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

The works of Andreas are said to amount to a hundred, the titles of part of which are given by Adelung, and the whole by M. Burk, pastor of Weiltingen, and printed in a pamphlet at Tubingen, in 1793, 8vo. Some of the principal are, 1. “De Christiani Cosmoxeni genitura judicium,” Montbelliard, 1612, 12mo, a satire on astrology, 2. “Collectaneorum mathematicorum decades XL” Tubingen, 1614, 4to. 3. “Invitatio ad fraternitatem Christi,” 1617, part II. 1618, 12mo. 4. “Rosa fiorescens, contra Menapii calumnias,” 1617, 8vo. This defence of the Rosicrucians is signed Florentinus de Valentia, a name some-' times given to Andreas, as well as that of Andreas de Valentia, but it is not quite certain that he was the author (See Walch’s Bibl. Theol.). 5. “Menippus: Dialogorum Satyricorum centuria inanitum nostratium speculum,” Helicone juxta Parnassum, 1617, 12mo. It is in this work that Andreas is said to display a mind superior to the age in which he lived, by pointing out the numerous defects which prevent religion and literature from being so useful as they might under a better organization. 6. “Civis Christianas, sive Peregrini quondam errantis restitutiones,” Strasburgb, 1619, 8vo. 7. “My thologiae Christiana?, sive virtutum et vitiorum vitae humanae imaginum, libri tres,” Strasburgh, 1619, 12mo. 8. “Republican Christiano-politanae descriptio; Turris Babel; Judiciorum de fraternitate Rosacece Crucis chaos; Christiana societatis idea;” published together at Strasburgh, 1619, 12mo. They contain very evident proofs of his design to establish a secret society. It is impossible not to perceive that he is always aiming at something of the kind, and this, with some other works attributed to him, seem to confirm the opinion of Messrs. Buhle and Murr. Some also appeal to his frequent travels, as having no other object. Whatever may be in this, Andreas is allowed a very high rank among the writers of German. At a time when that language had received very little cultivation, when most learned men wrote in Latin, and when the idiom of the country was only to be heard in familiar conversation, he gave his verses, for he was likewise a poet, a particular ease and grace. They are not perhaps remarkable for elegance, correctness, or harmony, but they frequently discover a poetical fancy, and a very happy use of the dialect of Suabia.

, a famous canonist of the fourteenth century, born at Mugello, near Florence. He was very young when he went to Bologna to pursue his studies, and would have found great difficulty to maintain himself, had he not got a tutor’s place, by which means he was enabled to apply himself to the study of the canon law, in which he made great progress under the professor Guy de Ba‘if. He had always a particular respect for this professor, paying as great deference to his glosses as the text itself. Gujr de Ba’if, perceiving that Andreas, for want of money, could not demand his doctor’s degree, procured it him gratis, which Andreas himself acknowledges. The same professor urged him to stand for a professorship, which he obtained, and was professor at Padua about the year 1330; but he was recalled to Bologna, where he acquired the greatest reputation. We are told wonderful things concerning the austerity of his life, that he macerated his body with prayer and fasting, and lay upon the bare ground for twenty years together, covered only with a bear-skin: but according to Poggius, he was not afterwards so extremely rigid in discipline or morals.

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

, or Publius Faustus Andrelinus, a modern Latin poet, was born at Forli, in Romagnia, about the middle of the fifteenth century. Having composed in his youth, at Rome, four books of poetry under the name of “Amours,” he was honoured with the poetic crown; in 1488 he came to Paris, and the following year was appointed professor of poetry and philosophy, and Lewis XII. of France made him his poet-laureat. He was likewise poet to the queen. His pen, however, was not wholly employed in making verses, for he wrote also moral and proverbial letters in prose, to which Beatus Rhenanus added a preface, and commends them “as learned, witty, and useful; for though,” says he, “this author, in some of his works, after the manner of poets, is a little too loose and wanton, yet here he appears like a modest and elegant orator.” John Arboreus, a divine of Paris, published comments upon them. Andrelini wrote also several poetical distichs in Latin, which were printed with a commentary by Josse Badius Ascenscius, and translated verse for verse into French by one Stephen Prive. John Paradin had before translated into French stanzas of four verses, an hundred distichs, which Andrelim had addressed to John Ruze, treasurer-general of the finances of king Charles VIII. in order to thank him for a considerable pension.

, surnamed of Crete, because he was bishop of Aleria in that isle; or the Jerusalemite, from his having retired to a monastery at Jerusalem, was of Damascus, and died in the year 720, or, according to others, in 723. He has left commentaries on some books of scripture, and sermons. Pere Combesis gave an edition of them, with a Latin translation, and notes, together with the works of St. Amphilocus and Methodicus, Paris, 1644, folio.

, or more properly Andrea Pisano, an eminent sculptor and architect, was born at Pisa in 1270, at a time when Arnolfo di Lapo, John de Pisa, and others, following the designs of Cimabue and Giotto, had renounced the Gothic style, and were introducing those purer models, which promised a revolution in architecture, sculpture, and painting. Andrea, entering into their ideas, had some peculiar circumstances in his favour, as at that time his countrymen, who were powerful at sea, traded with Greece, and brought thence ancient statues, bas-reliefs, and valuable marbles, which they employed in the ornament or construction of their public edifices, particularly the cathedral and the Campo Santo. By studying these, Andrea acquired a portion of that taste which was afterwards so conspicuous in Donatelio, Brunelleschi, and Ghiberti. His first attempts were so favourably received, that he was invited to Florence to execute, from the designs of Giotto, the sculptures on the facade of St. Marie del Fiore, the most magnificent edifice of that time. He began with the statue of Boniface VIII. the protector of the Florentines, which he followed by those of St. Peter, St. Paul, and other saints. In 1586, when it was determined to repair this facade upon a more modern plan, these were all removed, and when that design was not approved of, they were put up in the church and in other places, and some were deposited in the Poggio imperiale, a country-house belonging to the grand dukes of Tuscany. There was also a Madona and two angels in the church of the Misericordia, which are said to have been executed by Andrea at the same time. On the death of Arnolfo di Lapo, the republic of Florence employed Andrea in all the great works constructing in their territories. As an engineer, he built the fortifications round Florence, and the strong castle of Scarperia. During more peaceable times, he employed himself in making figures in bronze; and the Florentines, who were ambitious of rivalling the magnificence of the ancients in their temples, employed him to execute the sculpture of the gates of the baptistery, from designs by Giotto. These gates were accordingly covered with basreliefs, representing the whole history of John the Baptist. The composition is excellent, and the attitudes of the figures natural and expressive, although with some degree of stiffness, but the minute parts are executed with great skill. These gates, which were begun in 1331, were finished, polished, and gilt in eight years, and at first were placed at the principal entrance, but they were afterwards removed to one of the side entrances, where they now are, and the admirable gates of Laurent Ghiberti substituted in their room. Andrea also executed in bronze the tabernacle of San Giovanni, the has reliefs, and statues belonging to the campanile of St. Marie del Fiore, and many others. At Venice, his works are, the sculpture oa the façade of the church of St. Mark; the model of the baptistery of Pistoia, executed in 1337; and the tomb of Cino d'Angibolgi; and he was employed in many fortifications by Gaultier de Brienne, duke of Athens, during his usurpation at Florence; but Andrea did not suffer by the duke’s disgrace in 1343; and the Florentines, who looked only to his merit, admitted him a citizen of Florence, where he died in 1345, and was buried in St. Marie del Fiore. His son Nino, also a sculptor of considerable note, erected a monument to his memory.

, or more properly Andrea Del Sarto, so called from his father’s trade, that of a tailor, but whose family name was Venucci, was born at Florence in 1488, and at first instructed in his art by Barile, a mean painter, with whom he spent three years, at the end of which Barile placed him with Peter Cosimo, then accounted one of the best painters in Italy. Under him, he made astonishing proficiency, and his abilities began to be acknowledged, but Cosimo' s morose temper obliged him to leave him, and seek instruction in the works of other artists. As he had, while with Cosimo, employed himself in designing after Vinci, Raphael, and Buonaroti, to whose works he had access at Florence, he persisted in the same practice, formed an admirable taste, and excelled his young rivals at home or abroad, in correctness, colouring, and knowledge of his art. Having contracted a friendship with Francesco Bigio, they determined to live together, and painted a great many works in the churches and convents of Florence, jointly, but Andrea’s reputation began to predominate, and seemed fixed by his representation of the preaching of St. John, executed for the Carmelites at Florence. Some time after this, he went to Rome to study the models of art in that city, but it is thought he did not remain there long enough to reap all the benefit which he might. The excellence of his pencil, and his power of imitation, were remarkably displayed in the copy he made of Leo X. between cardinal Medici and cardinal Rom, the head and hands by Raphael, and the draperies by Julio Romano. The imitation was so exact, that Julio, after the most minute inspection, and being told that it was a copy, could not distinguish it from the original. His superior talents might have raised him to opulence, if his imprudence had not reduced him to shame and poverty. The French king, Francis I. who was extremely partial to his works, invited him to his court, defrayed the expences of his journey, and made him many valuable presents. For a portrait, only, of the Dauphin, an infant, he received tjjree hundred crowns of gold, and he painted many other pictures for the court and nobility, for which he was liberally rewarded. While employed on a picture of St. Jerome, for the queen dowager, he received letters from his wife, soliciting his return to Florence, and, to indulge her, of whom he was excessively fond, he asked, and obtained a few months absence. It was on this occasion that the king, confiding in his integrity, made him several princely presents, and intrusted him with large sums of money to purchase statues, paintings, &c.; but Andrea instead of executing his commission, squandered away not only his own, but the money intrusted to him, became poor, and despised, and at last died of the plague, in his forty-second year, abandoned by his wife, and by all those friends who had partaken of his extravagance. His principal works were at Florence, but there were formerly specimens in many of the palaces and churches of Italy and France. All the biographers and critics of painters, except perhaps Baldinucci, have been lavish in their praises of Andrea. Mr. Fuseli, in his much improved edition of Pilkington, observes, that, on comparing the merits of his works, they seem to have obtained their full share of justice. As a Tuscan, says that judicious critic, the suavity of his tone, and facility of practice, contrast more strikingly with the general austerity and elaborate pedantry of that school, and gain-him greater praise than they would, had he been a Bolognese or Lombard. It cannot, however, be denied, that his sweetness sometimes borders on insipidity; the modesty, or rather pusillanimity of his character, checked the full exertion of his powers; his faults are of the negative kind, and defects rather than, blemishes. He had no notions of nature beyond the model, and concentrated all female beauty in his Lucrezia (his wife), and if it be true that he sacrificed his fortune and Francis I. to her charms, she must at least have equalled in form and feature his celebrated Madonna del Sacco; hence it was not unnatural that the proportions of Albert Durer should attract him more than those of Michael Angelo. His design and his conceptions, which seldom rose above the sphere of common or domestic life, kept pace with each other; here his observation was acute, and his ear open to every whisper of social intercourse or emotion. The great peculiarity, perhaps the great prerogative, of Andrea appears to be that parallelism of composition, which distinguishes the best of his historical works, seemingly as natural, obvious, and easy, as inimitable. In solemn effects, in alternate balance of action and repose, he excels all the moderns, and if he was often unable to conceive the actors themselves, he gives them probability and importance, by place and posture. Of costume he was ignorant, but none ever excelled, and few approached him in breadth, form, and style of that drapery which ought to distinguish solemn, grave, or religious subjects.

, a miscellaneous writer of considerable learning and talents, was the younger son of Joseph Andrews, esq. of Shaw-house, near Newbury, Berks, and was born therein 1737. He was educated by a private tutor, the rev. Mr. Matthews, rector of Shaw, in Berks, and early distinguished himself by his application to literature and the fine arts. At the age of eighteen or nineteen, he went into the Berkshire militia, on the first calling out of that body of men, and held the rank of lieutenant until the regiment was disbanded.

His first publication was a work of uncommon pleasantry and humour. It was entitled “Anecdotes ancient and modern, with observations,” 1789, 8vo, and a supplement to it, 1790. This went rapidly through several editions; prefixed is a portrait, bearing some resemblance to himself, of a man distilling anecdotes from an alembic. This was designed by Mr. Andrews, drawn by Grimm, and engraved by Macky. The volume is inscribed to his brother, sir Joseph Andrews, and he acknowledges having received assistance from Mr. Pye, the present laureat, captain Grose, and others. In the same year he is said, but we believe without authority, to have written a small pamphlet, entitled “Advice to the Prince of Wales.” His next work was entitled “The History of Great Britain, connected with the Chronology of Europe; with notes, &c. containing anecdotes of the times, lives of the learned, and specimens of their works, vol. I. from Caesar’s invasion to the deposition and death of Richard II.” 1794, 4to. In this work he proved himself a very accurate and industrious collector of facts, the result of a long course of diligent reading. Throughout the part of the work which is strictly historical, the histories of England and of the rest of Europe are carried on collaterally, a certain portion of the former being given in one page, and a corresponding portion of the latter on the opposite page. The English story is concisely told, with a careful attention to the insertion of minute circumstances. The corresponding page of general chronology is extended to comprehend the annals of every European state, but seldom wanders into other parts of the globe, except when led by circumstances closely connected with the affairs of Europe. In order to condense as much matter as possible into his volume, he carefully avoids unnecessary amplification, and expresses himself with a happy, yet forcible brevity. The notes contain a great variety of curious and amusing particulars not immediately connected with the main story. To the historical narrative are added, at proper intervals, appendixes of two kinds; the first, containing relations of such incidents as could not properly be thrown into the notes, and biographical sketches of distinguished British writers, with specimens of poetical productions; the second presenting an analysis of the times, under the respective heads of religion, government, manners, arts, sciences, language, commerce, &c. There arc other arrangements adopted by the author, which render the work not less useful for reference, than for continued reading. In 1795, he published a second volume, or rather a second part to vol. I. continuing his plan from “The deposition and death of Richard II. to the accession of Edward VI.” It is much to be regretted that he did not live to co nplete this plan. It may, indeed, be undertaken by another, but there is always a certain portion of enthusiasm in the original contriver of a scheme, which it is impossible to impart.

, an eminent divine, and bishop of Winchester in the reigns of James I. and Charles I. was born at London, in 1555, in the parish of Allhallows Barking, being descended from the ancient family of the Andrews in Suffolk. He had his education in grammarlearning, first in the Coopers’ free-school at Ratcliff under Mr. Ward, and afterwards in Merchant Taylors’ school at London, under Mr. Muleaster. Here he made such a proficiency in the learned languages, that Dr. Watts, residentiary of St. Paul’s, and archdeacon of Middlesex, who about that time had founded some scholarships at Pembroke hall in Cambridge, sent him to that college, and bestowed on him the first of those exhibitions. After he had been three years in the university, his custom was to come up to London once a year, about Easter, to visit his father and mother, with whom he usually stayed a month; during which time, with the assistance of a master, he applied himself to the attaining some language or art, to which he was before a stranger: and by this means, in a few years, he had laid the foundation of all the arts and sciences, and acquired a competent skill in most of the modern languages. Having taken the degree of bachelor of arts, he was, upon a vacancy, chosen fellow of his college, in preference upon trial to Mr. Dove, afterwards bishop of Peterborough. In the mean time Hugh Price, having founded Jesus college in Oxford, and hearing much of the fame of young Mr. Andrews, appointed him one of his, first, orhonorary fellows on that foundation. Having taken the degree of master of arts, he applied himself to the study of divinity, in the knowledge of which he so greatly excelled, that being chosen catechist in the college, and having undertaken to read a lecture on the Ten Commandments every Saturday and Sunday at three o'clock in the afternoon, great numbers out of the other colleges of the university, and even out of the country, duly resorted to Pembroke chapel, as to a divinity lecture. At the same time, he was esteemed so profound a casuist, that he was often consulted in the nicest and most difficult cases of conscience; and his reputation being established, Henry, earl of Huntington, prevailed upon him to accompany him into the North, of which he was president; where, by his diligent preaching, and private conferences, in which he used a due mixture of zeal and moderation, he converted several recusants, priests, as well as others, to the protestant religion. From that time he began to be taken notice of by sir Francis Walsingham, secretary of state to queen Elizabeth. That minister, who was unwilling so fine a genius should be buried in the obscurity of a country benefice, his intent being to make him reader of controversies in the university of Cambridge, assigned him for his maintenance the lease of the parsonage of Alton in Hampshire, and afterwards procured for him the vicarage of St. Giles’s, Cripplegate, in London. Afterwards he was chosen a prebendary and residentiary of St. Paul’s, as also prebendary of the collegiate church of Southwell. Being thus preferred to his own contentment, he distinguished himself as a diligent and excellent preacher, and read divinity lectures three times a week at St. Paul’s, in term time. Upon the death of Dr. Fulke, he was chosen master of Pembrokehall, of which he had been scholar and fellow, a place of more honour than profit, as he spent more upon it than he received from it, and was a considerable benefactor to that college. He was appointed one of the chaplains in ordinary to queen Elizabeth, who took such delight in his preaching, that she first made him a prebendary of Westminster, in the room of Dr. Richard Bancroft promoted to the see of London; and afterwards dean of that church, in the room of Dr. Gabriel Goodman deceased. But he refused to accept of any bishopric in this reign, because he would not basely submit to an alienation of the episcopal revenue . Dr. Andrews soon grew into far greater esteem with her successor king James I. who not only gave him the preference to all other divines as a preacher, but likewise made choice of him to vindicate his sovereignty against the virulent pens of his enemies. His majesty having, in his “Defence of the rights of Kings,” asserted the authority of Christian princes over causes and persons ecclesiastical, cardinal Bellarmin, under the name of Matthew Tortus, attacked him with great vehemence. The king requested bishop Andrews to answer the cardinal, which he did with great spirit and judgment, in a piece entitled “Tortura Torti: sive, ad Matthaei Torti librutn responsio, qui nuper editus contra Apologiam serenissimi potentissimique principis Jacobi, Dei gratia Magnae Britannias, Franciae, & Hiberniae Regis, pro juramento fidelitatis.” It was printed at London by Roger Barker, the king’s printer, in 1609, in quarto, containing 402 pages, and dedicated to the king. The substance of what the bishop advances in this treatise, with great strength of reason and evidence, is, that kings have power both to call synods and confirm them; and to do all other things, which the emperors heretofore diligently performed, and which the bishops of those times willingly acknowledged of rio-ht to belong to them. Casaubon gives this work the character of being written with great accuracy and research. That king next promoted him to the bishopric of Chichester, to which he was consecrated, November 3, 1605. At the same time he made him his lord almoner, in which place of great trust he behaved with singular fidelity, disposing of the royal benevolence in the most disinterested manner, and not availing himself even of those advantages that he might legally and fairly have taken. Upon the vacancy of the bishopric of Ely, he was advanced to that see, and consecrated September 22, 1609. He was also nominated one of his majesty’s privy counsellors of England; and afterwards of Scotland, when he attended the king in his journey to that kingdom. After he had sat nine years in that see, he wus advanced to the bishopric of Winchester, and deanery of the king’s chapel, February 18, 1618; which two last preferments he held till his death. This great prelate was in no less reputation and esteem with king Charles I. than he had been with his predecessors. At length he departed this life, at Winchester-house in Southwark, September 25, 1626, in the seventy-first year of his age; and was buried in the parish church of St. Saviour’s, Southwark; where his executors erected to him a very fair monument of marble and alabaster, on which is an elegant Latin inscription, written by one of his chaplains .

