals may be as letters of the alphabet, or as a cypher, understood only by the two persons who are in the distant places, and not by those Who make the signals. The person in the second station making the signal to the person in the third the very moment he sees it in the first, the news may be carried to the greatest distance in as little time as is necessary to make the signals in the first station. The distance of the several stations, which must be as few as possible, is measured by the reach of a telescope. Amontons tried this method in a small tract of land, before several persons of the highest rank at the court of France. This apparently is the origin of the telegraph now so generally used; but there exists a book, entitled “De Secretis,” written by one Weckerus in 1582, where he gives, from the authority of Cardanus, who flourished about 1530, the following method by which the besieged party in a city may communicate their circumstances to the surrounding country: Suppose five torches to be lighted, and held in a horizontal line; the first torch upon the left hand of the looker-on to represent A, the second E, and so on for the five vowels. The consonants are performed thus; inclining the first torch to the left represents B, to the right C 3 elevating it above the line D, and depressing it below F. By the second torch brandished in the same manner, the four succeeding consonants may be represented, &c. which will comprehend in all twenty letters. Cardanus says, that the historian Polybius, who flourished above a century before Christ, in one of his fragments gives an obscure and mutilated description of a method to effect the above purpose. Probably, adds the gentleman to whom we are indebted for this communication, a copy of this De Secretis, or the obscure description of Polybius, mi^ht, unacknowledged, have infused Atnontons with the idea of the modern telegraph; and, after the primary hint was given, the application of the telescope might easily occur. What, however, is most remarkable, is, that in neither case was the invention followed up, but lay dormant until the commencement of the revolutionary war of France in 1793.

In 1695, Amontons published “Remarques et experiences physiques sur la construction d'une nouvelle clepsydre, sur les barometres, thermometres, et hygrometres;” and this is the only book he wrote, besides the pieces which he contributed to the Journal des Scavans. Though the hour-glasses made with water, so much in use among the ancients, be entirely laid aside, because the clocks and watches are much more useful, yet Amontons took a great deal of pains in making his new hour-glass, in hopes that it might serve at sea, being made in such a manner, that the most violent motion could not alter its regularity, whereas a great agitation infallibly disorders a clock or watch, When the royal academy was new regulated in 1699, Amontons was admitted a member of it, and read there his new theory of Friction, in which he happily cleared up a very important part of mechanics. He had a particular genius for making experiments: his notions were precise and just: he knew how to prevent the inconveniences of his new inventions, and had a wonderful skill in executing them. He enjoyed perfect health, and, as he led a regular life, was not subject to the least infirmity, but was suddenly seized with an inflammation in his bowels, which occasioned his death, llth of October, 1705, aged 42.

, a dissenting minister of considerable note, was the son of a grocer at Taunton in Somersetshire, where he was born Jan. 28, 1701; and at that place acquired his classical learning, under the care of Mr. Chadwick. From Taunton he was removed to Exeter, that he might be instructed in the French language by Mr. Majendie, a refugee minister in that city. After this, he returned to Mr. Chadwick, where he had for his schoolfellow Mr. Micaiah Towgood; and at Lady-day 1717, they were both put under the academical instruction of Mr. Stephen James and Mr. Henry Grove, the joint tutors at Taunton for bringing up young persons to the dissenting ministry. Under these preceptors, Mr. Amory went through the usual preparatory learning; and in the summer of 1722 was approved of as a candidate for the ministry . Being desirous of improvement, he removed, in the November following, to London, and attended a course of experimental philosophy, under Mr. John Eatnes. Upon his return to Taunton, he preached alternately at several places in the neighbourhood; till, upon Mr. James’s death in 1724. or 1725, Mr. Amory was fixed as a stated assistant preacher to Mr. Datch of Hull Bishops; besides which, he had one monthly turn at Lambrook near South Petherton, and another at West Hatch, four miles from Taunton. At the same time, he was requested by his uncle, Mr. Grove, to take a part in the instruction of the pupils, in the room of Mr. James, with which request he complied. The business assigned him he discharged with great ability and diligence; being well qualified for it by his profound acquaintance with the Greek and Roman languages, his correct taste in the classics, and by his thorough knowledge of the best and latest improvements in sound philosophy. In 1730, he was ordained at Paul’s meeting in Tuutiton, and from this time was united, in the congregation at Taunton, with Mr. Batsen; but that gentleman ‘keeping the whole salary to himself, several of the ’principal persons in the society were so displeased with him, that, early in the spring of 1732, they agreed to build another meetinghouse, and to choose Mr. Amory for their pastor. In the beginning of 1738, on the deatli of Mr. Grove, he became chief tutor in the academy at Taunton, and conducted the business of it with the same abilities, and upon the same principles. He had the advantage of the lectures and experience of his excellent uncle, added to his own: and many pupils were formed under him, of great worth and distinguished improvements in literature. In 1741, he married a daughter of Mr. Baker, a dissenting minister in Southwark; an excellent lady, who survived him, and with whom he lived in the greatest affection and harmony. By this lady he had several children, four of whom survived him. During his residence in Taunton he was held in the greatest esteem, not only by his own society, but by all the neighbouring congregations and ministers; and even those who differed the most from him in religious opinions, could not avoid paying a tribtfte of respect to the integrity and excellence of his character. He was much respected, likewise, by the gentlemen and clergy of the established church, and was particularly honoured, when, very young, with the friendship of Mrs. Howe, with whom he kept up a correspondence by letters. One instance of the respect entertained for mm, and of his own liberal and honourable conduct, cannot be omitted. When some of the principal persons of the Baptist society in Taunton, owing to the disgust they had received at their then pastor, would have deserted him, and communicated to Mr. Amory their intention of becoming his stated hearers, he generously dissuaded them from the execution of their design, as a step which would prove highly injurious to the reputation, members, and interest of the congregation they intended to leave. Mr. Amory was so happy with his people at Taunton, and so generally respected and beloved both in the town and the neighbourhood, that, perhaps, it may be deemed strange that he should be induced to quit his situation. This, however, he did, in October 1759, at which time he removed to London, to be afternoon preacher to the society in the Old Jewry, belonging to Dr. Samuel Chandler. But the grand motive, besides the hope of more extensive usefulness, seems to have been, that he might advantageously dispose of his children, in which respect he succeeded. It must, indeed, be acknowledged, that be did not, in the metropolis, meet with all that popularity, as a preacher, to which he was entitled by his reaj merit. His delivery was clear and distinct, and his discourses excellent; but his voice was not powerful enough to rouse the bulk of mankind, who are struck with noise and parade: and his sermons, though practical, serious, and affecting to the attentive hearer, were rather too philosophical for the common run of congregations. But Mr. Amory enjoyed a general respect; and he received every mark of distinction which is usually paid, in London, to the most eminent ministers of the presbyterian denomination. In 1767, he was chosen one of the trustees to the charities of Dr. Daniel Williams. In 1768, the university of Edinburgh conferred upon him the degree of D. D. and in the same year he was elected one of the six Tuesday lecturers at Sailer’s Hall. It ought to have been mentioned, that previous to these last events, he was chosen, at the death of Dr. Chandler, in 1766, a pastor of the society at the Old Jewry; in which situation he continued till his decease. In 1770, he became movning-preacher at Newington Green, an,d cqlleague with the rev. Dr. Richard Price. When the dissenting ministers, in 1772, formed a design of endeavouring to procure an enlargement of the toleration act, Dr. Amory was one of the committee appointed for that purpose; and none could be more zealous for the prosecution of the scheme, Dr. Amory had the felicity of being able to continue his public services nearly to the last. June 16th, 1774, he was seized with a sudden disorder which left him nearly in a state of insensibility till his death, which happened on the 24th of that month, and in the 74th year of his age. He was interred in Bunhill Fields, on the 5th of July; and his funeral was attended by a respectable number of ministers and gentlemen. The discourse, on the occasion of his death, was preached in the Old Jewry, on the 10th of the same month, by the rev. Dr. Roger Flexman of Rotherhithe, who had been connected with him in an intimate friendship for more than 40 years; which friendship, Dr. Flexman assures us, had never once been interrupted bjr distaste, or darkened with a frown.

, esq. the son of counsellor Amory, who attended king William in Ireland, and was appointed secretary for the forfeited estates in that kingdom, where he was possessed of a very extensive property in the county of Clare. Our author was not born in Ireland, as it has been suggested. It has been conjectured that he was bred to some branch of the profession of physic, but it is not known that he ever followed that or any other profession. About 1757 he lived in a very recluse way on a small fortune, and his residence was in Orchard street, Westminster. At that time also he had a country lodging for occasional retirement in the summer, at Belfont, near Hounslow. He had then a wife, who bore a very respectable character, and by whom he had a son, who practised many years as a physician in the north of England. On the same authority we are tpld, that he was a man of a very peculiar look and aspect, though at the same time he bore quite the appearance of a gentleman. He read much, and scarce ever stirred abroad; but in the dusk of the evening would take his usual walk, and seemed always to be ruminating on speculative subjects, even when passing along the most crowded streets.

“As to the dean, we have four histories of him, lately published: to wit, by lord Orrery, the Observer on lord Orrery, Deane Swift, esq. and Mrs. Pilkington; but after all the man is not described. The ingenious female writer comes nearest to his character, so far as she relates; but her relation is an imperfect piece. My lord and the remarker on his lordship have given us mere critiques on his writings, and not so satisfactory as one could wish. They are not painters. And as to Mr. Swift, the dean’s cousin, his essay is an odd kind of history of the doctor’s family, and vindication of the dean’s high birth, pride, and proceedings. His true character is not attempted by this writer. He says it never can be drawn up with any degree of accuracy, so exceedingly strange, various, and perplexed it was; and yet the materials are to be gathered from his writings. All this I deny. I think I can draw his character; not from his writings, but from my own near observations on the man. I knew him well, though I never was within-side of his house; because I could not flatter, cringe, or meanly humour the extravagancies of any man. I am sure I knew him better than any of those friends he entertained twice a week at the deanery, Stella excepted. I had him often to myself in his rides and walks, and have studied his soul when he little thought what I was about. As I lodged for a year within a few doors of him, I knew his times of going out to a minute, and generally nicked the opportunity. He was fond of company upon these occasions; and glad to have any rational person to talk to: for, whatever was the meaning of it, he rarely had any of his friends attending him at his exercises. One servant only and no companion he had with him, as often as I have met him, or came up with him. What gave me the easier access to him, was my being tolerably well acquainted with our politics and history, and knowing many places, things, people and parties, civil and religious, of his beloved England. Upon this account he was glad I joined him. We talked generally of factions and religion, states and revolutions, leaders and parties. Sometimes we had other subjects. Who I was he never knew; nor did I seem to know he was the dean for a long time; not till one Sunday evening that his verger put me into his seat at St. Patrick’s prayers, without my knowing the doctor sat there. Then I was obliged to recognize the great man, and seemed in a very great surprise. This pretended ignorance of mine as to the person of the dean had giverr me an opportunity of discoursing more freely with, and of receiving more information from the doctor than otherwise I could have enjoyed. The dean was proud beyond all other mortals I have seen, and quite another man when he was known.

“This may appear strange to many; but it must be to those who are not acquainted with me. I was so far from having a vanity to be known to Dr. Swift, or to be seen among the fortunate at his house (as I have heard those who met there called), that I am sure it would not have been in the power of any person of consideration to get me there. What I wanted in relation to the dean I had. This was enough for me. I desired no more of him. I was enabled by the means related to know the excellencies and the defects of his understanding; and the picture I have drawn of his mind, you shall see in the appendix aforenamed; with some remarks on his writings, and on the cases of Vanessa and Stella.

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.

, one of our early confessors in the third century, of whom all the accounts we have seen appear doubtful, is said to have converted our British proto-martyr St. Alban to the Christian faith, and both suffered in the tenth persecution under the emperor Dioclesian, some think about the latter end of his reign, but Cressy, on better authority, fixes it in the third year of that emperor’s reign, or 286. Boethius, with other Scotch historians, make Amphibalus to be bishop of the Isle of Man; but Gyraldus Cambrensis, with many of the writers of our church history, say he was by birth a Welchman, and bishop of the Isle of Anglesea; and that, after converting Alban he fled from Verulam into Wales to escape the execution of the severe edict made by Dioclesian against the Christians, and was there seized and brought back to Redburn in Hertfordshire, where he was put to death in the most cruel manner. Archbishop Usher, however, explodes this story as a piece of monkish fiction, and says his name no where occurs till Jeffery of Monmouth’s time, who is the first author that mentions it. Fuller, in his usual quaint manner, wonders how this compounded Greek word came to wander into Wales, and thinks it might take its rise from the cloak in which he was wrapped, or from changing vestments with his disciple Alban, the better to disguise his escape. It is certain that the venerable Bede, who was a Saxon, and to whom most of our monkish historians are indebted for the history of St. Alban,' makes no mention of his name, only calling him presbyter^ a. priest, or clerk. He is said to have written several homilies, and a work “ad instituendam vitam Christianam,” afld to have been indefatigable in promoting Christianity, but authentic particulars of his life are now beyond our reach.

, Amolon, or Amolo, was archbishop of Lyons, and illustrious for his learning and piety; he wrote against Godeschalkus, and against the Jews, and some pieces on free-will and predestination, which were printed by P. Sirmond, 1645, 8vo, and are also in the “Bibliotheca Patrum.” He died in the year 854.

, an advocate in the parliament of Aix, who died in 1760, is known by some works in natural science: 1. “Observations experimentales sur les eaux des rivieres de Seine, de Marne, c.” 1749, 12mo. 2. “Nouvelles fontaines filtrantes,” 1757, 12mo. 3. “Reflexions sur les vaisseaux de cuivre, de plomb, et d'etain,” 1757, 12mo. &c. His works discover the author to have been a great friend to mankind, employing his knowledge in the investigation of whatever may prove useful or noxious to his fellowcreatures.

, Razy, or native of the city of Rey in Azerbaidjan, was a very learned Persian who flourished about the commencement of the eleventh century of the hegira, or the seventeenth of the Christian sera. We have no particulars of his life, but his extensive learning is apparent from a geographical and biographical work, composed by him, under the title “Heft iclym,” the “Seven climates,” containing a description of tue principal countries and cities of the East, with biographical notices of the most eminent persons. The dates, and the lists of the works of each author are said to be very correct. It concludes with the year 1002 of the hegira. There is a very fine copy of it in Uie imperial library of Paris, a large folio of 582 leaves, copied in the year 1094 of the hegira, or 1683, A. D. M. Langles gave several extracts from it in the notes to his French translation of the Asiatic researches, and some also in the new edition of Chardin’s voyages.

Such was the consequence of his interference in this controversy; but as the history of opinions is perhaps one of the most interesting branches of biography, we shall more particularly state Amyraut’s hypothesis: It may be briefly summed up in the following propositions: “That God desires the happiness of all men, and that no mortal is excluded by any divine decree, from the benefits that are procured by the death, sufferings, and gospel of Christ: That, however, none can be made a partaker of the blessings of the gospel, and of eternal salvation, unless he believe in Jesus Christ: That such indeed is the immense and universal goodness of the Supreme Being, that he refuses to none the power of believing; though he does not grant unto all his assistance and succour, that they may wisely improve this power to the attainment of everlasting salvation; and That, in consequence of this, multitudes perish, through their own fault, and not from any want of goodness in God.” Mosheim is of opinion that this is only a species of Arminiariism or Pelagianism artfully disguised under ambiguous expressions, and that it is not very consistent, as it represents God as desiring salvation for ally which, in order to its attainment, requires a degree of his assistance and succour which he refuses to many. Amyraut’s opinion was ably controverted by Rivet, Spanheim, De Marets, and others; and supported afterwards, by Daille, Blondel, Mestrezat, and Claude.