The character of bishop Andrews, both in public and private life, was in every respect great and singular. His contemporaries and biographers celebrate, in particular, his ardent zeal and piety, demonstrated not only in his private and secret devotions between God and himself, in which those, who attended him, perceived, that he daily spent many hours; but likewise in his public prayers with his family in his chapel, wherein he behaved so humbly, devoutlv, and reverently, that it could not but excite others to follow his example. His charity was remarkable even before he came to great preferments; for, while he continued in a private station of life, he relieved his poor parishioners, and assisted the prisoners, besides his constant Sunday alms at his parish of St. Giles, Cdpplegate. But when his fortune increased, his charity increased in proportion, and he released many prisoners of all sorts, who were detained either for small debts or the keeper’s fees. In all his charities, he gave strict charge to his servants, whom he intrusted with the distribution of them, that they should not acknowledge whence this relief came; but directed, that the acquittance, which they took from the persons who received such relief, should be taken in the name of a benefactor unknown. Other large sums he bestowed yearly, and oftener, in clothing the poor and naked, in relieving the necessitous, and assisting families in the time of the infection, besides his alms to poor housekeepers at his gate. So that his private alms in his last six years, over and above his public, amounted to above thirteen hundred pounds. He left in his will four thousand pounds to purchase two hundred pounds per annum in land for ever, to be distributed by fifjy pounds quarterly in the following manner: To aged poor men, fifty pounds; to poor widows, the wives of one husband, fifty pounds; to the binding of poor orphans apprentices, fifty pounds; and to the relief of poor prisoners, fifty pounds. Besides he left to be distributed immediately alter his decease among maid-servants of a good character, and who had served one master or mistress seven years, two hundred pounds; and a great part of his estate, after his funeral and legacies were discharged, among his poor servants. To this virtue of his we may add his hospitality. From the first time of his preferment to the last moments of his life, he was always most liberal in the. entertainment of persons who deserved respect, especially scholars and strangers, his table being constantly furnished with provisions and attendance answerable. He shewed himself so generous in his entertainments, and so gravely facetious, that his guests would often profess, that they never came to any man’s table, where they received more satisfaction in all respects. He was at a prodigious expence in entertaining all sorts of people in Scotland, when he attended king James thither; and it cost him three thousand pounds in the space of three days, when that king came to visit him at Farnham castle, the principal seat belonging to the bishopric of Winchester. He was unblemished both in his ordinary transactions, and in the discharge of his spiritual and temporal offices. He was always careful to keep in good repair the houses of all his ecclesiastical preferments, particularly the vicaragehouse of St. Giles, Cripplegate, the prebend’s and dean’s houses of Westminster, and the residentiary' s house of St. Paul’s. He spent four hundred and twenty pounds upon the palaces belonging to the bishopric of Chichester; above two thousand four hundred and forty pounds upon that of Ely; and two thousand pounds upon those of Winchester, besides a pension of four hundred pounds per annum from which he freed that see at his own charge. With regard to his pastoral and episcopal charge, he was the most exact in the execution of it, promoting, as far as he could judge, none but men of character and abilities to the livings and preferments within his gift. For which purpose he took care beforehand to enquire what promising young men there were in the university; and directed his chaplains to inform him of such persons, whom he encouraged in the most liberal manner. He used to send for men of eminent learning, who wanted preferment, though they had no dependance upon him, nor interest in him, and entertain them in his house, and confer preferment upon them, and likewise defray their charges of a dispensation or faculty, and even of their journey. If we consider him in those temporal affairs, with which he was intrusted, we shall find him no less faithful and just. He disposed of very considerable sums, which were sent him to be distributed among poor scholars and others at his discretion, with the utmost care, and exactly agreeable to the donor’s intent. Of his integrity in managing those places, in, which he was intrusted for others jointly with himself, Pembroke-hall, and the church of Westminster, were sufficient evidences. For when he became master of the former, he found it in debt, having then but a small endowment; but by his care he left above eleven hundred pounds in the treasury of that college. And when h dean of the latter, he left it free from all debts and encroachments; and took such care of the school, that the scholars were much improved not only by his direction and superintendance, but even by his personal labours among them. And as by virtue of his deanery of Westminster, his mastership of Pembroke-hall, and his bishopric of Ely, the election of scholars into Westminster-school, and from thence into the two universities, and of many scholars and fellows into Pembroke-hall, some in Peter-house, and some in Jesus college, were in his power and disposal, he was always so just, that he waved all letters from great personages for insufficient scholars, and divested himself of all partiality, and chose only such as he thought had most merit. Being likewise often desired to assist at the election of scholars from the Free -schools of Merchant Taylors, St. Paul’s, and the Mercer’s, and perceiving favour and interest sometimes overbalancing merit with those to whom the choice belonged, and that divers good scholars were omitted, and others preferred, he frequently took care of such as were neglected, and sent them to the university, where he bestowed preferment upon them. Nor was he less distinguished for his fidelity in that great place of trust, the almonership. He never would suffer any part of what arose to him from that place to be mingled with his own rents or revenues, and was extremely exact in disposing of it. When he found a surplus over and above the ordinary charges, he distributed it in the relief of the indigent and distressed; though it was in his power to have applied this to his own use (his patent being sine compute), and no person could have questioned him concerning it. He gave a great many noble instances of his gratitude to those who had befriended him when young. He bestowed upon Dr. Ward, son to his first schoolmaster, the living of Waltham in Hampshire. He shewed the greatest regard for Mr. Mulcaster, his other school-master, in all companies, and always placed him at the upper end of his table, and after his death caused his picture (though he had but few others in his house) to be set over his study door. Besides these external marks of gratitude he supplied his necessities privately in a very liberal manner, and left his son a valuable legacy. He inquired very carefully after the kindred of Dr. Watts, who, as already noticed, had sent him to Pembroke-hall, and having found out one, he conferred upon him preferments in that college. Nor did he forget his patron Dr. Watts in his will; for he ordered there, that out of the scholarships of his foundation, the two fellowships, which himself had founded in that college, should be supplied, if the candidates should be fit for them. To omit the legacies which he left to the parish of St. Giles, Cripplegate, St. Martin, Ludgate, where he had lived, St. Andrew’s, Holborn, St. Saviour’s, Southwark, Allhallows, Barking, where he was born, and others; he gave to Pembroke-hall one thousand pounds to purchase lands for two fellowships, and for other uses in that college, expressed in his will; besides three hundred such folio books of his own as were not in the library there, with several other valuable gifts. His humanity extended to every person who conversed with him; so that he was admired not only by the men of learning and others in this kingdom, but even by foreigners of the greatest eminence, particularly Casaubon, Cluverius, Vossius, who corresponded with him by letters, Grotius, Peter du Moulin, Barclay, the author of the Argenis, and Erpenius, to whom he offered an annual stipend to read lectures at Cambridge in the oriental tongues, the professors of which he encouraged very liberally, and particularly Mr. Bedvvell, to whom he gave the vicarage of Tottenham in Middlesex. His modesty was so remarkable, that though the whole Christian world admired his profound learning, and particularly his knowledge of the eastern languages, Greek, Latin, and many modern languages, he was so far from being elated with the opinion of it, that he often complained of his defects; and when he was preferred to the bishopric of Chichester, and urged his own insufficiency for such a charge, he caused these words of St. Paul, Et ad hac quis idoneus? i. e. “And who is sufficient for these things?” to be engraven about his episcopal seal. One instance of his modesty mixed with his humanity may be added, that after his chaplains had preached in his chapel before him, he would sometimes privately request them, that he might have a sight of their notes, and encourage them in the kindest terms imaginable.

Nor did he in the highest dignities, which he possessed, remit of his application to study. Even in those days, when it might have been supposed that he would have relaxed from his former diligence, yet from the hour he rose, (his private devotions being finished) to the time he was called to dinner, which, by his own order, was not till twelve at noon at the soonest, he continued at his studies, and would not be interrupted by any who came to speak to him, or upon any occasion, public pray or excepted So that he would be displeased with scholars, who attempted to speak with him in the morning, and said, that he doubted they were no true scholars who came to speak with him before noon. After dinner for two or three hours space he would willingly pass the time, either in discourse with his guests or other friends, or in dispatch of his own temporal affairs, or of those who by reason of his episcopal jurisdiction attended him. Having discharged which, he returned to his study, where he spent the rest of the afternoon, till bed-time, except some friend engaged him to supper, and then he ate but sparingly.

He had a particular aversion to all public vices, but especially to usury, simony, and sacrilege. He was so far from the first, that when his friends had occasion for such a sum of money as he could assist them with, he lent it to them freely, without expecting any thing in return but the principal. Simony was so detestable to him, that by refusing to admit several persons, whom he suspected to be simoniacally preferred, he suffered much by law-suits, choosing rather to be compelled to admit them by law, than voluntarily to do that which his conscience made a scruple of. With regard to the livings and other preferments which fell in his own gifts, he always bestowed them freely, as we observed above, upon men of merit, without any solicitation. It was no small compliment that king James had so great an awe and veneration for him, as in his presence to refrain from that mirth and levity in which he indulged himself at other times. What opinion lord Clarendon had of him appears from hence, that, in mentioning the death of Dr. Bancroft, archbishop of Canterbury, he remarks, that “if he hatl been succeeded by bishop Andrews, or any man who understood and loved the church, that infection would easily have been kept out which could not afterwards be so easily expelled.” Our great poet Milton thought him worthy of his pen, and wrote a Latin elegy, on his death.

In conversation, bishop Andrews discovered a facetious turn, which was not more agreeable to his private friends than to his royal master James, who frequently conversed very freely with the learned men of his court. In all previous accounts of the bishop, a story to this purpose has been told, from the life of Waller, which we shall not suppress, although the latter part of it is but a sorry repartee on the part of the monarch. Mr. Waller having been chosen into the last parliament of king James I. in which he served as burgess for Agmondesham in Buckinghamshire, and that parliament being dissolved, on the day of its dissolution he went out of curiosity or respect to see the king at dinner, with whom were our bishop of Winchester, and Dr. Neal, bishop of Durham, standing behind the king’s chair. There happened something very extraordinary in the conversation which those prelates had with the king, on which Mr. Waller often reflected. We shall relate it as it is represented in his life. His majesty asked the bishops, “My lords, cannot I take my subjects’ money when I want it, without all this formality in parliament?” The bishop of Durham readily answered, “God forbid, sir, but you should; you are the breath of our nostrils.” Whereupon the king turned, and said to the bishop of Winchester, “Well, my lord, what say you?” “Sir,” replied the bishop, “I have no skill to judge of parliamentary cases.” The king answered, “No put-offs, my lord; answer me presently.” “Then, sir,” said he, “I think it lawful for you to take my brother Neal’s money, for he offers it.” Mr. Waller said the company was pleased with this answer, and the wit of it seemed to affect the king. For a certain lord coming in soon after, his majesty cried out, “O my lord, they say you Lig with my lady.” “No, sir,” says his lordship in contusion, “but I like her company because she has so much wit.” “Why then,” says the king, “do not you Lig with my lord of Winchester there?”

The works of this learned prelate, which are now best known, are, 1. “A volume of Sermons,” London, 1628, and 1631, folio, consisting of ninety-six, upon the fasts, festivals, or on the more important doctrines of Christianity. 2. “The Moral Law expounded, or Lectures on the Ten Commandments, with nineteen Sermons on prayer,” 1642, fol. 3. “Collection of posthumous and orphan Lectures delivered at St. Paul’s and St. Giles’s,” London, 1657, fol. These were the most popular of all hij productions, and although very exceptionable in point of style, according to the modern criteria of style, they abound in learned and acute remarks, and are by no means so full of pun and quibble, as some writers, from a superficial vievr of them, have reported. His other works were, his “Manual of Devotions,” Gr. and Lat. often reprinted, and translated by dean Stanhope, 12mo; and several Concidnes ad Clerum, or other occasional sermons preached before the university, and at court “Responsio ad Apologiam Cardinalis Beliannini, &c.” 1610, 4to. “Theological determinations on Usury, Tythes.” “Responsiones ad Petri Molinsei Epistolas tres.” “Stricturae, or a brief Answer to the eighteenth chapter of the first booke of cardinal! Perron’s Reply, written in French to king James his Answer written by Mr. Casaubon in Latine.” “An Answer to the twentieth chapter of the fifth book of cardinal Perron’s Reply, written in French to king James his Answer, written by Mr. Casaubon to the cardinal! in Latine.” “A Speech delivered in the Starr-chamber against the two Judaicall opinions of Mr. Traske.” The two Judaical opinions advanced by Mr. Traske were, 1. That Christians are bound to abstain from those meats, which the Jews were forbidden in Leviticus. 2. That they are bound to observe the Jewish Sabbath. “A Speech delivered in the Starr-Chamber concerning Vowes, in thecountesseof Shrewesburiescase.” This lady was convicted of disobedience, for refusing to answer or be examined, (though she had promised to do it before), alleging, that she had made a solemn vow to the contrary. The design of the bishop’s speech is to shew, that such vows were unlawful, and consequently of no force or obligation upon her. These pieces were printed after the author’s death at London by Felix Kyngston, in 1629, 4to, and dedicated to king Charles I. by Dr. William Laud bishop of London, and Dr. John Buckridge bishop of Ely.

, of Cyresthes, a Greek architect, is celebrated for having constructed at Athens the Tower of the Winds, an octagon building, on each of the sides of which was a figure, in sculpture, representing one of the winds. He named them Solanus, Eurus, Auster, Africaiius, Favonius, Corus, Septentrio, and Aquilo. On the top of this tower was a small pyramid of marble, which supported a piece of mechanism somewhat like the modern weathercock. It consisted of a brass Triton, which turned on a pivot, and pointed with its rod to the side of the tower on which was represented the wind that then happened to blow. From the bad style of the architecture of the figures, it is supposed to have been constructed posterior to the time of Pericles. Being built of large blocks of marble it has withstood the ravages of time, and the upper part only is destroyed, but the whole has sunk about twelve feet. As each of the sides had a sort of dial, it is conjectured that it formerly contained a clypsedra, or water-clock. The roof was of marble, shaped in the form of tiles, a mode which was invented by Byzes, of Naxos, in 580 B. C. It now serves as a mosque to some dervises. Spon, Wheeler, Leroi, and Stuart, have given ample descriptions of this ancient structure.

is said to have been the first who wrote theatrical pieces, or what were called regular plays, for the Roman stage, about the year 240 B. C. It is also said that he was a slave, of Greek origin, and that he received his name from Livius Salinator, whose children he taught, and who at length gave him his liberty. His dramatic productions were probably rude both in plan and style. Livy, the historian, ascribes to him the barbarous invention of dividing the declamation and gestures, or speaking and acting, between two persons, which was never thought of by the Greeks. Andronicus, who was a player as well as a writer, it is supposed, adopted it to save himself the fatigue of singing in his own piece, to which he, like other authors of his time, had been accustomed. But being often encored, and hoarse with repeating his canticle or song, he obtained permission to transfer the vocal part to a young performer, retaining to himself only the acting: Duclos, however, and after him Dr. Burney, are inclined to think that the words of the historian mean no more than that the singing was separated from the dancing, a thing credible enough, but absurd in the highest degree, when applied to speaking and acting. Andronicus also composed hymns in honour of the gods. There are fragments of his verses, collected from the grammarians and critics, in the “Comici Latini,” the “Corpus poetarum,” and the “Collectio Pisaurensis.”

, an eminent French architect, was born at Orleans, or, according to some, at Paris, in the sixteenth century. Cardinal d'Armagnac was among the first who patronised him, and furnished him with money for the expences of his studies in Italy. The triumphal arch, which still remains at Pola in Istria, was so much admired by him, that he introduced an imitation of it in all his arches. He began the Pont Neuf, at Paris, May 30, 1578, by order of Henry III. but the civil wars prevented his finishing that great work, which was reserved for William Marchand, in the reign of Henry IV. 1604. Androuet, however, built the hotels of Carnavalet, Fermes, Bretonvilliers, Sully, Mayenne, and other palaces in Paris. In 1596, he was employed by Henry IV. to continue the gallery of the Louvre, which had been begun by order of Charles XL but this work he was qbliged to quit on account of his religion. He was a zealous protestant, of the Calvinistic church, and when the persecution arose he left France, and died in some foreign country, but where or when is not known. Androuet is not more distinguished for the practice, than the theory of his art. He wrote, 1. “Livre d' Architecture, contenant les plans et dessins de cinquante Batiments, tons differents,” 1559, fol. reprinted 1611. 2. “Second livre d' Architecture,” a continuation of the former, 1561, fol. S. “Les plus excellents Batirnents de France,” 1576, 1607, fol. 4. “Livre d' Architecture auquel sont contenues diverses ordonnances de plans et elevations de Batiments pour seigneurs et autres qui voudront batir aux champs,” 1582, fol. 5. “Les Edifices Remains,” a collection of engravings of the antiquities of Rome, from designs made on the spot, 1583, fol. 6. “Lesons de Perspective,” 1576, fol. He was also his own engraver, and etched his plates in a correct but somewhat coarse style.

, surnamed Bois-Regard,a French physician and medical writer, was born at Lyons in 1658, and came to Paris without any provision, but defrayed the expences of his philosophical studies in the college of the Grassins by teaching a few pupils. He was at length a professor in that college; and, in 1687, became first known to the literary world by a translation of Pacatus’ panegyric on Theodosius the Great. Quitting theology, however, to which he had hitherto applied, he turned to the study of medicine, received his doctor’s degree at Rheims, and in 1697 was admitted of the faculty at Paris. Some share of merit, and a turn for intrigue, contributed greatly to his success, and he became professor of the Royal College, censor, and a contributor to the Journal des Savants; and, although there were strong prejudices against him on account of the manner in which he contrived to rise; and his satirical humour, which spared neither friend or foe, he was in 1724, chosen dean of the faculty. His first measures in this office were entitled to praise; convinced of the superiority of talent which the practice of physic requires, he reserved to the faculty that right of inspecting the practice of surgery, which they had always enjoyed, and made a law that no surgeon should perform the operation of lithotomy, unless in the presence of a physician. After this he wished to domineer over the faculty itself, and endeavoured to appoint his friend Helvetius to be first physician to the king, and protector of the faculty. But these and other ambitious attempts were defeated in 1726, when it was decided, that all the decrees of the faculty should be signed by a majority, and not be liable to any alteration by the dean. After this he was perpetually engaged in disputes with some of the members, particularly Hecquet, Lemery, and Petit, and many abusive pamphlets arose from these contests. Andry, however, was not re-elected dean, and had only to comfort himself Vy some libels against his successor Geoffroy, for which, and his general turbulent character, cardinal* Fleury would no longer listen to him, but took the part of the university and the faculty. Andry died May 13, 1742, aged eighty-four. His works were very numerous, and many of them valuable: 1. “Traite de la generation des Vers dans le corps de I'homme,” 1710, often reprinted, and translated into most languages. It was severely attacked by Lemery in the Journal de Trevoux, in revenge for Andry’s attack on his. “Traite des Aliments;” and by Valisnieri, who fixed on him the nickname of Homo venniculosus, as he pretended to find worms at the bottom of every disorder. Andry answered these attacks in a publication entitled “Eclaircissements sur le livre de generation, &c.” 2. “Remarques de medicine sur differents sujets, principalement sur ce qui regard e la Saignee et la Purgation,” Paris, 1710, 12mo. 3. “Le Regime du Careme,” Paris, 1710, 12mo, reprinted 1713, 2 vols. and afterwards in three, in answer to the opinions of Hecqnet. 4. “Thé de l'Europe, ou les proprietes de la veronique,” Paris, 1712, 12mo. 5. “Examen de difFerents points d' Anatomic, &c,” Paris, 1723, 8vo, a violent attack on Petit’s excellent treatise on the diseases of the bones. 6. “Remarques de chemie touchant la preparation de certains remedes,” Paris, 1735, 12mo, another professional and personal attack on Malouin’s “Chimie medicale.” 7. “Cleon a Eudoxe, touchant la pre-eminence de la Medicine sur la Chirurgie.” Paris, 1738, 12mo. 8. “Orthopedic; ou l'art de prevenir et de corriger, dans les enfants, les Difformites du corps,” Paris, 1741, 2 vols. He published also some theses, and his son-in-law, Dionis, published a treatise on the plague, which he drew up by order of the regent.

, a man of eminent learning in the sixteenth, century, was born at Bourges in France, and educated under Melchior Volmar, a very able instructor of youth. He made great advances under him in polite literature, and imbibed the principles of the protestant religion, which Volmar professed, and Aneau afterwards embraced. The great reputation which he soon gained by his skill in the Latin and Greek languages and poetry, induced some of the magistrates of Lyons, who were his countrymen, to offer him a professorship in rhetoric in the college which they were going to erect in that city. Aneau accepted this offer with pleasure, and went thither to take possession of his place, which he kept above thirty years till his death. He discharged his professorship with such applause, that, in 1542, he was chosen principal of the college. In this situation he propagated the doctrines of the reformation among his scholars, which was done secretly for a long time, and either was not perceived, or was overlooked; but an accident which happened on the festival of the sacrament in 1565, put a period to all his attempts in favour of protestantism by a very fatal catastrophe. Upon that day, 21st of June, as the procession was passing on towards the college, there was a large stone thrown from one of the windows upon the host and the priest who carried it. Whether Aneau was the author of this insult or not, is not certain, but the people, being enraged at it, broke into the college in a ody, and assassinated him as the guilty person, and the college itself was shut up the next day by order of the city. Aneau wrote a great many verses in Latin and Greek, and other works; the principal of which are, 1. “Chant Natal,” containing the mystery of the nativity, Lyons, 1539, 4to, and 1559, with the title “Genethliac musical et historical de la Conception et Nativite de J.C.” 2. “Lyon marchand,” a French satire, or drama of the historical kind, 1542, 4to. 3. “Alciati’s emblems translated,” Lyons, 1549, 8vo, 1558, 16mo. 4. “Picta poesis,” Leyden, 1552, 8vo, a collection of emblems, with Greek and Latin verses. 5. A translation of sir Thomas More’s “Utopia,” Paris and Lyons. 6. “Alector; ou le Coq,” a fabulous history, pretendedly from a Greek fragment, Lyons, 1560.

, commonly called Massaniello, one of the names introduced in biographical collections, although more properly belonging to history, was a fisherInan of Naples, and the author of a temporary revolution, which ended as such tumultuous measures generally end, without meliorating the state of the people who have been induced to take an active part in them. In 1623, when this man was born, the kingdom of Naples was subject to the house of Austria, and governed by a viceroy. The Neapolitans had supported the government in this house with great loyalty and liberality, and submitted themselves to many voluntary impositions and burthensome taxes in support of it. But in 1646, the necessities of the king requiring it, a new donative was projected, and a design was formed to lay a fresh tax upon fruits, comprehending 9,11 sorts, dry or green, as far as mulberries, grapes, figs, apples, pears, &c, The people, being thus deprived of their ordinary subsistence, took a resolution to disburden themselves, not only of this, but of all other insupportable exactions formerly imposed. They made their grievances known to the viceroy by the public cries and lamentations of women and children, as he passed through the market place, and petitioned him, by means of the cardinal Filomarino, the archbishop, and others, to take off the said tax. He promised to redress the grievance, and convened proper persons to find out some method to take off the tax on ifruits. But the farmers, because it was prejudicial to their interest, found some secret means to frustrate his endeavours, and dissuaded him from performing his promise to the people; representing to him, that all the clamour was made by a wretched rabble only, not worth regarding.

Thomas Anello, or Massaniello, now in the 24th year of his age, dwelt in a corner of the great market-place at Naples. He was stout, of a good countenance, and a middle stature. He wore linen slops, a blue waistcoat, and went barefoot, with a mariner’s cap. His profession was to angle for little fish with a cane, hook, and line, as also to buy fish and to retail them. This man, having observed the murmurings up and down the city, went one day very angry towards his house, and met with the famous Bandito Perrone and his companion, as he passed by a church where they had fled for refuge. They asked him, what ailed him. He answered in great wrath, “I will be bound to be hanged, but I will right this city.” They laughed at his words, saying, “A proper squire to right the city of Naples!” Massaniello replied, “Do not laugh I swear by God, if I had two or three of my humour, you should see what I could do. Will you join with me?” They answered, “Yes.” “Plight me then your faith:” which they having done, he departed. A little after, when his fish was taken from him by some of the court, because he had not paid the tax, he resolved to avail himself of the murmurings of the people against the tax on fruit. He went among the fruit-shops that were in that quarter, advising them that the next day they should come all united to market, with a resolution to tell the country fruiterers that they would buy no more taxed fruit.

To begin the work, fire was put to the house next the toll-house for fruit, both which were burnt to the ground, with all the books and accounts, and goods and furniture. This done, every one shut up his shop, and, the numbers increasing, many thousand people uniting themselves went to other parts of the city, where all the other toll-houses were: them they plundered of all their writings and books, great quantities of money, with many rich moveables; all which they threw into a great fire of straw, and burnt to ashes in the streets. The people, meeting with no resistance, assumed more boldness, and made towards the palace of the viceroy. The first militia of Massaniello, consisting of 2000 boys, marched on, every one lifting up his cane with a piece of black cloth on the top, and with loud cries excited the compassion, and entreated the assistance of their fellow-citizens. Being come before the palace, they eried out that they would not be freed of the fruit-tax only, but of all others, especially that of corn. At last they entered the palace and rifled it, notwithstanding the resistance of the guards, whom they disarmed. The viceroy got into his coach to secure himself within the church or St. Lewis, but the people, spying him, stopped the coach, and with naked swords on each side of it threatened him, unless he would take off the taxes. With fair promises, and assurances of redress, and by throwing money among the multitude, which they were greedy to pick up, he got at last safe into the church, and ordered the doors to be shut. The people applied to the prince of Bisignano, who was much beloved by them, to be their defender and intercessor. He promised to obtain what they desired; but finding himself unable, after much labour and fatigue, to restrain their licentiousness, or quell their fury, he took the first opportunity of retiring from the popular tumult.

After the retirement of the prince, the people, finding themselves without a head, called out for Massaniello to be their leader and conductor, which charge he accepted. They appointed Genoino, a priest of approved knowledge, temper, and abilities, to attend his person; and to him they added for a companion the famous Bandito Perrone. Massaniello, by his spirit, good sense, and bravery, won the hearts of all the people, insomuch that they became willing to transfer unto him solemnly the supreme command, and to obey him accordingly. A stage was erected in the middle of the market-place, where, clothed in white like a mariner, he with his counsellors gave public audience, received petitions, and gave sentence in all causes both civil and criminal. He had no less than 150,000 men under his command. An incredible multitude of women also appeared with arms of various sorts, like so many Amazons. A list was made of above 60 persons, who had farmed the taxes, or been some way concerned in the custom-houses; and, as it was said they had enriched themselves with the blood of the people, and ought to be made examples to future ages, an order was issued, that their houses and goods should be burnt; which was executed accordingly, and with so much regularity, that no one was suffered to carry away the smallest article. Many, for stealing mere trifles from the flames, were hanged by the public executioner in the market-place, by the command of Massaniello.

While these horrid tragedies were acting, the viceroy thought of every method to appease the people, and bring them to an accommodation. He applied to the archbishop, of whose attachment to the government he was well assured, and of whose paternal care and affection for them the people had no doubt. He gave him the original charter of Charles V. (which exempted them from all taxes, and upon which they had all along insisted) confirmed by lawful authority, and likewise an indulgence or pardon for all offences whatsoever committed. The bishop found means to induce Massaniello to convoke all the captains and chief commanders of the people together, and great hopes were conceived that an happy accommodation would ensue. In the mean time 500 banditti, all armed on horseback, entered the city, under pretence that they came for the service of the people, but in reality to destroy Massaniello, as it appeared afterwards; for they discharged several shot at him, some of which very narrowly missed him. This put a stop to the whole business, and it was suspected that the viceroy had some hand in the conspiracy. The streets were immediately barricaded, and orders were given that the aqueduct leading to the castle, in which were the viceroy and family, and all the principal officers ofr state, should be cut off, and that no provisions, except some few roots and herbs, should be carried thither. The riceroy applied again to the archbishop, to assure the people of his sincere good intentions towards them, his, abhorrence of the designs of the banditti, and his resolution to use all his authority to bring them to due punishment. Thus the treaty' was again renewed, and soon completed; which being done, it was thought proper that Massaniello should go to the palace to visit the viceroy. He gave orders that all the streets leading to it should be clean swept, and that all masters of families should hang their windows and balconies with their richest silks and tapestries. He threw off his mariner’s habit, and dressed himself in cloth of silver, with a fine plume of feathers in his hat and mounted upon a prancing steed, with a drawn sword in his hand, he went attended by 50,000 of the people.

While he was in conference with the viceroy in a balcony, he gave him surprising proofs of the ready obedience of the people. Whatever cry he gave out, it was immediately echoed; when he put his finger upon his mouth, there was such a profound universal silence, that scarce a man was heard to breathe. At last he ordered that they should all retire, which was punctually and presently obeyed, as if they had all vanished away. On the Sunday following the capitulations were signed and solemnly sworn to in the cathedral church to be observed for ever. Massaniello declared, that now, having accomplished his honest designs, he would return again to his former occupation. If he iiad kept this resolution, he might, perhaps, have been ranked among the benefactors of his country; but either through the instigations of his wife and kindred, through fear, or allured by the tasted sweets of rule and power, he still continued Lis authority: and exercised it in such a capricious and tyrannical manner, that his best friends began to be afraid of him.

He seems indeed to have fallen into a frensy, which might naturally enough be occasioned by his sudden elevation, his care and vigilance (for he seldom either ate or slept during the whole transaction), and by his immoderate drinking of strong wine, which excess he gave into on the happy event. Four persons took an opportunity of assassinating him. As he fell, he only cried out, “Ungrateful traitors!” His head was thrown into one ditch, and his body into another. The tumult, however, did not subside until the Neapolitans were entirely freed from the yoke of Spain.

, a barefoot carmelite of Toulouse, whose real name was La Brosse, lived a long while in Persia in quality of apostolic missionary: the liberty he enjoyed in that country, gave him an opportunity to acquire the language. He was also provincial of his order in Languedoc, and died at Perpignan in 1697. The knowledge he had acquired in the East, induced him to undertake a Latin translation of the Persian Pharmacopoeia, which appeared at Paris in 1681, 8vo. There is also by him, “Gazophylacium linguee Persarum,” Amst. 1684, fol. He there explains the terms in Latin, in French, and in Italian, in order that his book may be of service to the enlightened nations of Europe in general. His reputation as a Persian scholar was considerably great in his own country, until our learned Dr. Hyde published his “Castigatio in Angelum a St. Joseph, alias dictum de la Brosse.” The reason of this castigation was, that La Brosse had attacked the Persian gospels in the English Polyglot, and the Latin version of them by Dr. Samuel Clarke. Dr. Hyde immediately wrote a letter to him, in which he expostulated with him, and pointed out his mistakes, but received no answer. At length, in 1688, La Brosse came over to England, went to Oxford, and procured an introduction to Dr. Hyde, without letting him know who he was, although he afterwards owned his name to be La Buosse, and that he came over to justify what he had advanced. After a short dispute, which he carried on in Latin, he began to speak the Persian language, in which he was surprised to find Dr. Hyde more fluent than himself. Finding, however, that he could not defend what he had asserted, he took his leave with a promise to return, and either defend it, or acknowledge his error; but, as he performed neither, Dr. Hyde published the “Castigatio.” Iti this he first states La Brosse’s objections, then shews them to be weak and trifling, and arising from his ignorance of the true idiom of the Persian tongue. As to his “Pharmacopoeia,” Hyde proves that it was really translated by father Mattmeu, whose name La Brosse suppressed, and yet had not the courage to place his own, unless in Persian characters, on the title. This appears to have sunk his reputation very considerably in France.

, da Fiesole, so called from the place where he was born, in 1387. He was at first the disciple of Giottino, but afterwards became a Dominican friar, and in that station was as much admired for his piety as his painting. His devout manner procured him the name of Angelico, or the angelic painter, and it is said that he never took up his pencil without a prayer, and had his eyes filled with tears when representing the sufferings of our Saviour. Nicholas V. employed him in his chapel, to paint historical subjects on a large scale, and prevailed on him soon after to decorate several books with miniature paintings. Although there are in his best paintings considerable defects, yet he was a most skilful instructor, and his amiable temper procured him many scholars. He always painted religious subjects; and it is given as a proof of his extraordinary humility, that he refused the Archbishopric of Florence when tendered to him by Nicholas V. as the reward of his talents. With respect to the objections made to his pictures, we are farther told, that he purposely left some great fault in them, lest his self-love might be too much flattered by the praises that would have been bestowed; a practice, however absurd in an artist, not unsuitable to monkish ideas of mortification. He died in 1443.

Angelio’s published works are, 1. Three “Funeral Orations,” in Latin, one on Henry II. of Frtmce, read at Florence in 1559, the second on the grand duke Cosmo, at Pisa in 1574, and the third on the grand duke Ferdinand, his liberal patron, at Florence, 1587. 2. “De ordine legendi scriptores Historise Romanae,” twice printed separately, and inserted in Grotius “De studiis instituendis.” 3. “Poemata varia, diligenter ab ipso recognita,” Rome, 1585, 4to. This collection, the greater part of which had been printed separately, contains the poem on which his reputation is chiefly founded, the “Cynegeticon,” or the Chase, in six books; and the “Syrias,” in twelve books, on the same subject as Tasso’s “Jerusalem delivered.” 4. “De privatorum publicorumque urbis Romae eversoribus epistola,” Florence, 1589, 4to, printed since in the 4th volume of the “Thesaurus antiquitatum Romanarum.” 5. “Poesie Toscane,” published with a translation of the CEdipus of Sophocles, Florence, 1589, 8vo. 6. Letters in Latin and Italian in various collections. 7. “Memoirs of his life,” written by himself, and published by Salvini in the “Fasti Consolari” of the academy of Florence, and abridged in the present article.

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

, abbot of Centula, or St. Riquier, in the ninth century, was descended from a noble family of Neustria. He was educated at the court of Charlemagne, where he studied the languages with that prince and the other courtiers, under the learned Alcuinus, who afterwards considered him as his son. Charlemagne, having caused his son Ppin to be crowned king of Itaiy, made Angilbert that prince’s first minister: he then went with him into Italy, and returned some years after to France, when Charlemagne gave him his daughter Bertha in marriage; but some historians say that this marriage was rendered necessary by the lady’s being delivered previously of twins. Whatever truth may be in this, Angilbert, being now sonin-law to Charlemagne, was made duke or governor of the coast of France from the Scheldt to the Seine, and the kin? also made him his secretary and prime minister; but Alcuinus, abbot of Corbie, prevailed on him to become a monk in the monastery of Centula, or St. Riquier, with the consent both of his wife and the king. Notwithstanding his love of solitude, he was frequently obliged to leave the monastery, and attend to the affairs of the church and state, and was three times sent to the court of Rome; he also accompanied Charlemagne thither, in the year 800, when that prince was crowned in that city emperor of the West. He died on the 18th of February 814. Angilbert had such a taste for poetry, that Charlemagne called him his Homer. There are but few of his works remaining, except a history of his monastery, which Mabillon has inserted in his “Annales de l'ordre de St. Benoit.” As to the “Histoire de premieres expeditions de Charlemagne pendant sa jeunesse et avant son regne,” 1741, 8vo, with the title of Homer, given him by Charlemagne, either because he delighted in that poet, or because he was himself a poet; it is in fact a romance written by Dufresne de Francheville.

, who was born at Vicenza, composed in Italian and the Turkish language the “History of Mahomet II.” which he dedicated to him. It was very kindly received by that haughty sultan, who, besides the civilities which he shewed to Angiolello, bestowed on him very considerable proofs of his liberality. The author had been an eye-witness of what he related; for, being one of the slaves of the young sultan Mustapha, he followed him in the expedition to Persia in 1473, which Mahomet carried on in person with almost 200,000 soldiers into the dominions of Ussun-Caesan. It is somewhat surprising that Angiolello, who knew without doubt the haughty disposition of this emperor of the Turks, should venture to repeat the abusive terms, which Ussun-Cassan used in reproaching him with his illegitimate birth, when he viewed the army of the enemies from a hill upon the bank of the Euphrates. It is certain, however, that Angiolello’s book was not the less kindly received, or the less amply rewarded. There was printed at Venice in 1553 a piece of Giov. Mario Angiolello, “Delia vita et fatti di Re di Persia;” and he wrote also “Relatione della vita e de' fatti del signer Ussun-Cassan,” inserted in the second volume of Ramusio’s Voyage, 1559, fol. By this it appears that he was living in 1524, and probably old, as this was fifty-one years after the battle on the Euphrates, at which he was present.

, or, as Bale, Pitts, and Tanner, call him, Gilbertus Legleus, was physician to Hubert, archbishop of Canterbury, in the time of king John, or towards the year 1210. Leland makes him flourish later; and from some passages in his works, he must have lived towards the end of the thirteenth century. The memoirs of this medical writer are very scanty: Dr. Freind has commented with much impartiality upon his Compendium of Physic, which is still extant, and appears to be the earliest remaining writing on the practice of medicine among our countrymen. That elegant writer allows him a share of the superstitious and empirical, although this will not make him inferior to the medical writers of the age in which he lived. His “Compendium” was published at Lyons, 1510, 4to, and at Geneva, 1608.

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

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

, one of the most celebrated Italian poets of the sixteenth century, was born about 1517, at Sutri in Tuscany, of very poor parents. After receiving such education as he could afford, he came to Rome and engaged himself as a corrector of the press; but an intrigue with his master’s wife, in which he was detected, obliged him to leave Rome^with a little money and a few cloaths, of which he was stripped by robbers. He then begged his way to Vienna, and there got immediate employment from Franceschi, the bookseller; and, while with him, wrote his translation of Ovid, and some of his original works. He then returned to Rome, which his reputation as a poet had reached, but his misfortunes also followed him; and after having lived for some time on the sale of his cloaths and books, he died partly of hunger, and partly of a disease contracted by his imprudent conduct, in an inn near Torre de Nona. The exact date of his death is not known, but it appears by a letter addressed to him by Annibai Caro, that he was alive in 1564. His translation of the Metamorphoses still enjoys a high reputation in Italy, and Varchi and some other critics chuse to prefer it to the original. This is exaggerated praise, but undoubtedly the poetry and style are easy and elegant; although from the many liberties he has taken with the text, it ought rather to be called an imitation than a translation. The editions have been numerous, but the best is that of the Giunti, Venice, 1584, 4to, with engravings by Franco, and notes and arguments by Orologi and Turchi. He also began the Æneid, but one book only was printed, 1564, 4to; soon after which period it is supposed he died. His other works are: 1. “Œdipo,” a tragedy, partly original and partly from Sophocles. It had great success in representation, and was played in a magnificent temporary theatre built for the purpose by Palladio in 1565. 2. “Canzoni,” addressed to the dukes of Florence and Ferrara. 3. “Poetical arguments for all the cantos of Orlando Furioso.” 4. Four “Capitoli,” or satires, printed in various collections of that description. It appears by these last that he was gay and thoughtless in the midst of all his misfortunes.

, a learned Italian physician and botanist in the sixteenth century, was born at Anguillara, a small town in the ecclesiastical states, from which he took his name. The republic of Venice, in consideration of the character he acquired during his travels, bestowed on him the title of Simplicista, or chief botanist, and appointed him director of the botanical garden of Padua. This office he appears to have held from 1540 to 1561; when, disgusted by some intrigues formed against him, he retired to Florence, and died there in 1570. We have very few particulars of his private history, except what can be gleaned from the only work that has appeared with his name. His studies, facilitated by a knowledge of the ancient languages, were principally directed to botany, in pursuit of which science he travelled through Italy, Turkey, the islands in the Mediterranean, Crete, Cyprus, Corsica, Sardinia, and part of Swisserland and France. The knowledge he acquired in these journies occasioned his being consulted by the most eminent botanists of his time and a collection of his letters on botanical subjects was published, With his consent, by Marinello, under the title of “Semplici dell' eccelente M. Anguillara, li quali in piu pareri a diversi nobili nomini scritti appajono et nuovamente da M. Giovanni Marinello mandati in luce,” Venice, 1561, 8vo. In the same year a second edition was printed, which is preferred on account of its containing two plates of plants not in the first. This work, although far from voluminous, seemed to establish his reputation, and is particularly valuable on account of his learned researches into the ancient names of plants.

, a lady of extraordinary talents in an age of barbarism, was the daughter of the emperor Alexius Comnenus I. and after his death in 1118, conspired to dethrone his brother John, and place the crown on the head of her husband Nicephorus Briennius; but while she displayed the spirit and intrigue of the most politic of the male sex, her designs were baffled by the want of vigour, and the effeminacy of her husband. She applied herself, however, to such studies as could be prosecuted in that age, and associated much with the learned men of Constantinople, whose fame she endeavoured to rival by the “Alexiad.” or “The life of the emperor Alexius Comnenus,” her father, which she wrote in a style that was much admired. It is divided into fifteen books; and, making some allowance for the flattering portrait given of her father, her frequent digressions, and inaccuracy as to dates, contains a very curious assemblage of facts, and many spirited remarks on the Roman pontiff, whose pretensions to spiritual sovereignty she treats with very little respect; nor does she ever mention the French nation but as a barbarous people, whose name would Hefile the beauty and elegance of history. The president Cousin, however, published a very correct and elegant French translation of the life of Alexius, which is in the 4th volume of the Byzantine historians. There was also an edition printed at the Louvre, with the learned notes of David Hoeschelius, 1651, fol. Her husband died in 1137; but the time of her own death has not been ascertained.

, dean of Edinburgh in Scotland, the son of William Annand, minister of Air, in Airshire, was born in that town in 1633. Five years after, his father was obliged to quit Scotland with his family, on account of their loyalty to the king, and adherence to the episcopal government established by law in that country. In 1651, young Annand was admitted a scholar in University -college, Oxford; and though he was put under the care of a Presbyterian tutor, yet he took all occasions to be present at the sermons preached by the loyal divines in and near Oxford. In 1656, being then bachelor of arts, he received holy orders from the hands of Dr. Thomas Fulwar, bishop of Ardfert, or Kerry in Ireland; and was appointed preacher at Weston on the Green, near Bicester, in Oxfordshire; where he met with great encouragement from sir Francis Norris, lord of that manor. After he had taken his degree of M. A. he was presented to the vicarage of Leighton-Buzzard, in Bedfordshire; where he distinguished himself by his edifying manner of preaching, till 1662, when he went into Scotland, as chaplain to John earl of Middleton, the king’s high commissioner to the church of that kingdom. In the latter end of 1663, he was instituted to the Tolbooth church, at Edinburgh; and from thence was removed some years after to the Trone church of that city, which was likewise a prebend. In April 1676, he was nominated by the king to the deanery of Edinburgh; and in 1685 he commenced D. D. in the university of St. Andrews. He died June 13, 1689, and was honourably interred in the Grey-friars church at Edinburgh. As his life was pious and devout, so his sickness and death afforded great consolation to those who attended him in his last moments.