Amyraut was a man of such charity and compassion, that he bestowed on the poor his whole salary during the last ten years of his life, without distinction of 'saffholic or protestant. He died the 8th of February 1664, and was interred with the usual ceremonies of the academy. He left but one son, who was one of the ablest advocates of the parliament of Paris, but fled to the Hague after the revocation of the edict of Nantes: he had also a daughter, who died in 1645, a year and a half after she had been married. His works are chiefly theological, and very voluminous; but, notwithstanding his fame, few of them were printed a second time, and they are now therefore scarce, and perhaps we may add, not in much request. He published in 1631 his “Traite des Religions,” against those who think all religions indifferent, and five years after, six “Sermons upon the nature, extent, &c. of the Gospel,” and several others at different times. His book of the exaltation of Faith, and abasement of Reason, “De Pelevation de la foi, &c.” appeared in 1641; and the same year was published in Latin the “Defence of Calvin with regard to the doctrine of absolute reprobation,” which in 1644 appeared in French. He began his “Paraphrase on the Scripture” in 1644: the Epistle to the Romans was paraphrased the first; then the other Epistles; and lastly the Gospel but like Calvin, he did not meddle with the Revelations, nor did he prefix his name to his Paraphrases lest it should deter the Roman Catholics from perusing them. He pub^ lishedin 1647 an “Apology for the Protestants,” “A treatise of Free Will,” and another “De Secessione ab Ecclesia Romana, deque pace inter Evangelicos in negotio Religionis constituenda.” But he treated this subject of the re-union of the Calvinists and Lutherans more at length in his “Irenicon” published in 1662. His book of the “Vocation of Pastors” appeared in 1649. He had preached on this subject before the prince of Tarento, at the meetings of a provincial synod, of which he was moderator. The prince desired the sermon might be printed, and the subject treated more at length, it being then the common topic of all missionaries. Mr. Amyraut, therefore, not only printed his sermon, but published a complete treatise upon that important controversy, and dedicated them both to the said prince. His Christian Morals, “Morale Chre-= tienne,” in six vols. 8vo, the first of which was printed in 1652, were owing to the frequent conferences he had with Mr. de Villornoul, a gentleman of an extraordinary merit, and one of the most learned men of Europe, who was heir in this respect also to Mr. du Plessis Mornai his grandfather by the mother’s side. He published also a treatise of dreams, “Traité des Songes;” two volumes upon “the Millenium,” wherein he refutes an advocate of Paris, called Mr. de Launoi, who was a zealous Millenarian; the “Life of the brave la None, surnamed Iron-arm,” from 1560 to the time of his death in 1591, Leyden, 1661, 4to; and several other works, particularly a poem, entitled “The Apology of St. Stephen to his Judges.” This piece was attacked by the missionaries, who asserted that the author had spoke irreverently of the sacrament of the altar; but he published a pamphlet in which he defended himself with great ability.

, a famous philosopher, was born in Scythia. He was brother to Cadovides king of Scythia, and the son of Gnurus by a Greek woman, which gave him the opportunity of learning both languages to perfection. Sosicrates, according to Laertius, affirmed, that he came to Athens in the forty-seventh olympiad, or 592 B.C. under Eucrates the Archon, And Hermippus tells us, that as soon as he arrived there, he went to Solon’s house, and knocked at his door, and bid the servant, who opened it, go and tell his master, that Anacharsis was there, and was come on purpose to see him, and continue with him for $ome time. Solon returned him an answer, that it was better to contract friendship at home. Anacharsis went in upon this, and said to Solon, that since he was then in his own country and in his own house, it was his duty to entertain him as his guest, and therefore he desired him to enter into an intimate friendship with hi;n. Solon, surprized at the vivacity of his repartee, immediately engaged in a friendship with him, which lasted as long as they lived. Solon instructed him in the best discipline, recommended him to the favour of the noblest per ons, and sought all means of giving him respect and honour. Anacharsis was kindly received by every one for his sake, and, as Theoxenus attests, was the only stranger whom they incorporated into their city. He was a man of a very quick and lively genius, and of a strong and masterly eloquence, and was resolute in whatever he undertook. He constantly wore a coarse double garment. He was very temperate, and his diet was nothing but milk and cheese. His speeches were delivered in a concise and pathetic style, and as he was inflexible in the pursuit of his point, he never failed to gain it, and his resolute and eloquent manner of speaking passed into a proverb; and those who imitated him were said to speak in the Scythian phrase. He was extremely fond of poetry, and wrote the laws of the Scythians, and of those things-which he had observed among the Greeks, and a poem of 900 verses upon war. Crœsus, having heard of his reputation, sent to offer him money, and to desire him to come to see him at Sardis; but the philosopher answered, that he was come to Greece in order to learn the language, manners, and laws of that country, that he had no occasion for gold or silver, and that it would be sufficient for him to return to Scythia a better man and more intelligent than when he came from thence. He told the king, however, that he would take an opportunity of seeing him, since he had a strong desire of being ranked in the number of his friends. After he had continued a long while in Greece, he prepared to return home, and passing through Cyricum, he found the people of that city celebrating in a very solemn manner the feast of Cybele. This excited him to make a vow to that goddess, that he would perform the same sacrifices, and establish the same feast in honour of her in his own country, if he should return thither in safety. Upon his arrival in Scythia he attempted to change the ancient customs of that country, and to establish those of Greece, but this proved extremely displeasing to the Scythians, and fatal to himself. As he had one day entered into a thick wood called Hylaea, in order to accomplish his vow to Cybele in the most secret manner possible, and was performing the whole ceremony before an image of that goddess, he was discovered by a Scytman, who went and informed king Saulius of it. The king came immediately, and surprised Anaenarsis in the midst of the solemnity, and shot him dead with an arrow. Laertius tells us, that he was killed by his brother with an arrow as he was hunting, and that he expired with these words: “I lived in peace and safety in Greece, whither I went to inform myself of its language and manners, and envy has destroyed me in my native country.” Great respect, however, was paid to him after his death by the erection of statues. He is said to have invented the potter’s wheel, but this is mentioned by Homer long before he lived, yet he probably introduced it into his country.

The editions of Anacreon are too nurqerous to be specified here. They were printed for the first time by Henry Stephens, Paris, 1554, 4to, who had found the eleventh ode on the cover of an old book. Until then we had nothing of Anacreon but what was in Aulus Gellius, or the Anthology. Stephens, however, had the good fortune to meet with two manuscripts, which he compared with scrupulous care. These were the only Mss. known for a long period; but as Stephens, who some time before his death fell into mental decay, neglected to communicate to any person where they were, they are supposed to have been destroyed with many other valuable originals. This circumstance was the cause of some suspicion attaching to the Editio Princeps as deficient in authenticity. It was, however, generally followed in the subsequent editions, of which those of Madame Dacier and Barnes were long esteemed the best. But the most singular and magnificent edition of modern times is that of Joseph Spaletti, which was printed at Rome in 1781, in imperial quarto, with 35 fine plates, exclusive of 16 plates m fac-simile. In the preface, the editor remarks, that some hyper-critics, as Le Fevre, Dacier, and Baxter, had doubted the authenticity of Anacreon: and that Cornelius Pau had even suspected his odes to have been productions of the sixteenth century. To confute this, Spaletti now published the poems of Anaereon mfac-simile, from a ms. in the Vatican, of the tenth century, as is palpable, from its calligraphy, to any person acquainted with Greek archaeology. The Latin translation by Spaletti is said to be much more accurate than any other. There are many English translations of Anacreon, who has ever been a favourite with young poets. Cowley is thought to have been the first successful translator. The French also have many translations, and some of them faithful and spirited.