His works are: “Fides Catholica, or the doctrine of the Catholic church, &c.” Loud. 1661—2, 4to. “PanemQ.uoin defence of set forms and of the book of Common-prayer,” 1661, 4to. “Pater Noster,” a treatise on the Lord’s-prayer, Lond. 1670, 8vo. “Mysterium Pietatis,” or the mystery of godliness, &c. Lond. 1672, 8vo. “Doxologia,” or the Doxology reduced to glorifying the Trinity, Lond. 1672, 8vo. “Dualitas,” a two-fold subject, on the honour, &c. of Magistracy, Edin. 1674, 4to.

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

, earl of Anglesey, and lord privy seal in the reign of Charles II. was born July 10, 1614, at Dublin, and continued in Ireland till he was ten years old, when he was sent to England. At sixteen he was entered fellow commoner at Magdalen college, Oxford, where he pursued his studies about three or four years. In 1634 he removed to Lincoln’s Inn, where he studied the law with great assiduity till his father sent him to travel. He made the tour of Europe, and continued some time at Rome, whence he returned to England in 1640, and was elected knight of the shire for the county of Radnor, in the parliament which sat at Westminster in November of the same year but the election being contested, he lost his seat by a vote of the house, that Charles Price, esq. was duly elected. In the beginning of the civil war, Mr. Annesley inclined to the royal cause, and sat in the parliament held at Oxford in 1643; but afterwards reconciled himself so effectually to the parliament, that he was taken into their confidence, and appointed to go as a commissioner to Ulster in 1645. There he managed affairs with so much dexterity and judgment, that the famous Owen Roe O'Neil was disappointed in his designs; and the popish archbishop of Tuam, who was the great support of his party, and whose counsels had been hitherto very successful, was not only taken prisoner, but his papers were seized, and his foreign correspondence discovered, wheieby vast advantages accrued to the protestant interest. The parliament had sent commissioners to the duke of Ormcnd, for the delivery of Dublin, but without success; and the state of affairs making it necessary to renew their correspondence with him, they made choice of a second committee, nd Mr. Annesley was placed at the head of this commission. The commissioners landed at Dublin the 7th of June 1647; and they proved so successful in their negotiations, that in a few days a treaty was concluded with the lord lieutenant, which was signed on the 19th of that inonth, and Dublin was put into the hands of the parliament. When the commissioners had got supreme power, they were guilty of many irregularities: Mr. Annesley disapproved of their conduct, but could not hinder them from doing many things contrary to his judgment: being therefore displeased with his situation, he returned speeuily to England, where he found all things in confusion. After the death of Cromwell, Mr. Annesley, though he doubted whether the parliament was not dissolved by the death of the king, resolved to get into the house if possible; and he behaved in many respects in such a manner as shewed what his real sentiments were, and how much he had the resettling of the constitution at heart. In the confusion which followed he had little or no share, being trusted neither by the parliament nor army. But when things began to take a different turn, by restoring the secluded members to their seats, Feb. 21, 1660, Mr. Annesley was chosen president of the council of state, having at that time opened a correspondence with Charles II. then in exile.

Soon after the restoration, Mr. Annesley was created earl of Anglesey; in the preamble of the patent notice is taken of the signal services rendered by him in the king’s restoration. He had always a considerable share in the king’s favour, and was heard with great attention both at council and in the house of lords. In 1667 he was made treasurer of the navy; and on the 4th of February 1672, his majesty in council was pleased to appoint the duke of Buckingham, the earl of Anglesey, the lord Holies, the lord Ashley Cooper, and Mr. secretary Trevor, to be a committee to peruse and revise all the papers and writings concerning the settlement of Ireland, from the first to the last; and to make an abstract thereof in writing. Accordingly, on the 12th of June 1672, they made their report at large, which was the foundation of a commission, dated the 1st of August 1672, to prince Rupert, the dukes of Buckingham and Lauderdale, earl of Anglesey, lords Ashley and Holies, sir John Trevor, and sir Thomas, Chicheley, to inspect the, settlements of Ireland, and all proceedings thereunto. In 1673, the earl of Anglesey had the office of lord privy seal conferred upon him. In October 1680, his lordship was charged by one Dangerfield in an information delivered upon oath, at the bar of the house of commons, with endeavouring to stifle evidence concerning the popish plot, and to promote the belief of a presbyterian one. The uneasiness he received from tiiis attack, did not hinder him from speaking his opinion freely of those matters in the house of lords, particularly in regard to the Irish plot. In 1680, the earl of Castlehaven wrote Memoirs concerning the affairs of Ireland, wherein he was at some pains to represent the general rebellion in livland in the lightest colours possible, as if it had been at first far from being universal, and at last rendered so by the measures pursued by such as ought to have suppressed the insurrection. The earl of Anglesey having received these memoirs from their author, thought fit to write some animadversions upon them, in a letter to the earl of Castlehaven, wherein he delivered his opinion, freely in respect to the duke of Ormond and his management in Ireland. The duke expostulated with the lord privy seal on the subject, by letter, to which the earl replied. In 1682, the earl drew up a very particular remonstrance, and presented it to king Charles II. It was very warm and loyal, yet it was far from being well received. This memorial was entitled, The account of Arthur earl of Anglesey, lord privy seal to your most excellent majesty, of the true state of your majesty’s government and kingdoms, April 27, 1682. In one part whereof he says, “the fatal cause of all our mischiefs, present or apprehended, and which may raise a fire, which may burn and consume xis to the very foundations, is the unhappy perversion of the duke of York (the next heir to the crown) in one point of religion; which naturally raises jealousy of the power, designs, and practices, of the old enemies of our religion and liberties, and undermines and emasculates the courage and constancy even of those and their posterity, who have been as faithful to, and suffered as much for the crown, as any the most pleased or contented in our impending miseries can pretend to have done.” He concludes with these words: “Though your majesty is in your own person, above the reach of the law, and sovereign of all your people, yet the law is your master and instructor how to govern; and that your subjects assure themselves you will never attempt the enervating that law by which you are king, and which you have not only by frequent declarations, but by a solemn oath upon your throne, been obliged, in a most glorious presence of your people, to the maintenance of; and that therefore you will look upon any that shall propose or advise to the contrary, as unfit persons to be near you; and on those who shall persuade you it is lawful, as sordid flatterers, and the worst and most dangerous enemies you and your kingdoms have. What I set before your majesty, I have written freely, and like a sworn faithful counsellor; perhaps not like a wise man, with regard to myself, as they stand: but I have discharged my duty, and will account it a reward, if your majesty vouchsafe to read what I durst not but write, and which I beseech God to give a blessing to.”

valuable of all his works was lost, or, as some say, destroyed. This was “A History of the Troubles in Ireland from 1641 to 1660.” He was one of the first English peers who distinguished himself by collecting a fine library, which he did with great care, and at a large expence. But after his decease, all his books were exposed to sale. At this sale the discovery was made of the earl’s famous memorandum, in the blank leaf of an Ejkwv Bawtfuxn; according to which, it was not Charles I. but bishop Gauden, who was author of this performance. This produced a long controversy, which will be noticed in the life of that prelate.

, a very eminent nonconformist minister, was the son of John Aneley, of Hareley, in Warwickshire, where his family were possessed of a good estate, and was born about the year 1620. In 1635 he was admitted a student in Queen’s college, Oxford, where he took his bachelor’s and master’s degrees. At the university he was distinguished by extreme temperance and industry. His inclination leading him to the church, he received holy orders, but it is uncertain whether from the hands of a bishop, or according to the Presbyterian way; Wood inclines to the former, and Calamy to the latter. In 1644, however, he became chaplain to the earl of Warwick, then admiral of the parliament’s fleet, and afterwards succeeded to a church at Clift'e, in Kent, by the ejectment, for loyalty, of Dr. Griffith Higges, who was much beloved by his parishioners. On July 26, 1648, he preached the fast sermon before the house of commons, which, as usual, was ordered to be printed. About this time, also, he was honoured with the title of LL. D. by the university of Oxford, or rather by the peremptory command of Philip earl of Pembroke, chancellor of the university, who acted there with boundless authority. The same year, he went to sea with the earl of Warwick, who was employed in giving chase to that part of the English navy which went over to the then prince, afterwards king Charles II. Some time after this, he resigned his Kentish living, although he had now become popular there, in consequence of a promise he made to his parishioners to “resign it when he had fitted them for the reception of a better minister.” In 1657, he was nominated by Cromwell, lecturer at St. Paul’s; and in 1658 was presented by Richard, the protector, to the vicarage of St. Giles’s, Cripplegate. But this presentation becoming soon useless, he, in 1660, procured another from the trustees for the approbation and admission of ministers of the gospel, after the Presbyterian manner. His second presentation growing out of date as the first, he obtained, in the same year, a third, of a more legal stamp, from Charles II.; but in 1662, he was ejected for nonconformity. He was offered considerable preferment, if he would conform, but refused it, and continued to preach privately during that and the following reign. He died in 1696, with a high reputation for piety, charity, and popular talents. His works, which are enumerated by Calamy, consist of occasional sermons, and some funeral sermons, with biographical memoirs. He was the principal support, if not the institutor, of the morning lecture, or course of sermons preached at seven o'clock in the morning, at various churches, during the usurpation, and afterwards at meeting-houses, by the most learned and able nonconformists. Of these several volumes have been printed, and of late years have risen very much in price. Collectors inform us that a complete set should consist of six volumes.

, a Greek philosopher of the Cyrenaic sect, and who gave the name of Annicerians to his disciples, was born at Gyrene, and scholar to Paroebates. When Plato, by the command of Dionysius the tyrant of Sicily, was sold as a slave at Ægina, our philosopher happened to be present, and redeemed him for twenty, or, according to others, thirty minoe, and sent him to Athens to his friends, who immediately returned the money to Anniceris; but he refused it, saying, that they were not the only persons who deserved to take care of Plato. He was particularly eminent for his skill in chariot-racing, of which he one day gave a proof before Plato, and drove many courses round the academy so exactly, that his wheels never went out of the track, to the admiration of all who were present, except Plato, who reproved him for his too great attention to such affairs, telling him, that it was not possible but that he, who employed so much pains about things of no value, must neglect those of greater importance. He had a brother who was named Nicoteles, a philosopher, and the famous Posidonius was his scholar. The Annicerians, as well as the rest of the Cyrenaic philosophers, placed all good in pleasure, and conceived virtue to be only commendable so far as it produced pleasure. They agreed in all respects with the Hegesians, except that they did not abolish friendship, benevolence, duty to parents, and love to one’s country. They held, that though a wise man suffer trouble for those thinsrs. yet he will lead a life not the less happy, though he enjoy but few pleasures. That the felicity of a friend is not desirable in itself; for to agree in judgment with another, or to be raised above and fortified against the general opinion, is not sufficient to satisfy reason; but we must accustom ourselves to the best things, on account of our innate vicious inclinations. That a friend is not to be entertained only for useful or necessary ends, nor when such ends fail, to be cast off, but out of an intrinsic good will; for which we ought likewise to expose ourselves to trouble and inconvenience. Although these philosophers, like the rest of that sect, placed the chief end and good of mankind in pleasure, and professed that they were grieved at the loss of it, yet they affirmed, that we ought voluntarily to subject ourselves to pain and trouble out of regard to our friends.

, or according to his epitaph, which Bayle follows, Nannius (John), commonly called Annius of Viterbo, where he was born about 1432, was a Dominican friar, and highly respected among his brethren for his extensive knowledge of Greek, Latin, and the oriental languages. He was also a zealous preacher, and his reputation having reached Rome, he was invited thither, and received with great respect by the members of the sacred college, and the popes Sixtus IV. and Alexander VI. This last conferred upon him in 1499, the honourable situation of master of the sacred palace, vacant by the promotion of Paul Moneglia to the bishopric of Chios. Annius, however, had some difficulty in preserving the favour of characters so profligate as Alexander, and his son Caesar Borgia; but the duchess de Valentinois, wife to Caesar, and as virtuous as he was abandoned, rendered Annius every service in her power. Her husband, probably on this account, and tired with the advice and remonstrances presented to him either by her or by Annius, determined to get rid of the latter, and, it is thought, procured him to be poisoned. Whatever may be in this report, Annius died Nov. 13, 1502, in his seventieth year.

Annius left a great many works, two of which were thought valuable; the one, “A treatise on the Empire of the Turks,” and the other, “De futuris Christianorum triumphis in Turcas et Saracenos, at Xystum IV. et omnes principes Christianos,” Genes, 1430, 4to, a commentary on the book of the Revelations, part of which had been the subject of some, sermons he preached in 1471. He published also “Super mutuo Judaico et civili et divino,” 1492, 4to, without place or printer’s name; and the Harleian catalogue ascribes to him a commentary on Catullus, Tibullus, and Propertius, Paris, 1604. But the work which has rendered him best known in the literary world, is the collection of antiquities which he published at Rome in 1498, entitled “Antiquitatum variarum voluminaXVU. cum commentariis fr. Joannis Annii Viterbensis,” fol. reprinted the same year at Venice, and afterwards several times at Paris, Basil, Antwerp, Lyons, &c. sometimes with, and sometimes without his commentaries. In this collection Annius pretends to give the original works of several historians of the highest antiquity, as: “Archilochi de temponbus Epitome lib. I. Xenophontis de Æquivocis lib. I. Berosi Babylonici de Antiquitatibus Italian ac totius orbis lib. V. Manethonis JEgyptii supplementa ad Berosum lib. I. Metasthenis Persae, de judicio temporum, & Annalibus Persarum lib. I. Philonis Hebraei de temporibus lib. II. Joannis Annii de primis temporibus, & quatuor ac viginti regibus Hispanice, & ejus antiquitate lib. I. Ejusdem de antiquitate & rebus Ethruriae lib. I. Ejusdem Commentariorum in Propertium de Vertumno sive Jano lib. I. Q. Fabii Pictoris de aureo saeculo, & origine urbis Romse lib. II. Myrsili Lesbii de origine Italiae, ac Turrhenioe lib. I. M. Catonis fragmenta de originibus lib. I. Antonini Pii Csesaris August! Itinerarium lib. I. C. Sempronii de chorographia sive descriptione Italian lib. I. Joannis Annii de Ethrusca simul & Italica Chronographia lib. I. Ejusdem Quoestiones de Thuscia lib. I. Cl. Marii Aretii, Patricii Syracusani, de situ insulue Sicilian lib. I. Ejusdem Dialogus in quo Hispania describitur.” The author dedicated these books to Ferdinand and Isabella, because they had been found when their majesties were conquering the kingdom of Granada. He pretends, that he met with them at Mantua, whilst he was there with his patron Paul de Campo Fulgoso, cardinal of St. Sixtus. But they had not been published long, before doubts began to be entertained of their authenticity. This provoked a controversy, in the course of which it was very clearly proved that they are entitled to little credit, but the precise share Annius had in the imposture was a point long undetermined. The contending writers on the subject may be divided into four classes. The one of opinion that Annius really got pospossession of certain fragments of the ancient authors, but that he added to these a number of fables and tra-litions. Another class think that the whole collection is a forgery, but that Annius was himself deceived, and published what he really thought to be genuine. A third class are believers in the authenticity of the whole, and some of these were themselves men of credit and reputation, as Bernardino Baldi, William Postel, Albert Krantz, Sigonius, Leancler Alberti, (see vol. I. p. 320), and some others. Alberti is said to have discovered his error, and to have deeply regretted that he admitted into his description of Italy, the tables which he found in Annius. A fourth class of critics on this work attribute the whole to the imagination of the editor; and among these we find the names of Anthony Agostini, or Augustine, Isaac Casaubon, Mariana, in his Spanish history, Ferrari, Martin Hanckius, Fabricius, Fontanini, &c. The learned Italians, also, who were contemporaries with Annius, were the first to detect the fraud; as Marcus Antonius Sabellicus, Peter Crinitus, Volterre, &c.; and Pignoria and MafTei were of the same opinion. In the sixteenth century, Mazza, a dominican, revived the dispute, by publishing at Verona, in 1623, fol. a work entitled “Apologia pro fratre Giovanni Annio Viterbese.” His chief design is to prove, that if there be any fraud, Annius must not be charged with it. But he goes farther, and asserts, that these works are genuine, and endeavours to answer all the objections urged against them. This apology having been censured, father Macedo rose against the censurer, not indeed with a design to assert that the Berosus, &c. published by Annius was the genuine Berosus, but to shew that Annius did not forge those manuscripts, A more modern apologist pretends both. He calls himself Didimus Rapaligerus Livianus. He published at Verona in the year 1678, a work in folio, entitled “I Gothi illustrati, overo Istoria de i Gothi antichi,” in which he brings together all the arguments he can think of, to shew that the writings published by Annius are genuine; and that this dominican did not forge them. The question is now universally given against Annius, while we are left to wonder at the perseverance which conducted him through a fraud of such magnitude.

, a French historian, and political writer, was born at Paris, Jan. 21, 1723. Having in his seventeenth year entered the congregation of St. Genevieve, he distinguished himself by the ability with which he afterwards discharged the office of teacher in theology and literature. His residence at Rheims, as director of the academy, seems to have suggested to him the first idea of writing the history of that city. In 1759, he was appointed prior of the abbey de la Roe, in Anjou, and soon after, director of the college of Senlis, where he composed his work entitled “L'Esprit de la Ligue.” In 1766 he obtained the curacy or priory of Chateau-Renard, near Montargis, which, about the beginning of the revolution, he exchanged for the curacy of La Villette, near Paris. During the revolutionary phrenzy, he was imprisoned at St. Lazare, and wrote there part of his “Histoire universelle.” When the Institute was formed, he was chosen a member of the second class, and was soon after taken into the office of the minister for foreign affairs, whom he thought to oblige by. his “Motifs des traites de Paix.” Enjoying a strong constitution, the fruit of a placid and equal temper, and aversion to the luxuries of the table, he was enabled to study ten hours a day; and undertook, without fear or scruple, literary undertakings of the most laborious kind. Even in his eightieth year, he was projecting some new works of considerable size, and was apparently without a complaint, when he died, Sept. 6, 1808, in the eightyfourth year of his age. On this occasion he said to one of his friends, “come and see a man die who is full of life.”

, brother to the preceding, was born at Paris, Dec. 7, 1731. After having studied at the university of Paris, where he acquired an extensive knowledge of the Hebrew, he was invited to Auxerre by M. de Caylus, then the bishop, who induced him to study divinity, first at the academy in, his diocese, and afterwards at Amersfort, near Utrecht; but Anquetil had no inclination for the church, and returned with avidity to the study of the Hebrew, Arabic, and Persian. Neither the solicitations of M. de Caylus, nor the hopes of preferment, could detain him at Amersfort longer than he thought he had learned all that was to be learned there. He returned therefore to Paris, where his constant attendance at the royal library, and diligence in study, recommended him to the abbé Sallier, keeper of the manuscripts, who made him known to his friends, and furnished him with a moderate maintenance, under the character of student of the Oriental languages. The accidentally meeting with some manuscripts in the Zend, the language in which the works attributed to Zoroaster are written, created in him an irresistible inclination to visit the East in search of them. At this time an expedition for India was fitting out at port l'Orient, and when he found that the applications of his friends were not sufficient to procure him a passage, he entered as a common soldier; and on Nov. 7, 1754, left Paris, with his knapsack on his back. His friends no sooner heard of this wild step, than they had recourse to the minister, who surprized at so uncommon an instance of literary zeal, ordered him to be provided with a free passage, a seat at the captain’s table, and other accommodations. Accordingly, after a nine months voyage, he arrived Aug. 10, 1755, at Pondicherry. Remaining there such time as was necessary to acquire a knowledge of the modern Persian, he went to Chandernagor, where he hoped to learn the Sanscrit; but sickness, which confined him for some months, and the war which broke out between France and England, and in which Chandernagor was taken, disappointed his plans. He now set out for Pondicherry by land, and after incredible fatigue and hardships, performed the journey of about four hundred leagues in about an hundred days. At Pondicherry he found one of his brothers arrived from France, and sailed with him for Surat, but, landing at Mahe, completed his journey on foot. At Surat, by perseverance and address, he succeeded in procuring and translating some manuscripts, particularly the “Vendidade-Sade,” a dictionary; and he was about to have gone to Benares, to study the language, antiquities, and sacred laws of the Hindoos, when the capture of Pondicherry obliged him to return to Europe. Accordingly, he came in an English vessel to London, where he spent some time, visited Oxford, and at length arrived at Paris May 4, 1762, without fortune, or the wish to acquire it; but rich in an hundred and eighty manuscripts and other curiosities. The abbé Barthelemi, however, and his other friends, procured him a pension, with the title and place of Oriental interpreter in the royal library. In 1763, the academy of belles-lettres elected him an associate, and from that time he devoted himself to the arrangement and publication of the valuable materials he had collected. In 1771, he published his “Zend-Avesta,” 3 vols. 4to a work of Zoroaster, from the original Zend, with a curious account of his travels, and a life of Zoroaster. In 1778 he published his “Legislation Orientale,” 4to, ii which, by a display of the fundamental principles of government in the Turkish, Persian, and Indian dominions, he proves, first, that the manner in which most writers have hitherto represented despotism, as if it were absolute in these three empires, is entirely groundless; secondly, that in Turkey, Persia, and Indostan, there are codes of written law, which affect the prince as well as the subject; and thirdly, that in these three empires, the inhabitants are possessed of property, both in movable and immovable goods, which they enjoy with entire liberty. In 1786 appeared his “Recherches historiques et geographiques sur ITnde,” followed in 1789, by his treatise on the dignity of Commerce and the commercial state. During the revolutionary period, he concealed himself among his books, but in 1798 appeared again as the author of “L‘Inde au rapport avec l’Europe,” 2 vols. 8vo. In 1804, he published a Latin translation from the Persian of the “Oupnek' hat, or Upanischada,” i. e. “secrets which must not be revealed,” 2 vols. 4to. Not long before his death he was elected a member of the institute, but soon after gave in his resignation, and died at Paris, Jan. 17, 1805. Besides the works already noticed, he contributed many papers to the academy on the subject of Oriental languages and antiquities, and left behind him the character of one of the ablest Oriental scholars in France, and a man of great personal worth and amiable manners. His biographer adds, that he refused the sum of 30,000 livres, which was offered by the English, for his manuscript of the Zend-­Avesta.