, so called because he was librarian of the church of Rome, was a native of Greece, and one of the most learned men of his age. He flourished about the middle of the ninth century, and was abbot of St. Mary’s trans Tiberim. His chief work, the “Liber Pontincalis,” or the lives of the Popes from St. Peter to Nicholas I. is of a doubtful character: Blondel and Salmasius bestow great encomiums on it, while Hailing, a Roman catholic writer of note, depreciates it as much. To the last edition of this book is joined Ciampinius’s examination of the validity of the facts therein mentioned; and from this we learn that he wrote only the lives of Gregory IV. Sergius II. Leo IV. Benedict III. and Nicholas I. and that the lives of the other popes in that book were done by different authors. Anastasius is said to have assisted at the eighth general council held at Constantinople in the year 869, of which he translated the acts and canons from Greek into Latin. The time of his death is a disputed point, as indeed are many particulars relating to him. Bayle has a very elaborate article on his history, which Cave had previously examined, and Blondel, in his “Familier eclaircissement,” and Boeder in his “Bibl. critica,” have likewise entered deeply into the controversy. He wrote a great number of translations, more valued for their fidelity than elegance, yet they have all been admitted into the popish collections of ecclesiastical memoirs and antiquities. The first edition of the “Liber Pontincalis” was printed at Mentz, 1602, 4to, and two more editions appeared in the last century, one in four vols. fol. by Francis and Joseph Bianchini, 1718—1735, and the other in three vols. 4to, by the abbé Vignoli, 1724—1753, besides an edition by Muratori, in his collection of Italian writers, enlarged by learned dissertations, from which it would appear that Anastafcius was rather the translator, or compiler of those lives, and that he took them from the ancient catalogues of the popes, the acts of the martyrs, and other documents preserved among the archives of the Roman church. The Vatican library then consisted of little else, although it appears that there was before his time a person honoured with the title of librarian.

, called the Sinaite, because he was a monk of mount Sinai, flourished in the seventh century. We have several writings of this recluse: 1. “Odegos,” or the Guide on the true way, in Gr. and Lat. Ingoldstadt, 1606, 4to. 2. “Contemplationes in Hexameron,” GreecoLat. Londini, 1682, 4to, published by Allix. 3. “Cinq livres dogmatiques de Theologie.” 4. “Some sermons.” His works were published at Ingolstadt, 1606, 4to, by the Jesuit Gretser, and inserted in the Biblioth. Pp.

The material world was conceived by Anaxagoras to have originated from a confused mass, consisting of different kinds of particles. Having learned in the Ionic school, that bodies are composed of minute parts, and having observed in different bodies different, and frequently contrary, forms and qualities, he concluded, that the primary particles, of which bodies consist, are of different kinds; and that the peculiar form and properties of each body depend upon the nature of that class of particles, of which it is chiefly composed. A bone, for instance, he conceived to be composed of a great number of bony particles, apiece of gold, of golden particles; and thus he supposed bodies of every kind to be generated from similar particles, and to assume the character of those particles. Notwithstanding the difficulties and absurdities which obviously attend this system, the invention of it was a proof of the author’s ingenuity, who doubtless had recourse to the notion of similar particles, in hopes of obviating the objections which lay against the doctrine of atoms, as he had received it from, Anaxiinenes. But the most important improvement which Anaxagoras made upon the doctrine of his predecessors, was that of separating, in his system, the active principle in nature from the material mass upon which it acts, and thus introducing a distinct intelligent cause of all things. The similar particles of matter, which he supposed to be the basis of nature, being without life or motion, he concluded that there must have been, from eternity, an intelligent principle, or infinite mind, existing separately from matter, which, having a power of motion within itself, first communicated motion to the material mass, and, by uniting homogeneal particles, produced the various forms of nature.

That Anaxagoras maintained an infinite mind to be the author of all motion and life, is attested by many ancient authorities. Plato expressly asserts, that Anaxagoras taught the existence of “a disposing mind, the cause of all things.” Aristotle gives it as his doctrine, that mind is the first principle of all things, pure, simple, and unmixed; that it possesses within itself the united powers of thought and motion; and that it gives motion to the universe, and is the cause of whatever is fair and good. Plutarch confirms this account of the doctrine of Anaxagoras, and shews wherein it differed from that of his predecessors. “The Ionic philosophers,” says he, “who appeared before Anaxagoras, made fortune, or blind necessity, that is, the fortuitous or necessary motion of the particles of matter, the first principle in nature; but Anaxagoras affirmed that a pure mind, perfectly free from all material concretions, governs the universe.” From these and other concurrent testimonies it clearly appears, that Anaxagoras was the first among the Greeks who conceived mind as detached from matter, and as acting upon it with intelligence and design in the formation of the universe. The infinite mind, or deity, which his predecessors had confounded with matter, making them one universe, Anaxagoras conceived to nave a separate and independent existence, and to be simple, pure intelligence, capable of forming the eternal mass of matter according to his pleasure. Thus he assigned an adequate cause for the existence of the visible world.

Several doctrines are ascribed to Anaxagoras, which might seem to indicate no inconsiderable knowledge of na ture: such as, that the wind is produced by the rarefaction of the air that the rainbow is the effect of the reflection of the solar rays from a thick cloud, placed opposite to it like a mirror; that the moon is an opaque body, enlightened by the sun, and an habitable region, divided into hills, vales, and waters; that the comets are wandering stars; and that the fixed stars are in a region exterior to those of the sun and moon. But the writers who report these particulars have mixed with them such strange absurdities, as weaken the credit of their whole relation. When we are told, that Anaxagoras thought the sun to be a flat circular mass of hot iron, somewhat bigger than the Peloponnesus; and the stars to have been formed from stones whirled from the earth by the violent circumvolution of its surrounding ether, we cannot but suspect that in the course of traditionary report, his opinions must have been ignorantly misconceived, or designedly misrepresented.

, a Greek comic poet, born at Camirus, in the isle of Rhodes, flourished in the 101st olympiad, B. C. 400, and was the first, if Suidas may be credited, who introduced love adventures on the stage, which Bayle thinks doubtful. He was a man conceited of his person, wore rich apparel, and affected pomp and grandeur to such a degree, that being once engaged to read ­poem at Athens, he went to the appointed place on horseback, and rehearsed part of his performance in that posture. Such a behaviour renders probable what is further said of him, viz. that he was extremely grieved when his pieces did not carry the prize. He never used, like other, poets, to polish or correct them, that they might appear again in a better condition; and this disrespect for his spectators occasioned the loss of several fine comedies. Owing to the same circumstance, he won the prize but ten times, whereas we find above twenty of his plays quoted, and he wrote in all sixty-five. The Athenians condemned him to be starved for censuring their government. None of his productions are extant, but some of them are mentioned by Aristotle and other authors.

, an ancient philosopher, was the first who taught philosophy in a public school, and is therefore often spoken of as the founder of the Ionic sect. He was born in the third year of the 42d olympiad, or B. C. 610. Cicero calls him the friend and companion of Thales; whence it is probable, that he was a native of Miletus. That he was employed in instructing youth, may be inferred from an anecdote related concerning him; that, being laughed at for singing (that is, probably, reciting his verses) ill, he said, “We must endeavour to sing better, for the sake of the boys.” Anaximander was the first who laid aside the defective method of oral tradition, and committed the principles of natural science to writing. It is related of him, which, however, is totally improbable, that he predicted an earthquake. He lived sixty-four years.

The general doctrine of Anaximander, concerning nature and the origin of things, was, that infinity is the first principle of all things; that the universe, though variable in its parts, as one whole is immutable; and that all things are produced from infinity, and terminate in it. What this philosopher meant by infinity, has been a subject of a dispute productive of many ingenious conjectures, which are, however, too feebly supported to merit particular notice. The most material question is, whether Anaximander understood by infinity the material subject, or the efficient cause, of nature. Plutarch asserts, the infinity of Anaximander to be nothing but matter. Aristotle explains it in the same manner, and several modern writers adopt the same idea. But neither Aristotle nor Plutarch could have any better ground for their opinion than conjecture. It is more probable, that Anaximander, who was a disciple of Thales, would attempt to improve, than that he would entirely reject, the doctrine of his master. If, therefore, the explanation, given above, of the system of Thales be admitted, there will appear some ground for supposing, that Anaximander made use of the term infinity to denote the humid mass of Thales, whence all things arose, together with the divine principle by which he supposed it to be animated. This opinion is supported by the authority of Hermias, who asserts, that Anaximander supposed an eternal mover or first cause of motion, prior to the humid mass of Thales. And Aristotle himself speaks of the infinity of Anaximander as comprehending and directing all things. After all, nothing can be determined, with certainty, upon this subject.