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

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

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

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

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

, a Latin poet of the sixteenth century, was born at Parma, of a very ancient family, and was afterwards eminent as a physician, and a man of general literature. The volume which contains his poetry, and is very scarce, is entitled “Georgii Anselmi Nepotis Epigrammaton libri septem: Sosthyrides: Palladis Peplus: Eglogæ quatuor,” Venice., 1528, 8vo. He took the title of Nepos to distinguish himself from another George Anselme, his grandfather, a mathematician and astronomer, who died about 1440, leaving in manuscript “Dialogues on Harmony,” and “Astrological institutions.” Our author wrote, besides his poems, some illustrations of Plautus, under the title of “Epiphyllides,” which are inserted in Sessa’s edition of Plautus, Venice, 1518; and had before appeared in the Parma edition of 1509, fol. He wrote also the life of Cavicco or Cayicio, prefixed to his romance of “Libro de Peregrine,” Venice, 1526, 8vo, and 1547. He died in 1528.

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

Mr. Anson’s conduct, in his various situations and employments, had produced so favourable an opinion of his capacity and spirit, that when, in the war which broke out with Spain in 1739, it was determined to attack the Spanish American settlements in the great Pacific ocean, and by this means to affect them in their most sensible parts, he was fixed upon to be the commander of the fleet which was designed for that purpose. As the history of this expedition, which laid the foundation of his future fortunes, has, in consequence of the excellent account of it, written by the late 'Mr. Robins, and the curious and interesting nature of the subject, been more read than perhaps any work of the kind ever published, it is not necessary to give a detail of it here. It may suffice to say, that his departure being unaccountably delayed some months beyond the proper season, he sailed about the middle of September 1740; and towards the vernal equinox, in the most tempestuous weather, arrived in the latitude of Cape Horn. He doubled that dangerous cape in March 1741, after a bad passage of 40 days, in which he lost two ships, and by the scurvy four or five men in a day. He arrived off Juan Fernandes in June, with only two ships, besides two attendants on the squadron, and 335 men. He left it in September, took some prizes, and burnt Paita; and staid about the coast of America till May 1742. He then crossed the Southern ocean, proceeding with the Centurion only, the other ships having been destroyed in August. Having refreshed his crew at Tinian, he sailed in October for China; staid there till the beginning of 1743; waited for the galleon at the Philippine islands, met her on the 20th of June, and took her. Having sold the prize in China, he set sail for England, December 1743, and on the 15th of June 1744, arrived at Spithead.

It may be necessary, however, to mention some circumstances in this expedition, which more immediately relate to the personal character of Mr. Anson, and which indicate the turn of his mind. Before his departure, he took care to furnish himself with the printed journals of the voyages to the South-seas, and the best manuscript accounts he could procure of all the Spanish settlements upon the coasts of Chili, Peru, and Mexico, which he afterwards carefully compared with the examinations of his prisoners, and the information of several intelligent persons who fell into his hands; and, through the whole enterprize, he acted with remarkable discretion, and with a calmness which particularly distinguishes his character. When he was ready to depart from St. Catherine’s, and considered that his own ship might possibly be lost, or disabled from, getting round Cape Horn, he -gave such directions to the other commanders, as would have prevented the undertaking being abandoned, even in that case. His humanity was displayed at the island of Juan Fernandes, in his assisting with his own labour, and obliging the officers, without distinction, to give their helping hand in carrying the sick sailors, in their hammocks, to shore. At the same place he sowed lettuces, carrots, and other garden plants; and set, in the woods, a great variety of plumb, apricot, and peach-stones, for the better accommodation of his countrymen who should hereafter touch there; and he had afterwards pleasing intelligence of their growth from Spanish navigators. From a like attention, commodore Anson was particularly industrious in directing the roads and coasts to be surveyed, and other observations to be made, to facilitate future voyages in those seas. His integrity and generosity in the treatment of some female prisoner’s who had fallen into his hands, and his care to prevent their meeting with any degree of rudeness, from a set of sailors who had not seen a woman for nearly a twelvemonth, are greatly to his honour. There was, indeed, nothing from which he derived greater credit, or which reflected greater glory on the English nation, than his behaviour to his prisoners in general, and particularly to the women. Though his force was rendered very weak by the sickness and death of great numbers of his men, and by the separation or loss of the larger part of his small squadron, he was always intent upon contriving some scheme, by which, if possible, the design of his expedition might be answered. When no purpose was likely to be effectual, but the taking of the Acapulco ship (the galleon above-mentioned), he pursued that plan with the greatest sagacity and perseverance. In no instance was the fortitude of his mind more tried, than when the Centurion was driven out to sea, from the uninhabited island of Tinian; himself, many of the officers, and part of the crew, being left on shore. In this gloomy and disconsolate situation, he preserved his usual composure and steadiness, though he could not be without his share of inward disquietude. He calmly applied to every measure which was likely to keep up the courage of his men, and to facilitate their departure from the island. He personally engaged in the most laborious part of the work which was necessary in the construction of a vessel for this purpose; and it was only upon the pleasing and unexpected news of the return of the Centurion, that, throwing down his axe, he by his joy broke through, for the first time, the equable and unvaried character which he had hitherto preserved. Commodore Anson, when he was at Macao, exerted great spirit and address in procuring the necessary aid from the Chinese, for the refitting of his ship. In the scheme of taking the Manilla galleon, and in the actual taking of it, he displayed united wisdom and courage; nor did the accustomed calmness of his mind forsake him on a most trying occasion, when, in the moment of victory, the Centurion was dangerously on fire near the powder-room. During his subsequent stay at Canton, he acted, in all respects, with the greatest spirit, and firmly maintained the privilege and honour of the British flag. The perils with which he had been so often threatened, pursued him to the last; for on his arrival in England, he found that he had sailed through the midst of a French fleet then cruizing in the channel, from which he had the whole time been concealed by a fog.

On the 12th of July 1749, his lordship was made viceadmiral of Great Britain, an appointment that is more of a civil than a military nature; but which, nevertheless, is always given to a military man. On the 12th of June 1751, he was preferred to be first commissioner of the admiralty, in the room of the earl of Sandwich; and in the years 1752 and 1755, he was one of the lords justices of the kingdom, during his majesty’s absence. The affair of Minorca occasioned him to be much blamed by the party writers of the time, in his character of first lord of the admiralty; but when this was inquired into, the resolutions of the House of Commons acquitted him and his colleagues of any neglect of duty. On the 16th of November 1756, upon a change of administration, he resigned his office in the admiralty; but, having been in the interval made an admiral, he was again placed at the head of the board, where he continued during the remainder of his life. He came in with his old friends, the duke of Newcastle and the earl of Hardwicke, and in the most honourable manner; for he resumed his seat with the concurrence of every individual in the ministry, Mr. Pitt resuming the seals as secretary of state, and with the particular approbation of king George II. All the rest of his conduct, as first commissioner of the admiralty, was crowned with success, under the most glorious administration which this country ever saw. The last time that he commanded at sea, was in 1758, to cover the expedition against the coast of France. Being then admiral of the white, and having hoisted his flag on board the Royal George, of 100 guns, he sailed from Spithead, on the first of June, with a formidable fleet, sir Edward Hawke serving under him; and by cruizing continually before Brest, he protected the descents which were made that summer at St. Malo’s, Cherbourg, &c. The French fleet not venturing to come out, he kept his own squadron and seamen in constant exercise; a thing which he thought had been too much disregarded. On the 30th of July 1761, his lordship was raised to the dignity of admiral and commander in chief of the fleet; and in a few days he sailed from Harwich, in the Charlotte yacht, to convoy her present majesty to England, in 1762, he went to Portsmouth, to accompany the queen’s brother, prince Charles of Mecklenburgh, and to show him the arsenal, and the fleet which was then upon the point of sailing, under the command of sir George Pocock, for the Havannah. In attending the prince, however, he caught a violent cold, that was accompanied with a gouty disorder, under which he languished two or three months. This cold, at length, settled upon his lungs, andrwas the immediate occasion of his death. He died, at his seat at Moor Park, in Hertfordshire, on the 6th of June 1762, and was buried in the family vault at Colwich. His character may be justly estimated from the particulars we have given. In his official department, he acted with great judgment, and was a steady friend to merit. Of his private virtues, it is a sufficient test that he was never the object of slander or blame. It has, indeed, been asserted that he was addicted to gaming; but the author of the life we have followed in this account denies the charge, admitting only that he played for amusement. He left his fortune to his brother Thomas Anson, esq. who was member of parliament for Lichfield, a gentleman well known for his liberal patronage of, and his exquisite skill in, the fine arts. On his decease, the united fortunes of the family devolved to his nephew, by his eldest sister, George Adams, esq. who assumed the name of Anson.

, a learned heraldic writer, was of a Cornish family, seated at St. Neot’s, being son of John Anstis of that place, esq. by Mary, daughter and coheir of George Smith. He was born September 28th or 29th, 1669, admitted at Exeter College in Oxford in 1685, and three years afterwards entered of the Middle Temple. As a gentleman of good fortune, he became well known in his county, and the borough of St. Germain returned him one of their members in the first parliament called by queen Anne. Opposing what was called the Whig interest, he distinguished himself by his voting against the bill for occasional conformity: for which his name appeared amongst the “Tackers” in the prints of that time. He was appointed in 1703 deputy-general to the auditors of imprest, but he never executed this office; and in the second year of queen Anne’s reign, one of the principal commissioners of prizes. His love of, and great knowledge in the science of arms so strongly recommended him, that April 2, 1714, the queen gave him a reversionary patent for the place of Garter. Probably this passage in a ms letter to the lord treasurer, dated March 14, 1711-12, relates to his having the grant. He says, “I have a certain information it would be ended forthwith, if the lord treasurer would honour me by speaking to her majesty at this time, which, in behalf of the duke of Norfolk, I most earnestly desire, and humbly beg your lordship’s assistance therein. If it be delayed for some days, I shall then be back as far as the delivery of my petition. I am obliged to attend this morning at the exchequer, about the tin affair, and thereby prevented from waiting upon your lordship.” If it does relate to the reversionary patent, it is evident that he long wished, and with difficulty obtained it. In the last parliament of Anne he was returned a member for Dunheved, or Launceston, and he sat in the first parliament of George I. He fell under the suspicion of government, as favouring a design to restore the Stuarts, was imprisoned, and at this critical time Garter’s place became vacant, by the death of the venerable sir Henry St. George. He immediately claimed the office, but his grant was disregarded; and, October 26,1715, sir John Vanbrugh, Clarenceux, had the appointment. Unawed by power, fearless of danger, and confident in innocence, he first freed himself from all criminality in having conspired against the succession of the illustrious house of Brunswick, and then prosecuted his claim to the office of garter, pleading the right of the late queen to give him the place. It was argued, that in a contest about the right of nomination in the reign of Charles II. the sovereign gave it up, only retaining the confirmation of the earl marshal’s choice: Mr. Anstis urged, that Charles only waved his claim. The matter came to a hearing April 4, 1717, and the competitors claimed under their different grants; but the controversy did not end until April 20, 1718, when the right being acknowledged to be in Mr. Anstis, he was created Garter. He had, for some time previous to this decision in his favour, resided in the college, and by degrees gained the good opinion and favour of the government. He even obtained a patent under the great seal, giving the office of garter to him, and his son John Anstis junior, esq. and to the survivor of them: this passed June 8, 1727, only two days before the death of George I. He died at his seat, at Mortlake in Surrey, on Sunday, March 4, 1744-5, and was buried the 23d of that month, in a vault in the parish church of Dulo in Cornwall. In him, it is said, were joined the learning of Camden and the industry, without the inaccuracy, of sir William Dugdale. He was certainly a most indefatigable and able officer at arms; and though he lived to the age of seventy-six, yet there is room to wonder at the extent of his productions, especially as he was a person of great consequence, and busied with many avocations out of the college. In 1706, he published a “Letter concerning the honour of Earl Marshal,” 8vo. “The form of the Installation of the Garter” 1720, 8vo. “The Register of the most noble Order of the Garter, usually called the Black-Book, with a specimen of the Lives of the Knights Companions,” 1724, 2 vols. folio. “Observations introductory to an historical Essay on the Knighthood of the Bath,” 1725, 4to, intended as an introduction to the history of that order, for which it is there said the Society of Antiquaries had begun to collect materials. His “Aspilogia,” a discourse on seals in England, with beautiful draughts, nearly fit for publication, from which Mr. Drake read an abstract to the Society in 1735-6, and two folip volumes of Sepulchral Monuments, Stone Circles, Crosses, and Castles, in the three kingdoms, from which there are extracts in the Archa?ologia, vol. XIII. were purchased, with many other curious papers, at the sale of Mr. Anstis’s library of Mss. in 1768, by Thomas Astle, esq. F. R. and A. S. Besides these he left five large folio volumes on the “Office, &c. of Garter King at Arms, of Heralds and Pursuivants, in this and other kingdoms, both royal, princely, and such as belonged to our nobility,” now in the pos session of George Nayler, esq. York herald, and genealogist of the Order of the Bath, &c. “Memoirs of the Families of Talbot, Carew, Granvile, and Courtney.” “The Antiquities of Cornwall.” “Collections, relative to the parish of Coliton, in Devonshire,” respecting the tithes, owing to a dispute which his son, the Rev. George Anstis, the vicar, then had with the parishioners, in the court of exchequer in 1742. The late Dr. Ducarel possessed it. “Collections relative, to All Souls’ college, in Oxford.” These were very considerable, and purchased by the colllege. Sixty-four pages of his Latin Answer to “the Case of Founders’ Kinsmen,” were printed in 4to, with many coats of arms. His “Curia Militaris, or treatise on the Court of Chivalry, in three books:” it is supposed that no more than the preface and contents were ever published. Mr. Reed had those parts; the whole, however, was printed in 1702, 8vo; probably only for private friends. Mr. Prior mentions this Garter in an epigram:

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

, an eminent architect of the sixth century, was born at Tralles in Lydia. His father had five sons, Olympius, a lawyer, Dioscorus and Alexander, physicians, Metrodorus, a grammarian, and our Anthemius, who was an excellent mathematician, and availed himself of that science in the works which he erected. It appears likewise that he was acquainted with the more modern secrets of philosophy and chemistry, as historians inform us that he could imitate thunder and lightning, and even the shock of an earthquake, In consequence of a trifling dispute with Zeuo, his neighbour, respecting the walls or windows of their contiguous houses, in which Zeno appeared to have the advantage, Anthemius played him a trick, which is thus described: he arranged several vessels or cauldrons of water, each of them covered by the wide bottom of a leathern tube which rose to a narrow top, and was artificially conveyed among the joists and rafters of the adjacent building. A fire was kindled beneath the cauldron, and the steam of the boiling water ascended through the tubes: the house was shaken by the efforts of the imprisoned air, and the trembling inhabitants wondered that the city was unconscious of an earthquake which they felt. At another time the friends of Zeno, as they sat at table, were dazzled by the intolerable light which flashed in their eyes from the reflecting mirrors of Anthemius; they were astonished by the noise which he produced from a collision of certain minute and sonorous particles: and Zeno declared to the senate, that a mere mortal must yield to the power of an antagonist who shook the earth with the trident of Neptune, and imitated the thunder and lightning of Jove himself. But the genius of Anthemius appeared to most advantage in the erection of the new church of St. Sophia at Constantinople. This he undertook by order of the emperor Justinian, and was assisted by ten thousand workmen, whose payment, we are told, doubtless as a hint to modern surveyors, was made in fine silver, and never delayed beyond the evening. It was completed in five years, eleven months, and ten days. Gibbon has given a splendid description of this edifice, now the principal Turkish mosque, which continues to excite the fond admiration of the Greeks, and the more rational curiosity of European travellers. Anthemius died about the year 534. He is said to have written on the subject of machinery, and Dupuy, secretary to the French academy of inscriptions, published a fragment of his in 1777, on mechanics and dioptrics, in which Anthemius endeavours to explain the burning mirrors employed by Archimedes in destroying the Roman ships.

, a noted empiric and chemist in the latter end of the sixteenth and the beginning of the seventeenth centuries, was the son of an eminent goldsmith in the city of London, who had an employment of considerable value in the jewel-office undef the reign of queen Elizabeth. He was born April 16, 1550; and having been carefully instructed in the first rudiments of learning while at home, was, about the year 1569, sent to the university of Cambridge, where he studied with great diligence and success, and some time in the year 1574 took the degree of master of arts. It appears from his own writings, that he applied himself for many years in that university, to the theory and practice of chemistry, with sedulous industry. He came up to London, probably before he attained the age of forty, and began soon after his arrival to publish to the world the effects of his chemical studies. In the year 1598, he sent abroad his first treatise, concerning the excellency of a medicine drawn from gold; but, not having taken the necessary precautions of applying to the college of physicians for their licence, he was, some time in the year 1600, summoned before the president and censors. Here he confessed that he had practised physic in London at least more than six months, and had cured twenty persons of several diseases, to whom he had given purging and vomiting physic, and to others, a diaphoretic medicine, prepared from gold and mercury, as their case required; but acknowledged that he had no licence, and being examined, in several parts of physic, and found inexpert, he was interdicted practice. About a month after, he was committed to the Counter-prison, and fined in the sum of five pounds “propter illicitam praxin” that is, for prescribing physic against the statutes and privilege of the college; but upon his application to the lord chief justice, he was set at liberty, which gave so great umbrage to the college, that the president and one of the censors waited on the chief justice, to request his favour in defending and preserving the college privileges; upon which Mr. Anthony submitted himself, promised to pay his fine, and was forbidden practice. But not long after he was accused again of practising physic, and upon his own confession was fined five pounds; which, on his refusing to pay it, was increased to twenty pounds, and he committed to prison till he paid it; neither were the college satisfied with this, but commenced a suit at law against him in the name of the queen, as well as of the college, in which they succeeded, and obtained judgment against him; but after some time, were prevailed upon by the intreaties of his wife, to remit their share of the penalty, as appears by their warrant to the keeper of the prison for his discharge, dated under the college seal, the 6th of August, 1602. After his release, he seems to have met with considerable patrons, who were able to protect him from the authority of the college; and though Dr. Goodall tells us, that this learned society thought him weak and ignorant in physic, yet he contrived to obtain the degree of doctor of physic in some university. This did not hinder new complaints being brought against him, by Dr. Taylor, and another physician, who grounded their proceedings chiefly on his giving a certain nostrum, which he called “Aurum potabilt!,” or potable gold, and which he represented to the world as an universal medicine. There were at this time also several things written agaiust him, and his manner of practice, insinuating that he was very inaccurate in his method of philosophizing, that the virtues of metals as to physical uses were very uncertain, and that the boasted effects of his medicine were destitute of proof. Dr. Anthony, upon this, published a defence of himself and his Aurum potabile in Latin, written with a plausible display of skill in chemistry, and with an apparent knowledge of the theory and history of physic. This book, which he published in 1610, was printed at the university press of Cambridge, and entitled “Medicinac Chymicae, et verj potabilis Auri assertio, ex lucubrationibus Fra. Anthonii Londinensis, in Medicina Doctoris. Cantabrigise, ex officina Cantrelli Legge celeberrimae Academics Typographi,” 4to. It had a very florid dedication to king James prefixed. He, likewise, annexed certificates of cures, under the hands of several persons of distinction, and some of the faculty; but his book was quickly answered, and the controversy about Aurum potabile grew so warm, that he was obliged to publish another apology in the Englis language, which was also translated into Latin, but did not ans.wer the doctor’s expectation, in conciliating the opinion of the faculty, yet, what is more valuable to an empiric, it procured the genera' good-will of ordinary readers, and contributed exceedingly to support and extend his practice, notwithstanding all the pains taken to decry it. What chiefly contributed to maintain his own reputation, and thereby reflected credit on his medicine, was that which is rarely met with among quacks, his unblemished character in private life. Dr. Anthony was a man of unaffected piety, untainted probity, of easy address, great modesty, and boundless charity; which procured him many friends, and left it not in the power of his enemies to attack any part of his conduct, except that of dispensing a medicine, of which they had no opinion. And though much has been said to disgredit the use of gold in medicine, yet some very able and ingenious men wrote very plausibly in support of those principles on which Dr. Anthony’s practice was founded, and among these the illustrious Robert Boyle. The process of making the potable gold is given in the Biog. Britannica, but in such a contused and ignorant manner that any modern chemist may easily detect the fallacy, and be convinced that gold does not enter into the preparation. The time Jn which Anthony flourished, if that phrase may be applied tq him, was very favourable to his notions, chemistry being then much admired and very little understood. He had therefore a most extensive and beneficial practice, which enabled him to live hospitably at his house in Bartholomew close, and to be very liberal in jiis alms to the poor. He died May 26, 1623, and was buried in the church of St. Bartholomew the Great, where a handsome monument was erected to his memory. His principal antagonists were, Dr. Matthew Gwinne, of the college of physicians, who wrote “Aurum non Aurum, sive adversaria in assertorem Chymiæ, sed veræ Medicinæ desertorem Franciscum Anthonium,” Lond. 1611, 4to, and Dr. Cotta, of Northampton, in 1623, in a work entitled, “Cotta contra Antonium, or an Ant-Antony, or an Ant-Apology, manifesting Dr. Anthony his Apology for Aurum potabile, in true and equal balance of right reason, to be false and counterfeit,” Oxford, 4to. Dr. Anthony by his second wife had two sons: Charles, a physician of character at Bedford, and John, the subject of the following article.

, son of the above, to whose practice he succeeded, made a handsome living by the sale of his father’s medicine called Aurum potabile. He was also author of “Lucas redivivus, or The gospel physician, prescribing (by way of meditation) divine physic to prevent diseases not yet entered upon the soul, and to cure those maladies which have already seized upon the spirit,” 1656, 4to. He died April 28, 1655, aged 70, as appears by the monument erected for his father and himself in the church of St. Bartholomew the Great in London.

, a philosopher and historian, who flourished under the reign of the two Ptolemies, became famous for his writings. He wrote a history of philosophers, of which Diogenes Laertius made much use, and which is quoted by Eusebius. Athenaeus speaks, of another work of his, entitled “Historical Commentaries,” and Hesychius makes mention of two others, the first oil animals, the second on the voice, but we have no remains of any of his works, except a collection of remarkable and not very probable stories, “Historiarum mirabilium colJectio,” quoted by Stephanus of Byzantium. It was printed by Meursius in 1619, and an excellent edition by Beckmann, with learned notes by himself and others, Leipsic, 1791, 4to, Greek and Latin. But it is thought rather to belong to some grammarian of the lower empire, than to a writer of the age of the Ptolemies. There are two other Antigonus’s, who were writers of a description, of Macedonia, and of a history of Italy, but it is uncertain who they were, or what their share in these works.

, a Jew who was born at Socho, on the borders of Judea, about three hundred years before Christ, was president of the sanhedrim at Jerusalem, and teacher of the law in the principal divinity school of that city. Having often, in his lectures, inculcated to his scholars that they ought not to serve God in a servile manner, but only out of filial love and fear, two of his scholars, Sadoc and Baithus, thence inferred, that there were no rewards at all after this life, and therefore separating from the school of their master, they thought there was no resurrection nor future state, neither angel nor spirit: hence arose the sect of the Sadducees. They seem to agree in general with the Epicureans, differing, however, in this: that though they denied a future state, yet they allowed the power of God to create the world, which the followers of Epicurus denied. It is said also, that they rejected the scriptures, except the Pentateuch; denied predestination; and taught, that God had made man absolute master of all his actions, without assistance in what is good, or restraint from evil.

, or Antimaco, one of the most celebrated Greek professors in Italy in the Sixteenth century, was born at Mantua, about the year 1473. After learning Greek as far as it could be taught in his own country, he went into Greece, and improved his acquaintance with that language under the ablest masters during a residence there of five years, and wrote and spoke Greek as easily as Latin or Italian. On his return to Mantua, he engaged in teaching the Greek language, and lectured on that and on Greek literature. In 1532 he was invited to Feirara, where he became professor of the same studies, and held the office until his death in 1552. He translated Gemistus Plethon, and part of Dionysius of Halicarnassus, &c. under the title “Gemisti Plethonis de gestis Gnecorum post pugnam ad Mantineam per capita tractatio duobus libris explicata, M. Antonio Antimacho interprete. Ad haec Dionysii Halicarnassei prcccepta, &c.” Bale, 1540, 4to. He wrote also many Latin poems, which are mostly unpublished. Some have attributed to him eight books of Greek epigrams, and there are several by him, both in Greek and Latin, in a collection of letters addressed to Vettori, and published by Bandini, at Pavia, 1753.

of Ascalon in Palestine, was the disciple of Philo, the founder of the fourth academy of the Platonic school, and founded himself a fifth, which procured him the name of Antiochus the Academician. He attempted to reconcile the tenets of the different sects, and maintained that the doctrines of the Stoics were to be found in the writings of Plato. Cicero greatly admired his eloquence, and the politeness of his manners; and Lucullus took him as his companion into Asia. He resigned the academic chair in the 157th olympiad, or B. C. 80, and was the last preceptor of the Platonic school in Greece. After his time the professors of the Academic philosophy were dispersed by the tumults of war, and the school itself was transferred to Rome.

, one of the several ancient Greek comic poets of the same name mentioned by Suidas, Athenaeus, Strabo, and others, was either of Rhodes, Caristia, or Smyrna, and lived in the time of Alexander. This monarch expressing little taste for his comedies, the author took the liberty to inform him, that in order to enjoy them, he must be better acquainted with the nature of the subjects and the scene; from which it has been inferred that he described depraved manners. This, however, did not prevent his carrying off the prize three times. He composed three hundred and sixty-five, or at least two hundred and eighty comedies, of which Fabricius has given a list from Hertelius, Koenig, Vossius, and Meursius, who often mention these pieces of Antiphanes; and Gronovius, in his “Excerpta Comicorumj” has given the fragments found in Athenscus and other authors. The learned Koppiers has bestowed great pains on these fragments in his “Philologica observata,” Leyden, 1771, 8vo. But this poet is often confounded with others of the same name, and of other names disfigured by the blunders of transcribers.

, a Greek philosopher, and founder of the sect of the Cynics, was born at Athens in 423 B. C. His father was of the same name with him, and his mother was either a Thracian or a Phrygian, but he appears to have despised the honours of family, and made them the topics of ridicule, a practice not uncommon with those whose origin is mean or doubtful. He appears to have served in the army, and behaved with great courage in the battle of Tanagra. His first preceptor was Gorgias the orator, from whom he imbibed a florid and showy manner, but attained afterwards much eminence under Socrates, and advised his scholars to become his fellow-disciples in the school of that celebrated philosopher. Laertius informs us that there were ten volumes of his works; but a collection of apophthegms only remain, some of which are excellent. Modern wit perhaps affords few better hits than what he bestowed on the Athenians, when he advised them to elect asses to be horses. This they said was absurd; “and yet,” he replied, “you chuse those for generals who have nothing to recommend them but your votes.” Antisthencs is said to have been a man of great austerity, and a most rigid disciplinarian. Some of his contemporaries give him a very high character in other respects, and his life, upon the whole, appears to have escaped the imputation of the sensual vices practised by many of the ancient philosophers.

, an eminent Dutch poet, surnamed Vander Goes, from the place in Zealand where he was born, April 3, 1647, of parents who were anabaptists, people of good character, but of low circumstances. They went to live at Amsterdam, when An ton ides was about four years old; and in the ninth year of his age he began his studies, under the direction of Hadrian Junius and James Cocceius. Antonides took great pleasure in reading the Latin poets, carefully comparing them with Grotius, Heinsius, &c. and acquired a considerable taste for poetry. He first attempted to translate some pieces of Ovid, Horace, and other ancients; and having formed his taste on these excellent models, he at length undertook one of the most difficult tasks in poetry, to write a tragedy, entitled, “Trazil,” or the “Invasion of China,” but was so modest as not to permit it to be published. Vondel, who was then engaged in a dramatic piece, taken also from some event that happened in China, read Antonides’s tragedy, and was so well pleased with it, that he declared, if the author would not print it, he would take some passages out of it, and make use of them in his own tragedy, which he did accordingly; and it was reckoned much to the honour of Antonides, to have written what might be adopted by so great a poet as Vondel was acknowledged to be. Upon the conclusion of the peace betwixt Great Britain and Holland, in the year 1697, Antonides wrote a piece, entitled “Bellona aan band,” i. e. Bellona chained; a very elegant poem, consisting of several hundred verses. The applause with which this piece was received, excited him to try his genius in something more considerable; he accordingly wrote an epic poem, which he entitled The River Y. 'the description of this river, or rather lake, is the subject of the poem, which is divided into four books; in the first the poet gives a very pompous description of all that is remarkable on that bank of the Y on which Amsterdam is built. In the second he opens to himself a larger field, beginning with the praises of navigation, and describing the large fleets which cover the Y as an immense forest, and thence go to every part of the world, to bring home whatever may satisfy the necessity, luxury, or pride of men. The third book is au ingenious fiction, which supposes the poet suddenly carried to the bottom of the river Y, where he sees the deity of the river, with his demigods and nymphs, adorning and dressing themselves for a feast, which was to be celebrated at Neptune’s court, upon the anniversary of the marriage of Thetis with Peleus. In the fourth book he describes the other bank of the Y, adorned with several cities of North Holland; and in the close of the work addresses himself to the magistrates of Amsterdam, to whose wisdom he ascribes the riches and flourishing condition of that powerful city. This is a very short abridgment of the account of this poem given in the General Dictionary, according to which it appears to have contained many other fictions that savour of the burlesque. Antonides’s parents had bred him up an apothecary; but his genius for poetry soon gained him the esteem and friendship of several persons of distinction; and particularly of Mr. Buisero, one of the lords of the admiralty at Amsterdam, and a great lover of poetry, who sent him at iiis own expence to pursue his studies at Leyden, where he remained till he took his degree of doctor of physic, and then his patron gave him a place in the admiralty. In 1678 Antonides married Susanna Bermans, a minister’s daughter, who had also a talent for poetry. In the preface to his heroic poem, he promised the life of the apostle Paul, which, like Virgil’s Æneid, was to be divided into twelve books; but he never finished that design, only a few fragments having appeared. He declared himself afraid to hazard his reputation with the public on theological subjects, which were so commonly the subject of contest. After marriage he did not much indulge his poetic genius; and within a few years fell into a consumption, of which he died on the 18th of Sept. 1684, He is esteemed the most eminent Dutch poet after Vondel, whom he studied to imitate, and is thought to have excelled in sweetness of expression and smoothness of style, but in accuracy and loftiness he is greatly inferior to his original. His works have been printed several times, having been collected by his father Anthony Jansz. The last edition is that of Amsterdam, 1714, 4to, which, however, contains several miscellaneous pieces that add but little to the reputation he acquired. The editor, David Van Hoogstraten, prefixed his life to this edition.

, was born at Lanuvium in Italy (of parents originally of Nismes) in the eighty-sixth year of the Christian era. He was first made proconsul of Asia, then governor of Italy, and consul in the year 120, and displayed the same virtues in these employments as he did afterwards on the imperial throne: he was mild, prudent, moderate, and just. In the year 138 he succeeded the emperor Adrian, who had adopted him, and the first step of his government was to release a number of persons whom his predecessor had condemned to die. The senate, charmed with such a commencement of authority, decreed him the title of Pius, and ordered that statues should be erected to his honour. These he appears to have amply merited. He set about diminishing the taxes, and preventing the litigious and oppressive exaction of them; and bestowed much of his private fortune in charity. Such conduct made his name as much respected abroad as at home. Several nations sent embassies to him, and others besought his counsel in the appointment of their sovereigns: even kings came to pay homage to his exalted virtues. This must have been highly gratifying to him, as his object was to render his name respected by cultivating the gentler arts of peace, rather than by extending his dominions by war. Rome, accordingly, and her provinces, never enjoyed such days of honour and tranquillity as under his reign. Besides redressing the wrongs, and alleviating the calamities which happened to fall upon any part of his dominions, he displayed his taste by the erection of several noble and useful public edifices. In short, in every respect of public or private character, he is celebrated as one of the greatest and best characters in ancient times. Whatever is amiable, generous, and magnanimous, has been ascribed to him; but what ought to endear his memory even to the present day, was his conduct towards the Christians.

“The Emperor to the Council of Asia. I am quite of opinion, that the Gods will take care to discover such persons. For it much more concerns them to punish those who refuse to worship them than you, if they be able. But you harass and vex the Christians, and accuse them of atheism and other crimes, which you can by no means prove. To them it appears advantageous to die for their religion, and they gain their point, while they throw away their lives, rather than comply with your injunctions. As to the earthquakes, which have happened in past times, or lately, is it not proper to remind you of your own despondency, when they happen; and to desire you to compare your spirit with theirs, and observe how serenely they confide in God? In such seasons you seem to be ignorant of the gods, and to neglect their worship; you live in the practical ignorance of the supreme God himself, and you harass and persecute to death those who do worship him. Concerning these same men some others of the provincial governors wrote to our divine father Adrian, to whom he returned answer, ‘That they should not be molested, unless they appeared to attempt something against the Roman government.’ Many also have signified to me concerning these men, to whom I have returned an answer agreeable to the maxims of my father. But if any person will still persist in accusing the Christians merely as such— let the accused be acquitted, though he appear to be a Christian; and let the accuser be punished.”

, the Roman emperor, was born at Rome, April 26, in the year 121. When he was adopted by his grandfather by the father’s side, he received his name, M. Annius Verus; and Adrian the emperor, instead of Verus, used to call him Verissimus, on account of his rectitude and veracity. When he was adopted by Antoninus Pius, he assumed the name of M. Ælius Aurelius Verus, because Aurelius was the name of Antoninus’s family, and Ælius that of Adrian’s, into which he entered. When he became emperor, he left the name of Verus to Lucius Commodus, his adopted brother, and took that of Antoninus, under which he is generally known in history. But he is distinguished from his predecessor Titus Antoninus, either by the name of Marcus, or by the name of Philosophus, which is given him by the general consent of writers, although we do not find this title to have been conferred by any public act or authority of the senate. Adrian, upon the death of Cejonius Commodus, turned his eyes upon Marcus Aurelius; but as he was not then eighteen years of age, and consequently too young for so important a station, he fixed upon Antoninus Pius, whom he adopted, on condition that he should likewise adopt Marcus Aurelius. The year after this adoption Adrian appointed him quaestor, though he had not yet attained the age prescribed by the laws. After the death of Adrian, Aurelius married Faustina, the daughter of Antoninus Pius, by whom he had several children. In the year 139 he was invested with newlionours by the emperor Pius, and behaved in such a manner as endeared him to that prince and the whole people.

Upon the death of Pius, which happened in the year 161, he was obliged by the senate to take upon him the government, in the management of which he took Lucius Verus as his colleague. Dion Cassius says, that the reason of doing this was, that he might have leisure to pursue his studies, and on account of his ill state of health; Lucius being of a strong vigorous constitution, and consequently more fit for the fatigues of war. The same day he took upon him the name of Antoninus, which he gave likewise to Verus his colleague, and betrothed his daughter Lucilla to him. The two emperors went afterwards to the camp, where, after having performed the funeral rites of Pius, they pronounced each of them a panegyric to his memory. They discharged the government in a very amicable manner. But the happiness which the empire began to enjoy under the two brothers, was interrupted in the year 162, by a dreadful inundation of the river Tiber, which destroyed a prodigious number of cattle, and occasioned a famine at Rome. This calamity was followed by the Parthian war, and at the same time the Catti ravaged Germany and Rbsctia; and an insurrection was apprehended from the Britons, against whom Calphurnius Agricola was sent, and Aufidius Victorinus against the Catti. But it was thought proper that Lucius Verus should go in person to oppose the Parthians, while Antoninus continued at Rome, where his presence was necessary. During this war with the Parthians about the year 163 or 164 he sent his daughter Lucilla to Verus, having before promised her to him in marriage, and attended her as far as Brundusium, resolving to have conducted her to Syria, if it had not been objected to him by some persons, that his design of going into the east was to claim the honour of having finished the Parthian war; upon which he immediately returned to Rome. The Romans having gained a victory over the Parthians, who were obliged to abandon Mesopotamia, the two emperors triumphed over them at Rome in the year 166, and were honoured with the title of fathers of their country. But this year was fatal on account of a terrible pestilence which spread itself over the whole world, and a famine, under which Rome laboured. The Marcomanni, and many other people of Germany, likewise took up arms against the Romans; but the two emperors having marched in person against them, obliged the Germans to sue for peace. The war, however, was renewed the year following, and the two emperors marched again in person; but Lucius Verus was seized with an apoplectic fit, and died at Altinum.

In the year 170 Antoninus made vast preparations against the Gennans, and carried on the war with great vigour. During this war, in the year 174, a very extraordinary event is said to have happened, which, according to Dion Cassius, was as follows: Antoninus’s army being blocked up by the Quadi in a very disadvantageous place, where there was no possibility of procuring water; and in this situation, being worn out with, fatigue and wounds, oppressed With heat and thirst, and incapable of retiring or engaging the enemy, instantly the sky was covered with clouds, and there fell a vast quantity of rain. The Roman army were about to quench their thirst, when the enemy came upon them with such fury, that they must certainly have been defeated, had it not been for a shower of hail, accompanied with a storm of thunder and lightning, which fell upon the enemy, without the least annoyance to the Romans, who by this means gained the victory. In the year 175 Antoninus made a treaty with several nations of Germany. Soon after, Aviclius Cassius, governor of Syria, revolted from the emperor: this insurrection, however, was suppressed by the death of Cassius, who was killed by a centurion named Anthony. Antoninus behaved with great lenity towards those who had been engaged for Cassius; he would not put to death, nor imprison, nor even sit in judgment himself upon any of the senators engaged in this revolt; but he referred them to the senate, fixing a day for their appearance, as if it had been only a civil affair. He wrote also to the senate, desiring them to act with indulgence rather than severity; not to shed the blood of any senator or noble, or of any other person whatsoever, but to allow this honour to his reign, that even under the misfortune of a rebellion, none had lost their lives, except in the first heat of the tumult: “And I wish,” said he, “that I could even recal to life many of those who have been killed; for revenge in a prince hardly ever pleases, since, even when just, it is considered too severe.” In the year 176 Antoninus visited Syria and Egypt; the kings of those countries, and ambassadors also from Parthia, came to visit him. He staid several days at Smyrna, and after he had settled the affairs of the east, went to Athens, on which city he conferred several honours, and appointed public professors there. From thence he returned to Rome with his son Commodus, whom he chose consul for the year following, though he was then but sixteen years of age, having obtained a dispensation for that purpose. On the 27th of Sept. the same year, he gave him the title of imperator; and on the 23d of Dec. he entered Rome in triumph, with Commodus, on account of the victories gained over the Germans. Dion Cassius tells us that he remitted all the debts which were due to himself and the public treasury during forty-six years, from the time that Adrian had granted the same favour, and burnt all the writings relating to those debts. He applied himself likewise to correct many enormities, and introduced several excellent regulations. He moderated the expences laid out on gladiators; nor would he suffer them to fight but with swords which were blunted like foils, so that their skill might be shewn without any danger of their lives. He endeavoured to clear up many obscurities in the laws, and mitigated, by new decrees, the severity of the old laws. He was the first, according to Capitolinus (Vit. Anton, cap. xxvii.) who appointed the names of all the children, born of Roman, citizens, to be registered within thirty days after their birth; and this gave him occasion to establish public registers in the provinces. He renewed the law made by Nerva, that no suit should be carried on against the dead, but within five years after their decease. He made a decree, that all the senators should have at least a fourth part of their estate in Italy. Capitolinus gives an account of several other regulations which he established. In the year 171 he left Rome with his son Commodus, in order to go against the Marcomanni, and other barbarous nations; and the year following gained a considerable victory over them: he would, in all probability, have entirely subdued them in a very short time, had he not been taken with an. illness, which carried him off on the 17th of March 180, in the fifty-ninth year of his age, and nineteenth of his reign. The whole empire regretted the loss of so valuable a prince, and paid the greatest regard to his memory; he was ranked amongst the gods, and every person almost had a statue of him in their houses. His book of “Meditations” has been much admired. It is written in Greek, and consists of twelve books; there have been several editions of it in Greek and Latin, two of which were printed before the year 1635, when the learned Meric Casaubon, prebendary of Canterbury, published a second edition of his translation of this work into English, dedicated to Laud, archbishop of Canterbury. It was also translated, in a very inelegant style, by Jeremy Collier. There was an edition afterwards printed at Glasgow, which is more correct; but the best is that published by the rev. R. Graves, 1792, 8vo. Of the learned Gataker’s two editions, Cambridge, 1652, 4to, Gr. and Lat. and London, 1697, the former is preferred. It is perhaps unnecessary to remark, that the valuable “Itinerary,” called Antoninus’s, does not belong to this, or any emperor of the name.