, a Milesian, who was born about the fifty-sixth olympiad, or B. C. 556, was a hearer and companion of Anaximander. He followed the footsteps of his master, in his inquiries into the nature and origin of things, and attempted to cast new light upon the system. He taught, that the first principle of all things is air, which he held to be infinite, or immense. Anaximenes, says Simplicius, taught the unity and immensity of matter, but under a more definite term than Anaximander, calling it air. He held air to be God, because it is diffused through all nature, and is perpetually active. The air of Anaximenes is, then, a subtle ether, animated with a divine principle, whence it becomes the origin of all beings, and in this sense Lactantins understood his doctrine.

Anaximenes was probably the continuator of the doctrine of Thales and Anaximander, concerning the first principle of nature, with this difference only, that he supposed the divine energy to be resident in air, or ether. Chiefly attentive, however, to material causes, he was silent concerning the nature of the divine mind.

Anaximenes is also said to have taught, that all minds are air; that fire, water, and earth, proceed from it, by rarefaction or condensation; that the sun and moon are fiery bodies, whose form is that of a circular plate; that the stars, which also are fiery substances, are fixed in the heavens, as nails in a crystalline plane; and that the earth is a plane tablet resting upon the air.

, an eminent divine, of the reformed church at Metz, was born March 17, 1617. He studied from the ninth or tenth year of his age in the Jesuits’ college, then the only one at Metz where there was an opportunity of being instructed in polite literature. In this college he gave such proofs of genius, that the heads of the society left nothing unattempted in order to draw him over to their religion and party, but he continued firm against their attacks, and that he might be the more enabled to withstand them, took the resolution of studying divinity, in which he was so indefatigable, that his father was often obliged to interpose his authority to interrupt his continual application, lest it suould injure his health. He went to Geneva in the year 1633, and performed his course of philosophy there under Mr. du Pattr, and his divinity studies under Spanheim, Diodati, and Tronchin, who had a great esteem for him. He left Geneva in April 1641, and offered himself to the synod of Charenton, in order to take upon him the office of a minister. His abilities were greatly admired by the examiners, and his modesty by the ministers of Paris; and the whole assembly was so highly satisfied with him, that they gave him one of the most considerable churches, which was unprovided for, that of Meaux, where he exercised his ministry till the year 1653, and became extremely popular, raising an extensive reputation by his learning, eloquence, and virtue, and was even highly respected by those of the Roman catholic communion. He displayed his talents with still greater reputation and success in his own country, where he was minister from the year 1653, till the revocation of the edict of Nantes in 1685. He retired to Francfort after that fatal blow; and having preached in the French church at Hanau, the whole assembly was so edified by it, that they immediately called together the heads of the families, in order to propose that he might be desired to accept of the office of minister among them. The proposition was agreed to; and they sent deputies who prevailed on him, and he began the exercise of his ministry in that church about the end of the year 1685. It was now that several persons who had quitted the French church, for some disgust, returned to it again. The professors of divinity, and the German and Dutch ministers, attended frequently upon his sermons. The count of Hanau himself, who had never before been seen in that church, came thither to hear Mr. Ancillon. His auditors came from the neighbouring parts, and even from Francfort, and people, who understood nothing of French, flocked together with great eagerness, and said, that they loved to see him speak; a degree of popularity which excited the jealousy of two other ministers, who at length rendered his situation so uneasy that he was induced to abandon voluntarily a place from which they could not force him. If he had chosen to rely upon the voice of the people, he might have still retained his situation, but it was his opinion that a faithful pastor ought not to establish his own interests upon any division between a congregation and its ministers, and as through his whole life he had been averse to parties, and had remonstrated often against cabals and factions, he would not take advantage of the disposition which the people were in towards him, nor permit them to act. Having therefore attempted every method which charity suggested without success, he resolved to quit Hanau, where he had to wrangle without intermission, and where his patience, which had supported several great trials, might possibly he at last overcome; and for these reasons he left it privately. He would now have returned to Francfort to settle, but in consideration of his numerous family, he preferred Berlin, where he received a kind reception from the elector of Brandenbourg. He was also made minister of Berlin, and had the pleasure of seeing his eldest son made judge and director of the French who were in that city, and his other son rewarded with a pension, and entertained at the university of Francfort upon the Oder, and at last minister in ordinary of the capital. He had likewise the satisfaction of seeing his brother made judge of all the French in the states of Brandenbourg, and Mr. Cayart, his son-in-law, engineer to his electoral highness. He enjoyed these circumstances undisturbed, till his death at Berlin, September 3, 1692, aged seventy-five years. His marriage was contracted in a very singular way: The principal heads of families of the church of Meaux seeing how much their minister distinguished himself, and hearing him sometimes saying, that he would go to Metz to see his father and relations, whom he had not seen for several years, were apprehensive lest they should lose him. They thought of a thousand expedients in order to fix him with them for a long time; and the surest way in their opinion was to marry him to some rich lady of merit, who had an estate in that country or near it. One of them recollected he had heard, that Mr. Ancillon having preached one Sunday in the morning at Charenton, he was universally applauded; and that Mr. Macaire especially, a venerable old gentleman, of very exemplary virtue and piety, and possessed of a considerable estate at Paris and about Meaux, had given him a thousand blessings and commendations, and said aloud to those who sat near him in the church, that he had but one daughter, who was an only child, and very dear to him; but if that gentleman, speaking of Mr. Ancillon, should come and ask her in marriage, he would give her with all his heart. Upon this, they went to ask him, whether he still continued in that favourable opinion of him; he replied, that he did; and accompanied that answer with new expressions of his esteem and affection for Mr. Ancillon; so that the marriage was concluded in the year 1649, and proved a very happy one, although there was a great disparity of years, the young lady being only fourteen.

His writings are but few, 1. “Relation fidele de tout ce qui s’est passe dans la conference publique avec M. Bedacier, eveque d'Aost,” Sedan, 1657, 4to. This dispute which he carried on with M. Bedacier, is concerning traditions, and was managed on the part of our author with great success, but they had agreed not to print it, and it would have remained unknown, had not a spurious account appeared, in which it was stated that Anciilon had been defeated. 2. “Apologie de Luther, de Zuingle, de Calvin, et de Beze,” Hanau, 1666, which is part of an answer he had prepared against cardinal de Richelieu. 3. “Vie de Guil. Farel,” or the idea of a faithful minister of Christ, printed in 1691, Amst. 12mo, from a most erroneous copy. He published also one fast sermon, 1676, entitled “The Tears of St. Paul.” But the work which contains the most faithful picture of his learning, principles, and talents, in conversation, was published by his son, the subject of the next article, at Basil, 1698, 3 vols. 12mo, entitled “Melange critique de Litterature, recueilli des conversations de feu M. Ancillon.” There was likewise a new edition of it published at Amsterdam in 1702, in one volume 12mo, which was disowned by the editor, because there were several things inserted in ic, which were injurious to his father’s memory, and his own character. This collection of Ancillon was formed from what he heard his father speak of in conversation, and he has digested it under proper heads. It contains a great number of useful and curious remarks, although not wholly free from mistakes, some of the sentiments having been conveyed to the editor by persons who probably did not remember them exactly.