, or Antonius Liberalis, a Greek author, who made a collection of fi Metamorphoses" taken from Nicander and other authors. Some think he was the same with Antonius Liberalis, who lived in the first century, whom Suetonius enumerates among the most celebrated rhetoricians, and who is also mentioned by St. Jerome. They appear, however, to be different, as the one wrote in Latin, and the other in Greek.

His brother Caius bore arms under Sylla in the war against Mitbridates, and raised such disturbances in Achaia, that for this and other crimes he was afterwards expelled the senate by the censors. However, he was raised by Crassus and Caesar to the consulship with Cicero; when the Catilinarian conspiracy breaking out, he was appointed to head the forces against Catiline. He did not go in person, being either really or pretendedly sick; some say he pretended sickness, apprehensive lest Catiline, if he appeared, should make discoveries against him. He afterwards governed Macedonia for three years with such extortion and violence, that the senate recalled, tried, convicted, and banished him.

Upon the death of Caesar, Anthony was alarmed, and hid himself during the night under the disguise of a slave; but, hearing that the conspirators were retired to the Capitol, he assembled the senate as consul, to deliberate upon, the present situation of the commonwealth. Here Cicero moved for a decree of a general amnesty, or act of oblivion, for all that was passed; to which they unanimously agreed. Anthony dissembled well; seemed to be all goodness; talked of nothing but healing measures; and, as a proof of his sincerity, moved, that the conspirators should be invited to take part in their deliberations, and sent his son as an hostage for their safety. Upon this they all came down from the Capitol; and to crown the joy of the day, Brutus supped with Lepidus, as Cassius did with Anthony. Anthony is said to have askad Cassius, during supper, “whether he still wore a dagger under his gown?” “Yes,” replied Cassius, “and a very large one, in case you invade the sovereign power.”

Anthony fled in great confusion, wanting even the necessaries of life; and this very man, who had hitherto wallowed in luxury and intemperance, was obliged to live for some days upon roots and water. He fled to the Alps, and was received by Lepidus, with whom, and Octavius, he formed the second triumvirate, as it has usually been called. When these three conferred, they would easily be persuaded, that the patriots wanted only to destroy them all, which could not be done so effectually, as by clashing them against one another. They therefore combined, proscribed their respective enemies, and divided the empire among themselves. Cicero fell a sacrifice to the resentment of Anthony, who indeed was charged with most of the murders then committed; but they were rather to be put to the account of his wife Fulvia, who, being a woman of avarice, cruelty, and revenge, committed a thousand enormities of which her husband was ignorant, insomuch that, his soldiers once bringing to him the head of a man killed, as they supposed, by his order, he denied that he had ever seen or known him.

, or Antony of Lebrija or Lebrixa, was born in 1442, at Lebrixa, a town in Andalousia. At the age of fourteen he went to the university of Salamanca, and five years after studied at some of the most celebrated schools in Italy, and such was his application, that within ten years he had run through the whole circle of sciences. He was an able Hebrew, Greek, and Latin scholar, and on that account, on his return to Salamanca, was promoted to the classical chair. During the twenty years that he filled this station, he published various works on the learned languages, the belles lettres, mathematics, medicine, grammar, jurisprudence, and sacred criticism. He had the farther honour of suggesting to cardinal Ximenes, who had invited him to the newly-founded university of Alcala, the plan of his celebrated Polyglot, and assisted in the publication. He finished his labours by inquiries into the history of his country, and intended to have written the lives of the kings of Spain, being appointed historiographer to his majesty, but was too far advanced in life for the undertaking. He died at Alcala de Henarez, July 11, 1522. His eloge, proposed by the academy of Madrid, was published so lately as 1796, by D. I. B. Munoz. The list of his works in the “Bibl. Hispana nova,” is said to be erroneous and defective, yet we know not of a better. Among his works may be mentioned, 1. “Two decades of the history of Ferdinand and Isabella,” Granada, 1545, fol. 2. " Lexicon, Spanish and Latin, and Latin and Spanish, of which, according to D. Clement, there have been eighteen editions, the first and most rare, Alcala, 1532, fol. 3. Explanations on the Holy Scriptures, in the Critici Sacri; commentaries on many ancient authors, &c. His Latin poems were published at Vivamo, 1491.

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

M. d'Anville discovered a taste for geography from his earliest years, excited by meeting accidentally with a chart when about twelve years old, and throughout the course of his youthful studies, he paid less attention to the language or sentiment of a classic than to the maps of the countries treated of, which he endeavoured to delineate, and to trace the sites of battles, and the march of generals. He had so improved himself in this branch that, at the age of twenty-two, he published some charts which obtained the approbation of the abbe de Longuerre, whose opinion was then considered as highly honourable. In these charts, it has been said that he exhibited every thing that was known, and was ignorant in nothing but that of which it was impossible for him to have acquired a knowledge at the time he delineated them.

To the study of modern geography, M. d'Anville joined that of ancient geography and of the middle ages, which unites the two. He perused with care the works of geographers, philosophers, historians, orators, and even poets, solely with a view to the object of his researches; but in the study of ancient geography he had to encounter with many difficulties. Such was the state of science when he undertook the task, that he had no guide but a few very inaccurate astronomical observations, and no geometrical determination of positions and distances. He was likewise obliged to take an infinite deal of pains in ascertaining the kinds of measurement employed by the ancients, sometimes because the same measures went under different names, and sometimes, although bearing the same names, because they differed according to the country or age in which they were adopted. In a word, this study was so much in its infancy when M. d'Anville began his researches, that he had innumerable difficulties to surmount, of which they who have profited by his labours aud by the advanced state of knowledge, can have no idea.

In the pursuit of all his studies he had every advantage of nature and disposition, a strong memory, an indefatigable ardour, and a depth of judgment which enabled him to compare, select, and decide upon the most accurate principles. While thus employed, he was elected a member of the academy of belles lettres, whose volumes he enriched with many valuable papers. The accuracy of M. d'Anville’s maps will, perhaps, appear the more extraordinary when it is considered that he had never travelled, and knew very little either of geometry or astronomy. When the question of the oblate figure of the earth was debated among the astronomers, he endeavoured to resolve it from the geographical knowledge he had acquired, and published a work entitled “Mesure conjecturale de la terre sous l’equateur,” and his result was contrary to that which had been founded on astronomical observations.

His constitution was delicate, and yet, until he was nearly sixty years of age, he studied at the rate of fifteen hours a day: his habits of temperance, and regularity, and the pleasing varieties of a study which was every day becoming easier, and every day becoming honourable, no doubt made such excessive application more safe than it might have proved under less prudent management, or less favourable circumstances. In 1730 he married Mad. Testard, by whom he left two daughters; one of them took the veil, and the other was married to M. de Hauteclair, treasurer of France. His wife died about a year before him, but such was his imbecility of mind at that time, that he was incapable of being made acquainted with his loss.

, or Anvari, one of the most celebrated poets of Persia, was born in the twelfth century, and was incited to turn poet from the honours bestowed on that class by the sultan Sandjar. He presented a composition to that sultan, who admitted him to his court, and here Raschidi was his rival. These two poets were for some time of opposite parties; Anvari was in the camp of Sangiar when he attacked Alsitz, governor and afterwards sultan of the Kouarasmians, with whom Raschidi had shut himself up. Whilst the two sultans were assailing and repulsing each other, the two versifiers were skirmishing in their own method, reciprocally throwing at one another rhymes fastened to the end of an arrow. Our poet was at the same time an astrologer; but in his predictions he was particularly unfortunate, and his enemies took advantage of this to injure him with the sultan, and he was obliged to retire to the town of Balke, where he died in 1200. This Persian bard corrected the licentiousness that had been customary in the poetry of his country, but nothing of his remains except two small pieces, one of which is inserted in the Asiatic Miscellany, No. I. 1786, and translated by capt. Kirkpatrick; the other, translated into German by Chezy, was published in the secoud number of the Oriental Mine, a journal printed at Vienna, under the patronage and at the expense of count Rzewuski.

, a modem Latin poet, was born at Naples about the year 1472, and to oblige his father studied law; but, from an irresistible inclination, devoted himself to poetry, travelling frequently to different parts of Naples, and to Rome, where he formed an intimacy with several members of the academy, and, according to a very common practice then, assumed the classical name of Janus Anysius. He is said to have been an ecclesiastic, but we have no account of him in that profession. As a Latin poet he acquired great reputation, which, it is thought, he would have preserved in the opinion of posterity, had he been more select in what he published. Ctelio Calcagnini, however, bestows the highest praise on him, as inimitable, or rarely equalled. He died about the year 1540. His works are entitled, 1. “Jani Anysii Pomata et Satyrae, ad Pompeium Columnam cardinalem,” Naples, 1531, 4to; but in this title we ought to read “Sententias” instead of “Satyrae,” which no where appear. His “Sententiae,” in iambic verse, were reprinted in “Recueil des divers auteurs sur l'education des enfans,” Basil, 1541, and his Eclogues in “Collection des auteurs bucoliques,” ibid. 1546, 8vo. 2. “Satyrae ad Pompeiurn Columnam cardinalem,” Naples, 1532, 4to. 3. “Protogenos,” a tragedy, Naples, 1536, 4to. The hero is Adam, but the piece is prolix, and in a bad style: the oppositipn it met with occasioned his next publications. 4. “Commentariolus in tragcediam: Apologia: Epistolae: Correctiones,” pieces printed without date. 5. “Epistolae de religione, et epigrammata,” Naples, 1538, 4to. Anysius had a brother Cosmo, a physician by profession, and also a Latin poet. His works published at Naples, 1537, 4to, consist of different pieces of poetry, satires, epigrams from the Greek, and a commentary on the satires of his brother Janus.

, a lawyer, the contemporary of Luther, was one of the professors of the university of Wittemberg, and assisted in the reformation. He was born at Nuremberg, in 1486, of which place his father was a citizen. Having married a nun while canon of Wurzburgh, he was arrested by orders of the bishop, but protected by an imperial regiment in the garrison of^ Nuremberg. He was, however, obliged to resign all his preferments, in lieu of which he was afterwards appointed advocate of the republic of Nuremberg, and counsellor to the elector of Brandenburgh. He died at Nuremberg in 1536. He published a defence of his marriage, addressed to the prince bishop of Wurzburgh, entitled l.“DefensioJo. Apelli pro suo conjugio,” with a preface by Luther, Wittemberg, 1523, 4to. 2. “Methodica dialectices ratio, adjurisprudentiam accommodata,” Norimb. 1535, 4to. This is a treatise on the Roman law, or rather a system of logic applicable to that study, and divested of the rage for allegory which had long prevailed in the schools. Reusner reprinted it in his “Cynosura.” 3. “Brachylogus juris civilisj sive corpus legum,” an abridgment of the civil law, which was long thought to be a production of the sixth century, and was even attributed to the emperor Justinian.

, one of the most celebrated painters of antiquity, was born in the isle of Cos, according to Pliny, but Lucian and Strabo assign Ephesus as the place of his birth, and Suidas, Colophon. He flourished in the fourth century B. C. and in the time of Alexander the Great. He was in high favour with this prince, who made a law that no other person should draw his picture but Apelles: he accordingly drew him, holding a thunderbolt in his hand, and the piece was finished with so much skill and dexterity, that it used to be said there were two Alexanders; one invincible, the son of Philip, the other inimitable, the production of Apelles. Alexander gave him likewise another remarkable proof of his regard: for when he employed Apelles to draw Campaspe, one of his mistresses, having found that he had conceived an affection for her, he resigned her to him; and it was from her that Apelles is said to have drawn his Venus Anadyomene. This prince went often to see Apelles when at work; and one day, as he was overlooking him, he is said to have talked so absurdly about painting, that Apelles desired him to hold his tongue; telling him that the very boys who mixed the colours laughed at him. Freinshemius, however, thinks it incredible that Apelles would make use of such an expression to Alexander; or that the latter, who had so good an education, and so fine a genius, would talk so impertinently of painting: nor, perhaps, would Apelles have expressed himself to this prince in such a manner upon any other occasion. Alexander, as we are told, having seen his picture drawn by Apelles, did not commend it so much as it deserved: a little after, a horse happened to be brought, which neighed at sight of the horse painted in the same picture: upon which Apelles is said to have addressed Alexander, “Sir, it is plain this horse understands painting better than your majesty.” Bayle, with some reason, doubts the truth of these anecdotes, and thinks, if true, he must have been a capricious buffoon, which is not consistent with the character usually given of him.

Apelles left many excellent pictures, which are men^ tioned with great honour by the ancients; but his Venus Anadyomene is reckoned his master-piece. His Antigonus has also been much celebrated: this was drawn with a side-face, to hide the deformity of Antigonus, who had lost an eye. His picture of Calumny has also been much noticed, and is thus explained by Lucian: Antiphilus the painter, being piqued at the favour shown to Apelles at the court of Ptolemy, accused him of being an accomplice in the conspiracy of Theodotus, governor of Phoenicia: he affirmed that he had seen Apelles at dinner with Theodotus, and whispering to him all the time of his entertainment. Ptolemy was also informed by the same person, that by the advice of Apelles, the city of Tyre had revolted, and that of Pelnsium was taken. Although it was certain that Apelles had never been at Tyre, and that he was not acquainted with Theodotus, Ptolemy was so enraged, that, without examining into the affair, he determined to put to death the person accused; and if one of the conspirators had not convinced him that this was a mere calumny of Antiphilus, Apelles must undoubtedly have suffered death upon this accusation. But as soon as Ptolemy knew the truth of this affair, he condemned Antiphilus to be a slave to Apelles, and gave the latter a hundred talents. Mr. Bayle remarks upon this account of Lucian, that he has fallen into a great anachronism; for the conspiracy of Theoclotus was in the reign of Ptolemy Philopater, which did not begin till an hundred years after the death of Alexander the Great; and for what he asserts, he quotes the authority of Polybius (lib. iv. and v.) “We must therefore,” says he, “suppose one or other of these two things; either that Lucian speaks of an Apelles, different from him who was in such reputation at Alexandria; or that he has confounded some plot which was contrived under Ptolemy Philadelphus, with the conspiracy of Theo dotus.”

To this account of Apelles, taken principally from Bayle, it may be necessary to add the opinion of a very superior critic, who observes, that “The name of Apelles in Pliny is the synonime of unrivalled and unattainable excellence, but the enumeration of his works points out the modiiication which we ought to apply to that superiority: it neither comprises exclusive sublimity of invention, the most acute discrimination of character, the widest sphere of comprehension, the most judicious and best balanced composition, nor the deepest pathos of expression: his great prerogative consisted more in the unison than in the extent of his powers: he knew better what he could do, what ought to be done, at what point he could arrive, and what lay beyond his reach, than any other artist. Grace of conception and refinement of taste were his elements, and went hand in hand with grace of execution and taste in finish, powerful and seldom possessed singly, irresistible when united: that he built both on the firm basis of the former system, not on its subversion, his well-known contest of lines with Protogenes, not a legendary tale, but a well-attested fact, irrefragably proves; what those lines were, drawn with nearly miraculous subtlety in different colours, one upon the other, or rather within each other, it would be equally unavailing and useless to inquire; but the corollaries we may deduce from the contest, are obviously these: that the schools of Greece recognized all one elemental principle; that acuteness and fidelity of eye and obedience of hand form precision, precision proportion, proportion beauty: that it is the `little more or less’ imperceptible to vulgar eyes, which constitutes grace, and establishes the superiority of one artist over another; that the knowledge of the degrees of things, or taste, presupposes a perfect knowledge of the things themselves: that colour, grace, and taste, are ornaments, not substitutes of form, expression, and character, and when they usurp that title, degenerate into splendid faults. Such were the principles on which Apelles formed his Venus, or rather the personification of the birthday of love, the wonder of art, the despair of artists; whose outline baffled every attempt at emendation, whilst imitation shrunk from the purity, the force, the brilliancy, the evanescent gradations of her tints.”

, an heretic of the second century, was a native of Syria; whence coming to Rome, he was corrupted in his doctrine by a woman, who was called Philumena, and pretended to prophetic illuminations. He became a rigid disciple of Marcus, but, being excommunicated for his incontinence, he fled to Alexandria, where he broached a new heresy, which chiefly diffused itself through Egypt and Asia. Tertullian speaks thus: “The Holy Ghost foresaw an angel of seduction in a certain virgin named Philumena, transforming itself into an angel of light, by whose delusion Apelles should be taught a new heresy.” By the oracular responses of this demoniac virgin, he learned to deny the veracity of the prophets, the resurrection of the body, to reject the law of Moses, and in many writings to blaspheme the divine oracle. Deceived by her diabolical possession, he wrote the revelations which he learned from her. The book was entitled “The Prophecies and Revelations of Philumena,” but no part of his works is extant, and indeed much of his history is doubtful. Apelles lived to be very old, and in his latter days appeared very grave and rigid. Du Fresnoy places this sect A.D. 175; Echard, A.D. 180; Danaeus, 181. They were called Apellites, Apelleians, or Apellicians.

, one of the finest orators of his time, was a Gaul by birth, and flourished in the first century. His inclination leading him to travelling, he extended his journey as far as Britain, but afterwards returned to Rome, where he fixed his residence, attended the bar, and acquired great reputation for wit and eloquence. Although considered at Rome as a foreigner, this circumstance did not prevent his rising to the highest offices, as he became senator, questor, tribune, and prsetor; but none of these promotions had charms so attractive to him as his original profession. He is most celebrated for his “Dialogue on the corruption of eloquence,” the object of which is to prefer the modern to the ancient eloquence. This dialogue is supposed to have been written in the 16th year of Vespasian, or the year 74 of our aera, and his death has been fixed at the year 83. The dialogue, however, has been attributed to Quintilian and to Tacitus, and is usually printed in their works, but modern critics are of opinion it was not written by either, and D. Rivet, from whom this article is taken, attributes it, in his literary history of France, to Aper, and advances such proofs as appear to have great weight. An excellent dissertation on it may be seem in Murphy’s translation of Tacitus, vol. IV. p. 445.

. There were three ancient Romans of this name, all very illustrious; not for genius, for virtue, for great or good qualities, but for gluttony: or, if we may soften the term in complaisance to the growing taste of the times we write in, for the art of refining in the science of eating. The first lived under Sylla, the second under Augustus and Tiberius, and the third under Trajan. The second however is the most illustrious personage of the three, and is doubtless the same of whom Seneca, Pliny, Juvenal, Martial, &c. so much speak. Athenaeus places him under Tiberius, and tells us, that he spent immense sums in gratifying his appetite, and invented divers sorts of cakes, which bore his name. We learn from, Seneca, that he lived in his time, and kept as it were a school of gluttony at Rome; that he spent two millions and an half in entertainments; that, finding himself very much in debt, he was forced at length to look into the state of his affairs; and that, seeing he had but 250,000 crowns remaining, he poisoned himself from an apprehension of being starved with such a sum. Dion relates the same story. Pliny mentions very frequently the ragouts he invented, and calls him the completest glutton that ever appeared in the world: “nepotutn omnium altissimus gurges.” The third Apicius lived under Trajan: he had an admirable secret to preserve oysters, which he shewed by sending Trajan some as far as Parthia, very fresh when they arrived.

, called in German Brenkwitz, a celebrated astronomer and mathematician, was born at Leisnig or Leipsic in Misnia, 1495, and made professor of mathematics at Ingolstadt in 1524, where he died in 1552, aged fifty-seven. He wrote treatises upon many of the mathematical sciences, and greatly improved them, especially astronomy and astrology, which in that age were much the same thing: also geometry, geography, arithmetic. He particularly enriched astronomy with many instruments, and observations of eclipses, comets, &c. His principal work was the “Astronomicum Caesareum,” published in folio at Ingolstadt in 1540, and which contains a number of interesting observations, with the descriptions and divisions of instruments. In this work he predicts eclipses, and constructs the figures of them in piano. In the second part of the work, or the “Meteoroscopium Planum,” he gives the description of the most accurate astronomical quadrant, and its uses. To it are added observations of five different comets, viz. in the years 1531, 1532, 1533, 1538, and 1539: where he first shows that the tails of a comet are always projected in a direction from the sun.