, a native of Scotland, was brother to the rev. James Anderson, D.D. editor of the “Royal Genealogies,” and of “The Constitutions of the Free Masons,” to whom he was chaplain. He was likewise many years minister of the Scotch Presbyterian church in Swallowstreet, Piccadilly, and well known among the people of that persuasion resident in London by the name of bishop Anderson, a learned but imprudent man, who lost a considerable part of his property in the fatal year 1720. His brother Adam, the subject of this article, was for 40 years a. clerk in the South Sea house, and at length was appointed chief clerk of the stock and new annuities, which office he retained till his death. He was appointed one of the trustees for establishing the colony of Georgia in America, by charter dated June 9, 5 Geo. II. He was also one of the court of assistants of the Scots’ corporation in London. He published his “Historical and Chronological deduction of Trade and Commerce,” a work replete with useful information, in 1762 3, 2 vols. fol. He was twice married; by the first wife he had issue a daughter, married to one Mr. Hardy, a druggist or apothecary in Southampton-street in the Strand, who both died without issue; he afterwards became the third husband of the widow of Mr. Coulter, formerly a wholesale linen-draper in Cornhill, by whom he had no issue; she was, like him, tall and graceful, and her face has been thought to have some resemblance to that of the ever-living countess of Desmond, given in Mr. Pennant’s first Tour in Scotland. Mr. Anderson died at his house in Red-lion-street, Clerkenwell, Jan. 10, 1765, aged 73. He had a good library of books, which were sold by his widow, who survived him several years, and died in 1781. His History of Commerce has been lately very much improved in a new edition, 4 vols. 4to, by Mr. M'Pherson.

, an eminent mathematician, was born at Aberdeen towards the end of the sixteenth century. Where he was educated, or under what masters, we have not learned: probably he studied the belles lettres and philosophy in the university of his native city, and, as was the practice in that age of all who could afford it, went afterwards abroad for the cultivation of other branches of science. But wherever he studied, his progress must have been rapid; for early in the seventeenth century, we find him professor of mathematics in the university of Paris, where he published several ingenious works, and among others, “Supplementum Apollonii Redivivi, &c.” Paris, 1612, 4to; “Afliotoyus, pro Zetetico Apolloniani problematis a se jam priclem edilo in supplemento Apollenii Redivivi, &c.” Paris, 1615, 4to; “Francisci Vietae de Equationum recognitione et emendatione tractatus duo,” with a dedication, preface, and appendix by himself, Paris, 1615, 4to; “Vieta’s Angulares Sectiones:” to which he added demonstrations of his own.

Our professor was cousin german to Mr. David Anderson of Finshaugh, a gentleman who also possessed a singular turn for mathematical knowledge. This mathematical genius was hereditary in the family of the Andersons; and from them it seems to have been transmitted to their descendants of the name of Gregory, who have for so many generations been eminent in Scotland, as professors, either of mathematics, or, more lately, of the theory and practice of physic. The daughter of the David Anderson just mentioned, was the mother of the celebrated James Gregory, inventor of the reflecting telescope; and observing in her son, while yet a child, a strong propensity to -mathematical studies, she instructed him in the elements of that science herself. From the same lady descended the late Dr. Reid of Glasgow, who was not less eminent for his knowledge of mathematics than for his metaphysical writings. The precise dates of Alexander Anderson’s birth and death, we have not learned either from Dempster, Mackenzie, or Dr. Hutton, who seems to have used every endeavour to procure information, nor are such of his relations as we have had an opportunity of consulting, so well acquainted with his private history as we expected to find them.

, a younger brother of a good family, either of Broughton, or of Flixborough in Lincolnshire, descended originally from Scotland. He received the first part of his education in the country, and went afterwards to Lincoln college in Oxford: from thence he removed to the Inner Temple, where he read law with great assiduity, and in due time was called to the bar. In the ninth of queen Elizabeth, he was both Lent and Summer reader; in the sixteenth of that queen, double reader, notes of which readings are yet extant in manuscript; and in the nineteenth year of queen Elizabeth, he was appointed one of the queen’s Serjeants at law. Some time after, he was made a judge; and, in 1581, being upon the Norfolk circuit at Bury, he exerted himself against the famous Browne, the author of those opinions which were afterwards maintained by a sect called from him Brownists: for this conduct of judge Anderson, the bishop of Norwich wrote a letter to treasurer Burleigh, desiring the judge might receive the queen’s thanks. In 1582, he was made lord chief justice of the common pleas, and the year following received the honour of knighthood. In 1586, he was appointed one of the commissioners for trying Mary queen of Scots; on the 12th of October, the same year, he sat in judgment upon her; and on the 25th of the same month, he sat again in the star-chamber, when sentence was pronounced against this unhappy queen. In 1587, he sat in the star-chamber on secretary Davison, who was charged with issuing the warrant for the execution of the queen of Scots, contrary to queen Elizabeth’s command, and without her knowledge. After the cause had been heard, sir Roger Manwood, chief baron of the exchequer, gave his opinion first, wherein he extolled the queen’s clemency, which he said, Davison had inconsiderately prevented; and therefore he was for fining him ten thousand pounds, and imprisonment during the queen’s pleasure. Chief justice Anderson spoke next, and said that Davison, had done justum, non juste,—that is, he had done what was right, but not in a right manner, which, Granger observes, is excellent logic for finding an innocent man guilty.

, a young man of extraordinary talents, was born at Weston, a village near Aylesbury, in Buckinghamshire, in Nov. 1760. His father was a peasant of the lower order, who died when his son was young, leaving him to the care of providence: from his mother and an elder brother he received some little instruction, and particularly by the latter he was taught the rudiments of arithmetic. His chief occupation, however, was in the field, where his family were obliged to procure a subsistence, and here, like his predecessor in early fortune, James Ferguson, he became enamoured of mathematical science, and devoted what hours he could spare to this study, although with disadvantages which in most men would have prevented the attempt, or interrupted the progress. Yet such was his application, that in 1777, he transmitted to the London Magazine the solution of some problems which had appeared in that work, and he had the satisfaction to see his letter admitted. As he had signed this letter with his name, and dated it from Weston, it happened to fall under the inspection of Mr. Bonnycastle, the well-known author of various mathematical and astronomical works, and now mathematical master to the Royal Academy, Woolwich, who was not less pleased than surprised at this attempt of a young man from the sama county with himself, of whom he had never heard. Mr. Bonnycastle, accordingly, on his next visit in Buckinghamshire, procured an interview with the young genius, whom he found threshing in a barn, the walls of which were covered with triangles and parallelograms. Such was young Anderson’s bashfulness, however, that Mr. Bonnycastle could not draw him into conversation, until he won hfs heart by the loan of Simpson’s Fluxions, and two or threeother books.

Mr. Anderson’s extraordinary talents becoming now the talk of the neighbourhood, he soon found a generous and steady patron in the Rev. Mr. King, then vicar of Whitchurch, who determined to send him to the university: and, after some preliminary instruction at the grammarschool belonging to New College, Oxford, he entered of Wadliam College. Here he applied himself to the study of classical learning, but his principal acquirements continued to be in his favourite science. At the usual time, he took the degree of M. A. and was admitted to deacon’s orders, but whether from the want of a successful prospect, or from disinclination, he gave up all thoughts of the church, and came to London in 1785, in consequence of an invitation from Scrope Bernard, esq. M. P. brother-inlaw to Mr. King. After two or three months, Mr. Bernard introduced him to Mr. now lord Grenville, and he recommended him to Mr. Dundas (lord Melville), who was then at the head of the board of India controul, in which he obtained an appointment. His salary was at first small, but he soon discovered such ability in arithmetical calculations and statements, that his salary was liberally increased^ and himself promoted to the office of accountantgeneral. While employed in preparing the complicated accounts of the India budget for 1796, he was seized with an indisposition, which was so rapidly violent as to put au end to his useful life in less than a week. He died Saturday, April 30, of the above year, universally lamented by his friends, and was interred in St. Pancras church-yard. His character was in all respects truly amiable: although his intercourse with the learned and polite world had taken off the rust of his early years, yet his demeanour was simple and modest. His conversation, which, however, he rarely obtruded, was shrewd; and he appeared to possess some share of humour, but this was generally repressed by a hesitating bashfulness, of which he never wholly got rid. His death was lamented in the most feeling and honourable terms by the president of the India board, as a public loss; and by his interest, a pension was procured for Mrs. An,­derson, a very amiable young woman, whom Mr. Anderson married in 1790. Mr. Anderson published only two works, the one, “Arenarius, a treatise on numbering the sand.” This, which appeared in 1784, was a translation of the Arenarius of Archimedes, from the Greek, to which Mr. Anderson added notes and illustrations. The design is to demonstrate the possibility of enumerating the particles of sand which would compose a mass equal in bulk to the whole solar system, or any other determinate magnitude whatever. The translator, in his preface, gives some account of the knowledge of the ancients in arithmetic, algebra, geometry, and of the Pythagorean or Aristarchian system of the world; and to render his publication as complete as possible, he added, from the Latin, the Dissertation of Christopher Clavius, on the same subject as the Arenarius. Mr. Anderson’s other publication was a very candid and dispassionate “General view of the variations which have taken place in the affairs of the East India Company since the conclusion of the war in India in 1781,” 8vo. 1791.

In the course of this inquiry, Mr. Anderson had made large collections of ancient charters, and was now esteemed so well acquainted with antiquities of that kind, that the parliament ordered him to collect and publish a series of the charters and seals of the kings of Scotland (in their original characters, or fac simile) preceding king James the first of that kingdom, with the coins and medals down to the Union in 1707; promising to defray the expences of the work, and to recommend him to queen Anne, as a person meriting her royal favour for any office or place of trust in lieu of his employment. On this, in 1707, he gave up his professional engagements, and came to London to superintend the execution of the work. In 1715 he was made postmaster general of Scotland, which he enjoyed, for whatever reason, only to 1717.

Of Dr. Anderson’s abilities, his works exhibit so many proofs, that they may be appealed to with perfect confidence. Although a voluminous writer, there is no subject connected with his favourite pursuit, on which he has not thrown new lioht. But his knowledge was not confined to one science. He exhibited, to give only one instance, a very strong proof of powers of research, when in 1773, he published, in the first edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, an article under the head Monsoon. In this he clearly predicted the result of captain Cook’s first voyage; namely, that there did not exist, nor ever would be found, any continent or large island in the southern hemisphere near the tropics, excepting New Holland alone: and this was completely verified on captain Cook’s return, seven months Afterwards,

The following is a correct list of his works: 1. “A practical treatise on Chimneys; containing full directions for constructing them in all cases, so as to draw well, and for removing smoke in houses,” London, 1776 12mo. 2. “Free Thoughts on the American Contest,” Edin. 1776, 8vo. 3. “Miscellaneous observations on planting and training Timber-trees, by Agricola,” Edinburgh, 1777, 8vo. 4. “Observations on the means of exciting a spirit of National Industry,” Edin. 1777, 4to. 5. “An enquiry into the nature of the Corn Laws, with a view to the new Corn Bill proposed for Scotland,” 1777, 8vo. 6. “Essays relating to Agriculture and rural affairs,” 1777, 8vo. 7. “An enquiry into the causes that have hitherto retarded the advancement of Agriculture in Europe; with hints for removing the circumstances that have chiefly obstructed its progress,” 1779, 4to. 8. “The interest of Great Britain, with regard to her American Colonies, considered,” 1782, 8vp. 9. “The true interest of Great Britain considered; or a proposal for establishing the Northern British Fisheries,” 1783, 12mo. 10. “An account of the present state of the Hebrides and Western Coasts of Scotland; being the substance of a report to the Lords of the Treasury,” Edin. 1785, 8vo. 11. “Observations on Slavery; particularly with a view to its efforts on the British Colonies in the West Indies,” Manchester, 1789, 4to. 12. “Papers drawn up by him and sir John Sinclair, in reference to a report of a committee of the Highland Society on Shetland Wool,” 1790, 8vo. 13. “The Bee; consisting of essays, philosophical, philological, and miscellaneous,” 18vo ls. Edin. 1791—1794, 8vo. 14. “Observations on the effects of the Coal Duty,” Edin. 1792, 8vo. 15. “Thoughts on the privileges and power of Juries; with observations on the present state of the country with regard to credit,” Edin. 1793, 8vo. 16. “Remarks on the Poor Laws in Scotland,” Edin. 1793, 4to. 17. “A practical treatise on Peat Moss, in two essays,” 1794, 8vo. 18. “A general view of the Agriculture and rural œconomy of the county of Aberdeen; with observations on the means of its improvement. Chiefly drawn up for the Board of Agriculture; in two parts,” Edin. 1794, 8vo. 19. “An account of the different kinds of Sheep found in the Russian dominions, &c. By Dr. Pallas; with five appendixes, by Dr. Anderson,” Edinburgh, 1794, 8vo. 20. “On an Universal Character. In two letters to Edward Home, esq.” Edin. 1795, 8vo. 21. “A practical treatise on draining Bogs and swampy grounds; with cursory remarks on the originality of Ellungton’s mode of Draining,” 1797, 8vo. 22. “Recreations in Agriculture, Natural History, and Miscellaneous Literature,” 6 vols. 8vo. 1799—1802. 23. “Selections from his own correspondence with general Washington,” London, 1800, 8vo. 24. “A calm investigation of the circumstances that have led to the present Scarcity of Grain in Britain; suggesting the means of alleviating that evil, and of preventing the recurrence of such a calamity in future,” London, 1801, 8vo. 25. “A description of a Patent Hot-house, which operates chiefly by the heat of the sun; and other subjects,” London, 1803, 8vo.

, 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.

, historiographer to Philip III. king of Spain, wrote the history of John III. king of Portugal: this work, in the Portuguese tongue, was published at Lisbon in 1525, 4to. He was brother to the preceding theologian, and left a son Dihgo, who died in 1660, at the age of eighty-four, and is known in Portugal as the author of a poem on the siege of Chaoul, and by an “ Exanimation of the antiquities of Portugal,” 4to; which is a criticism on Bernard Brito’s “Portuguese monarchy.” He also published in 1630, a moral work, of which there have been many editions, under the title of “Casamento perfecto,” or the perfect marriage.

, an eminent engraver, was a native of Mantua; for which reason he frequently added to his name or monogram Intagliat, Mantuano, which has led some to mistake him for Andrew Mantegna. Others called him Andreassi; and others, from a resemblance in their monograms, have confounded him with Altdorfer. The time of his birth does not appear; but he died in 1623, at a very advanced age. He engraved in wood only, in a peculiar style, distinguished by the name of chiaro-scuro, which is performed with two, three, or more blocks of wood, according to the number of tints required, and these are stamped upon the paper one after another, so as to produce the effect of a washed drawing; but the invention was not his, Hugo da Carpi & Antonio da Trento having preceded him. He carried, however, the mechanical part of the work to a far greater degree of perfection, and we often find in his prints a correct and determined outline. His great merit as an artist is acknowledged by all who are conversant in prints; and his drawing is excellent, executed with great spirit, and in a very masterly style. The heads of his figures, though slight, are characteristic and expressive; and he has displayed great judgment in the management of his various tints. His works are justly considered as admirable transcripts from the sketches of many of the greatest painters.

, bishop of Aleria in Corsica, has established a name in the literary world, not so much by his original compositions, as by the care he bestowed in superintending many valuable works, when the invention of printing was introduced at Rome, by those celebrated printers Conrad Sweignheym, and Arnould Pannartz. His family name was Bussi, or Bossi, and he was born at Vigevano in 1417: after having resided for many years at, Rome in a state of poverty and neglect, he obtained the patronage of the cardinal de Cusa, who procured for him the place of secretary to the Vatican library, and then the bishopric of Accia, in the island of Corsica; from which he was translated not long after to that of Aleria. Some biographers, mistaking him for John Andreas, the canonist, have attributed to him writings on the Decretals; we have nothing of his, however, that can be deemed original, except the valuable prefaces prefixed to the editions which he corrected and superintended in the press. He died in 1475. He was particularly instrumental in introducing the art of printing into Italy, and fixing it at Rome. The printers above-mentioned were under his immediate protection, and in his prefaces he considers them as under his care. The works he superintended were, in 1468 9, 1. Epistolae Ciceronis ad Familiares. 2. Hieronymi Epistolrc. 3. Julius Caesar. 4. Livy. 5. Virgil. 6. Lucan. 7. Aulus Gellius. 8. Apuleius; and in 1470 1, 9. Lactantius. 10. Cicero’s Orations. 11. S. Biblia. 12. Cyprianus. 13. S. Leon. Mag. Sermones et Epistolne. 14. Ovidii Metamorph. 15. Pliny. 16. Quintilian. 17. Suetonius. 18. Ciceronis Epist. ad Attic; and Lyra in Biblia, and Strabo, without date. Mr. Beloe, who has abridged many of Andreas’s prefaces, justly observes, that when the length of time is considered, which at the present day would be required to carry any one of the preceding works through the press, it seems astonishing, and hardly credible, that so much should have been accomplished in so very short a period.

, a celebrated Lutheran divine of the sixteenth century, was born at Waibling, a town in the duchy of Wmemberg, March 25, 1528. His father, whose name was James Endris, was a smith. He applied himself to letters with great success for three years; but his parents, being poor, had resolved to bring him up to some mechanical profession, and had agreed with a carpenter for that purpose, when several persons of distinction, who discovered marks of genius in him, contributed to support him in the prosecution of his studies, in which he made a considerable advance. In 1545, he took his master’s degree at Tubingen, and studied divinity and the Hebrew language at the same university. In 1546 he was appointed minister of the church of Stutgard, the metropolis of the duchy of Wirtemberg; and his sermons were so well approved of, that his fame reached the duke, who ordered him to preach before him, which he performed with great applause. The same year he married a wife at Tubingen, by whom he had nine sons and nine daughters, nine of which children survived him. During the war in which Germany was about the same time involved, he met with great civilities even from the emperor’s party, till he was obliged upon the publication of the Interim to retire to Tubingen, where he executed the function of minister. In the year 1553 he took his degree of doctor of divinity, and was appointed pastor of the church of topping, and superintendant of the neighbouring churches. He was afterwards sent for to several parts; and in 1557 he wot to the diet of Ratisbon with Christopher duke of Wirtemberg, and was appointed one of the secretaries at the conference at Worms between the papists and the divines of the Augustan confession. The same year he published his first work on the Lord’s Supper, in which he proposed a method of agreement upon that difficult point of controversy. In June the same year he went with the duke above-mentioned to Francfort upon the Maine, where he preached a sermon, though he was publicly opposed by a Romish priest. In 1558 he replied to Staphylus’s book against Luther, which was entitled “Epitome trimembris Theologise Lutheranse,” and in which he had collected the opinions of several sects, and ascribed them all to that reformer, as the original author of them. In 1559 he was sent to Augsburg, where the diet of the empire was held; and, during the same, preached two sermons before all the princes of the Augustan confession, one on justification, the other on the Lord’s supper; both printed at Tubingen, and very popular. In 1561 he was sent to Paris, in order to be present at the conference of Poissi, which was broken up before he came thither. Some time after his return he was made chancellor and rector of the university of Tubingen. In the beginning of the year 1563 he went to Strasburg, where Jerom Zanchius had propagated several opinions accounted new, and particularly this, that the regenerate and believers could not possibly fall again from grace, or lose the faith, though they had committed sins against the light of their conscience. Our author at last engaged him to sign a form of confession, which he had drawn up. In 1565 he was invited to establish a church at Hagenaw, an imperial city, where he preached a great many sermoni upon the principal points of the Christian religion, which were afterwards printed. In 1568 he assisted Julius, duke of Brunswick, in reforming his churches. In 1569 he took a journey to Heidelberg and Brunswick, and into Denmark. In 1570 he went to Misniaancl Prague, where the emperor Maximilian II. had a conversation with him upon the subject of an agreement in religion. In 1571 he went to visit the churches at Mompelgard; and upon his return had a conference with Flaccius Illyricus at Strasburg, in which he confuted his paradoxical assertion, that sin is a substance. He took several journies after this, and used his utmost efforts to effect an union of the churches of the Augustan confession. In 1583 he lost his first wife, with whom he had lived thirty-seven years; and about an year and half after he married a second wife, who had voluntarily attended her former husband, when he was obliged to leave his country on account of religion. About the same time he wrote a controversial piece, in which he maintained the ubiquity or presence of the whole Christ, in his divine and human nature, in all things. In 1586 he was engaged in a conference at Mompelgard with Theodore Beza concerning the Lord’s supper, the person of Christ, predestination, baptism, the reformation of the popish churches, and Adiaphora or indifferent things; but this had the usual event of all other conferences, which, though designed to put an end to disputes in divinity, are often the occasion of still greater. In 1537 he was sent for to Nordling upon church affairs; and upon his return fell sick, and published his confession of faith, in order to obviate the imputations of his adversaries; but he afterwards recovered, and was sent for again to Ratisbon, and then to Onolsbach by Frederick marquis of Brandenbourg. Upon the publication of the conference at Mompelgard abovementioned, he was accused of having falsely imputed some things to Beza, which the latter had never asserted; he therefore went to Bern to clear himself of the charge. His last public act was a conference at Baden in November 1589 with John Pistorius, who then inclined to Calvinism, and afterwards revolted entirely to the Papists. He had a very early presentiment of his death; and when he found it drawing near, he made a declaration to several of his friends of his constancy in the faith, which he had asserted, and shewed the most undoubted signs of cordial belief, till he expired on the seventh of January 1590, being sixtyone years and nine months old. His funeral sermon was preached by Luke Osiander, and afterwards published. Several false reports were propagated concern ing his death. The Popish priests in the parts adjacent publicly declared from the pulpit, that before his death he had recanted and condemned all the doctrines which he had maintained in word or writing. Besides, there was a letter dispersed, in which they affirmed, with their usual assurance, that he desired very anxiously before his death, that a Jesuit might be sent for immediately, to administer the sacraments to him; which request being denied him, he fell into despair, and expired under all the horrors of it. Of this not a syllable was true, his dying words and actions entirely coinciding with his life and doctrines. His works were extremely numerous, but his biographers have neglected to give a list, or to notice any but his “Treatise on Concord,” 1582, 4to. His life was written by the subject of the next article, 1630.

, grandson, or according to Saxius, nephew, to the preceding, was born at Herrenberg, in the duchy of Wirtemberg, in 1586. After studying at Tubingen, and travelling in France and Italy, he was promoted to several ecclesiastical offices in his own country, and at the time of his death in 1654, was abbé of Adelberg, and Lutheran almoner to the duke of Wirtemberg. Being much concerned to see the principles of the Christian religion employed only in idle disputes, and the sciences subservient only to the pride of curiosity, he passed much of his life in contriving the means by which both should be rendered of more practical utility to mankind. In particular, he employed the influence he had with his sovereign and with the duke of Brunswic-Wolfenbuttel, in procuring a reformation of the state of public instruction in their dominions. The propensity to mysticism in all these patriotic efforts, his extensive knowledge, and his more extensive correspondence, and the frequent mysterious allusions, capable of many senses, which occur in his works, have occasioned an opinjon that he was in reality the founder of the famous order of the Rosicrucians. The late M. Herder has discussed this question in the German museum for 1779, and determines against Andreas; but two learned Germans, M. Chr. G. de Murr (in his history of the origin of the Rosicrucians, printed at Sulzbach, 1803, 8vo), and M. J. G. Buhle (in a dissertation read in 1803 before the Royal Society of Gottingen, on the same subject, and published in 1804, in German), are of opinion, that if Andreas was not the founder, he at least gave that new organization to the Rosicrucians which identified them with the free-masons, in whose societies the memory of Andreas is still held in veneration. And if we find no proofs of the fact in the life which he left of himself, and which Seybold published in 1799, in the second volume of his Autobiography, it must on the other hand be confessed, that in the works which he published in his life-time, he is perpetually reasoning on the necessity of forming a society solely devoted to the regeneration of knowledge and manners/ The question, however, is not yet absolutely determined, nor, except in Germany, will it perhaps appear a matter of much consequence. There is nothing in the history of the Rosicrucians to excite much respect for its founder, or for those who fancied they improved upon it by the late more mischievous society of the Illuminati.