Apian left a son, Philip, who many years afterwards taught mathematics at Ingolstadt, and at Tubing. Tycho has preserved his letter to the landgrave of Hesse, in which he gives an opinion on the new star in Cassiopeia, of the year 1572. He died at Tubing in 1589. One of the comets observed by the elder Apian, viz. that of 1532, had its elements nearly the same as of one observed 128 years and a quarter after, viz. in 1661, by Hevelius and other astronomers: from hence Dr. Halley judged that they were the same comet, and that therefore it might be expected to appear again in the beginning of 1789. But it was not found that it returned at this period, although the astronomers then looked anxiously for it: and it is doubtful whether the disappointment might be owing to its passing unobserved, or 'to any errors in the observations of Apian, or to its period being disturbed and greatly altered by the actions of the superior planets.

, bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia, about the year 177, presented to Marcus Aurelius an apology for the Christians, which was praised for its eloquence and truth. He wrote other works against the heretics of his time, and especially the Montanists, but these are all lost. Eusebius mentions Five books against the Gentiles; two books of Truth; and two against the Jews. As he had spoken in his Apology of the victory of Marcus Antoninus, which happened in the year 174, and of the thundering legion, Lardner places him at the year 176 or 177, though possibly he was then in the decline of life. There are two fragments ascribed to him in the preface to the Paschal, or, as it is often called, The Alexandrian Chronicle, but these are doubtful.

, the younger, is mentioned by Jerom, in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical writers, as bishop of Laodicea in Syria. Jerom adds that he employed his younger days chiefly in grammatical studies, and afterwards published innumerable volumes upon the holy scriptures, and died in the time of the emperor Theodosius; he mentions his thirty books against Porphyry, as being then extant, and esteemed the most valuable of his works. Apollinarius is placed by Cave as flourishing about the year 370, but Tillemont thinks he was bishop of Luodicea in the year 362, at the latest. Lardner thinks it certain tnat he flourished in the time of the emperor Julian, and afterwards; and it seems probable that he died about the year 382. He %vrote commentaries upon almost all the books of holy scripture, none of which have descended to our time except a “Paraphrase on the Psalms,” which has been often reprinted in Greek and Latin, and of which an account may be seen in Fabricius. In his early days, he wrote and preached the orthodox faith, but afterwards swerved so far from it, as to be deemed a heretic, and thus became the founder of a sect called the Apollinarians. This sect denied the proper humanity of Christ, and maintained that the body which he assumed was endowed with a sensitive and not a rational soul; but that the divine nature supplied the place of the intellectual principle in man. Their doctrine was first condemned by a council at Alexandria in the year 362, and afterwards in a more formal manner by a council at Rome in the year 375, and by another council in the year 378, which deposed Apollinarius from his bishopric. He is said to have held the doctrine of the Millenium, or the personal reigh of Christ on earth for a thousand years. The reader may find a very elaborate account of him and of his writings in Dr. Lardner’s works, vol. IV. p. 380—397.

, a celebrated Athenian painter, flourished about the year 408 before the Christian aera. He applied the essential principles of his predecessor Polygnotus to the delineation of the species, by investigating the leading forms that discriminate the various classes of human qualities and passions. The acuteness of his taste led him to discover that as all men were connected by one general form, so they were separated each by some predominant power, which fixed character, and bound them to a class: that in proportion as this specific power partook of individual peculiarities, the farther it was removed from a share in that harmonious system which constitutes nature, and consists in a due balance of all its parts: thence he drew his line of imitation, and personified the central form of the class, to which his object belonged; and to which the rest of its qualities administered without being absorbed: agility was not suffered to destroy firmness, solidity, or weight; nor strength and weight agility: elegance did not degenerate to effeminacy, or grandeur swell to hugeness. Such were his principles of style; his expression extended them to the mind, if we may judge from the two subjects mentioned by Pliny, in which he seems to have personified the characters of devotion and impiety: the former, in the adoring figure of a priest, perhaps of Chryses, expanding his gratitude at the shrine of the God whose arrows avenged his wrongs and restored his daughter: and the latter, in the figure of Ajax wrecked, and from the sea-swept rock hurling defiance unto the murky sky. As neither of these subjects can present themselves to a painter’s mind without a contrast of the most awful and the most terrific tones of colour, magic of light and shade, and unlimited command over the tools of art, we may with Pliny and with Plutarch consider Apollodorus as the first assertor of the pencil’s honours, as the first colourist of his age, and the man who opened the gates of art which Zeuxis entered.

, a celebrated grammarian of Athens, flourished in the 169th Olympiad, or about 104 years before the Christian aera, under the reign of Plotemy Euergetes, king of Egypt. He was the son of Asclepiades, and the disciple of Aristarchus the grammarian, and of the philosopher Panaetius. He composed a very voluminous work on the origin of the gods, of which Harpocration has quoted the sixth book, Macrobius the fourteenth, and Hermolaus the seventeenth. Besides this work he wrote a “Chronicle,” a “Treatise on legislators,” another “on the philosophical sects,” and others which we find mentioned in the writings of the ancients. There is, however, only now extant, an abridgement of his book on the origin of the gods, Rome, 1555, and Antwerp, 1565, of which M. le Fevre of Saumur (Tanaquil Faber), published a Latin ' translation, under the title of “Apollodori Atheniensis bibliothecse, sive de Diis, libri tres,” Imperfect as this abridgement is, it is very useful in illustrating fabulous history. It commences with Inachus, and comes down to Theseus, prince of Athens, consequently comprising the space of 622 years, from A. M. 2177 to A. M. 2799. But we owe a very superior edition to the labours of that eminent classical scholar and critic, Heyne, who published in 1782, “Apollodori Atheniensis Bibliothecae Libri tres. Ad codd. Mss. fidem recensiti,” Gottingen, 8vo, and the following year, “Ad Apollodori Atheniensis Bibliothecam Notae, cum commentatione de Apollodoro argumento et consilio operis et cum Apollodori fragmentis,” ibid. 2 vols. 8vo. Four years before the first of these publications, Mr. Heyne gave a course of lectures on Apollodorus, which became very popular and interesting to young scholars. At the commencement of this undertaking, he found that the editions of Apollodorus were very scarce, and Gale’s, although the best, yet very inaccurate. He determined therefore to publish one himself, in executing which he was assisted by three manuscripts, one formerly belonging to Dorville, a second prepared for the press by Gerard James Vanswinden, and a third in the king’s library at Paris. None of his works do Heyne more credit, and his notes are highly valuable and entertaining to students of mythology.

, a famous architect under Trajan and Adrian, was born at Damascus; and had the direction of that most magnificent bridge, which the former ordered to be built over the Danube, in the year 104, Adrian, who always valued himself highly upon his knowledge of arts and sciences, and hated every one of whose eminence in his profession he had reason to be jealous, conceived a very early disaffection to this artist, upon the following occasion: As Trajan was one day discoursing with Apollodorus upon the buildings he had raised at Rome, Adrian gave his judgment, but shewed himself ignorant: on which the artist, turning bluntly upon him, bid him “go paint citruls, for that he knew nothing of the subject they were talking of:” now Adrian was at that time engaged in. painting citruls (a yellow kind of cucumber), and even boasted of it. This was the first step towards the ruin of Apollodorus; which he was so far from attempting to retrieve, that he even added a new offence, and that too after Adrian was advanced to the empire. To shew Apollodorus that he had no absolute occasion for him, Adrian sent him the plan of a temple of Venus; and, though he asked his opinion, yet he did not mean to be directed by it, for the temple was actually built. Apollodorus wrote his opinion very freely, and found such essential faults with it, as the emperor could neither deny or remedy. He shewed, that it was neither high nor large enough; that the statues in it were disproportioned to its bulk; “for,” said he, “if the goddesses should have a mind to rise and go out, they could not do it.” This irritated Adrian, and prompted him to get rid of Apollodorus. He banished him at first, and at last had him put to death; without stating the true cause, of which he would have been ashamed, but under the pretext of several crimes, of which he procured him to be accused and convicted.

From the collections of Pappus, and the commentaries of Eutocius, it appears that Apollonius was the author of various pieces in geometry, on account of which he acquired the title of the Great Geometrician. His Conies was the principal of them. Some have thought that Apollonius appropriated the writings and discoveries of Archimedes; Heraclins, who wrote the life of Archimedes, affirms it; though Eutocius endeavours to refute him. Although it should be allowed a groundless supposition, that Archimedes was the first who wrote upon Conies, notwithstanding his treatise on Conies was greatly esteemed; yet it is highly probable that Apollonius would avail himself of the writings of that author, as well as others who had gone before him; and, upon the whole, he is allowed the honour of explaining a difficult subject better than had been done before; having made several improvements both in Archimedes’s problems, and in Euclid. His work upon Conies was doubtless the most perfect of the kind among the ancients, and in some respects among the moderns also. Before Apollonius, it had been customary, as we are informed by Eutocius, for the writers on Conies to require three different sorts of cones to cut the three different sections from, viz. the parabola from a right angled cone, the ellipse from an acute, and the hyperbola from an obtuse cone; because they always supposed the sections made by a plane cutting the cones to be perpendicular to the side of them: but Apollonius cut his sections all from any one cone, by only varying the inclination or position of the cutting plane; an improvement that has been followed by all other authors since his time. But that Aiv chimedes was acquainted with the same manner of cutting any cone, is sufficiently proved, against Eutocius, Pappus, and others, by Guido Ubaldus, in the beginning of his commentary on the second book of Archimedes’s Equiponderants, published at Pisa in 1588.

The other writings of Apollonius, mentioned by Pappus, are, l.The Section of a Ratio, or Proportional Sections, two books. 2. The Section of a Space, in two books. 3. Determinate Section, in two books. 4. The Tangencies, in two books. 5. The Inclinations, in two books. 6. The Plane Loci, in two books. The contents of all these are mentioned by Pappus, and many lemmas are delivered relative to them; but none, or very little of these books themselves, have descended down to the moderns. From the account, however, that has been given of their contents, many restorations have been made of these works, by the modern mathematicians, as follow: viz. Vieta. Apollonius Gallus. The Tangencies, Paris, 1600, in 4to. Snellius, Apollonius Batavus. Determinate Section. Lugd. 1601, 4to. Snellius, Sectio Rationis & Spatii. 1607. Ghetaldus, Apollonius Redivivus. The Inclinations. Venice, 1607, 4to. Ghetaldus, Supplement to the Apollonius Redivivus. Tangencies, 1607. Ghetaldus, Apollonius Redivivus, lib. 2, 1613. Alex. Andersons Supplem. Apol, Redivivi. Inclin, Paris, 1612, 4to. Alex. Anderson, Pro Zetctico Apolloniani problematis a se jam pridem editio in Supplemento Apollonii Redivivi. Paris, 1615, 4to. Scbooten, Loca Plana restituta. Lug. Bat. 1656. Fermat, Loca Plana, 2 lib. Tolos. 1679, folio. Halley, Apol. de Sectione Itationis libri duo ex Arabico ms. Latine versi duo restituti. Oxon. 1706, 8vo. Simson, Loca Plana, libri duo. Glasg. 1749, 4 to. Simson, Sectio Detenninat. Glasg. 1776, 4to. Horsley, Apol. Inclinat. libri duo. Oxon. 1770, 4to. Lawson, The Tangencies, "in two books, Lond. 1771, 4to. Lawson, Determinate Section, two books. Lond. 1772, 4to. Wales, Determinate Section, two books. Lond. 1772, 4to. Burrow, The Inclinations. Lond. 1779, 4to.

Mr. Du Pin has written a confutation of “Pbilostratus’s Life of Apollonius,” in which he proves, 1. That the history of this philosopher is destitute of such proofs as can be credited. 2. That Philostratus has not written a history, but a romance. 3. That the miracles ascribed tier Apollonius carry strong marks of falsehood; and that there is not one which may not be imputed to chance or artifice. 4. That the doctrine of this philosopher is in many particulars opposite to right sense and reason.

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

, a learned Greek, a native of Constantinople, came into Italy about the middle of the fifteenth century, but being unfavourably treated by cardinal Bessarion whom he visited, he returned to the island of Crete, and wrote some books; one of them entitled “Iowa, or the Violet-bed,” a collection of apophthegms, has not been published, but of his collection of proverbs, an epitome was published at Basil, 1538, in 8vo, and afterwards the whole in Gr. and Lat. by Pontinus, Leyden, 16.19, 4to, and at tho same place, by P. Paulinus, 1653, 4to. The epitome published at Basil is a very rare book, but a copy is in the British Museum.

, an eminent historian, who wrote the Roman history in the Greek language, flourished under the reigns of Trajan and Adrian about the year 123 A. D. and speaks of the destruction of Jerusalem, as of an event that happened in his time. He was born of a good family in Alexandria, from whence he went to Rome, and there distinguished himself so much at the bar, that he was chosen one of the procurators of the emperor, and the government of a province was committed to him. He wrote the Roman history in a very peculiar method; not compiling it in a continued series, after the manner of Livy, but giving distinct histories of all the nations that had been conquered by the Romans, and placing every thing relative to those nations in one connected and uninterrupted narrative. It was divided into three volumes, which contained twenty-four books, or twenty-two according to Charles Stephens, Volaterranus, and Sigonius. Photius tells us, there were nine books concerning the civil wars, though there are but five now extant. This performance has been charged with many errors and imperfections; but Photius is of opinion, he wrote with the utmost regard to truth, and has shewn greater knowledge of military affairs than any of the historians, and depicts battles and other great events with the skill of an artist. But his chief talent (continues that author) is displayed in his orations, in which he produces a strong effect on the passions, either in animating the resolution of the slow, or repressing the impetuosity of the precipitate. In the preface he gives a general description of the Roman empire.

Of all this voluminous work there remains only what treats of the Punic, Syrian, Parthian, Mithridatic, and Spanish wars, with those against Hannibal, the civil wars, and the wars in Illyricum, and some fragments of the Celtic or Gallic wars. Appian was published by Henry Stephens with a Latin version, at Geneva, 1592, in folio; but the best editions are those of Tollius, Gr. and Lat. 2 vols. 8vo, Amst. 1670, and of Schweigheuser, Lips. 1784, 3 vols. 8vo, of which last the editor of the Bibliographical Dictionary has given a very particular account.

, an English writer of the sixteenth century, descended from an ancient and honourable family in Wales. He was educated at Oxford, but in what hall or college is uncertain: probablyin the ancient hotel, now Pembroke college, in which several of his name were educated about the same period. In 1534, he was admitted bachelor of civil law. Patronised by William earl of Pembroke, he pursued his studies with alacrity, and became eminently learned, particularly in the history and antiquities of his own country. Wood says, that in 1046-7 he was knighted, with many others, by Edward, lord protector of England, and that he died in the reign of queen Mary. Pitts gives him the character of a learned and elegant writer. He wrote, 1. “Fides historiae Britannia, contra Polyd. Virgilium,” a manuscript in the Cotton library. 2. “Defensio regis Arthuri.” 3. “Historic Brifanniae defensio,” 1,573. 4. “Cambria? descriptio,” corrected and augmented by Humph. Lhuyd, and translated into English by David Powel, Oxon. 1663, 4to. 5. De Variis antiquitatibus Tractatum de Eucharistia of the restitution of the Coin, written in 1553, all in manuscript in New College library.

, born at Ventimiglia, in the republic 01 Genoa, 1607, was a man of great reputation in the learned world, and wrote several books. At fifteen years of age he entered into the order of the Augustins, where he became so much esteemed, that he was appointed vicar-general of the congregation of our Lady of Consolation at Genoa. As soon as he had finished his studies, he taught philosophy, which he continued to do for five years; after which he travelled into several parts of Italy, and settled at Venice in 1639, in the convent of St. Stephen. What rendered him most famous was the library of the Augustins at Ventimiglia, which being chiefly collected by him, was a proof of his ardour for learning, and his excellent taste. He published a book concerning this Jibrary, which is much sought after by the curious. Alorhof mentions this work in several places of his Polyhistor, published in 1688 (p. 38, 39), and always as if he thought it had not been yet published; nevertheless Mr. Bayle discovered that the “Bibliotheca Aprosiana” was printed at Bologna in 1673; and that Martin Fogelius, or Vogelius, professor at Hamburgh, had a copy of it. He used to disguise himself under fictitious names in the title-pages of iiis books; which conduct might, perhaps, be owing to the subjects he wrote upon, they not being always strited to a religious life; such, for instance, as the Adonis of the cavalier Marino, &c. And if we consult the authors who have given us a catalogue of the writers of Liguria, we find that he assumed sometimes the name of Masoto Galistoni, sometimes that bf Carlo Galistoni, Scipio Glareano, Sapricio Saprici, Oldauro Scioppio, &c. The cavalier Stigiiani having published the book of “l'Oehiale,” or the Spectacles, which is a severe censure on the “Adonis,” he was attacked on all sides; but amongst all the advocates for cavalier Marino, nobody shewed more zeal for the Adonis than Aprosio: the pieces he wrote in defence of it came abroad with the following tides: “Ochiali stritolato di Scipio Glareano per risposta al Signer Cavaiiere Fra Toinaso Stigiiani;” The Spectacles broken, by Scipio Glariano, being an Answer to signor cavalier Fra Tomaso Stigiiani. “La Sferva poetica di Sapricio Saprici, lo scantonata accademico heteroclito per risposta alia prima censura dell' Adone del cavalier Marino, fatta del cavalier Tomaso Stigliani;” The poetical scourge of Sapricio Saprici, being an Answer to the first Censure of the cavalier Marino’s Adonis, by cavalier Tomaso Stigiiani. “Del veratro, apologia di Sapricio Saprici per risposta alia seconda censura dell' Adone dell caval.er Marino, fatta del cavalier Tomaso Stigiiani;” Hellebore, or an Apology of Sapricio Saprici, being an answer to the second Censure of cavalier Marino’s Adonis, by cavalier Tomaso Stigiiani. This treatise consisted of two p-ms, one of which was printed in 1645, and the other in 1647.

His printed works have gone through forty-three editions, nine of which appeared in the fifteenth century. The first, which is very rare, and was not mutilated by the Inquisition, was printed at Rome by order of cardinal Bes sarion, and Andrea, bishop of Aleria, was editor, 1469, fol. This volume consisted of, J. The “Golden Ass,” on which his reputation chiefly rests, and of which there have been many separate editions and translations into French, Italian, Spanish, German, English (by William Adlington, 1571, &c.) Of the episode of Psyche, there have been an equal number of separate editions and translations, and some French ones superbly ornamented with engravings. 2. His Apology, entitled “Oratio de Magia,” Heidelberg, 1594, 4to, &c. 3. “Florida,” or fragments of his speeches, some on history and mythology, Strasburgh, 1516. 4. “Three books on philosophy, entitled” De habitudine doctrinarum et nativitute Platonis.“5.” De Deo Socratis,“which St. Augustine refuted, Paris, 1624, 16mo. 6.” De Mundo,“which has been considered as an exact translation of what Aristotle wrote on the same subject, Memmingon, 1494, fol. and Ley a' en, 1591, 8vo, with that of Aristotle in Greek. Another list of works has been attributed to him on douhtful authority, as a Latin translation of Asclepius” De Natura. Deorum;“a book” De nominibus, virtutibus, seu medicaminis herbarum;“another,” De notis adspiratioms, et de diphthongis;“” De ponderibus, mensuris, ac signis cujusque;“” Aneehomenos,“a heroic poem, and” Ratio Spheres Pvthagoricae." Besides these a great number of his writings, on almost every subject, are said to have been lost. Daniel William Moller published an essay on his life and works, Altdorf, 1691, 8vo.

, or Sebastian D'Aquila, his true name being unknown, an Italian physician, born at Aquila, a town of Abruzzo in the kingdom of Naples, professed his art in the university of Padua. He was in reputation at the time of Louis de Gonzaga, bishop of Mantua, to whom fie inscribed a book. He died in 1543. We have of his a treatise “De Morbo Gallico,” Lyons, 1506, 4to, with the works of other physicians, Boulogne, 1517, 8vo; and “De Febre Sanguinea,” in the “Practica de Gattinaria,” Basle, 1537, in 8vo; and Lyons, 1538, 4to. Aquilanus was one of the most zealous defenders of Galen, and is said to have been one of the first who employed mercury in the cure of the venereal disease, which, however, he administered in very small doses.

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

, a learned rabbi of Carpentras, whose proper name was Mardocai, or Mardocheus, was expelled from the synagogue of Avignon, in 16 10, on account of attachment to Christianity. On this he went to the kingdom of Naples, and was baptised at Aquino, from which he took his name; but when he came to France he gave it the French termination, Aquin. At Paris he devoted himself principally to teaching Hebrew, and Louis XIII. appointed him professor in the lioyal college, and Hebrew interpreter, which honourable station he held until his death in 1650, at which time he was preparing a new version of the New Testament, with notes on St. Paul’s epistles. Le Jay also employed him in correcting the Hebrew and Chaldee parts of his Polyglot. His principal printed works are, 1. “Dictionarium Hebrao-ChalclaoTalmudico-RabbinicunV' Paris, 1629, fol. 2.” Racines de la langue sainte,“Paris, 1620, fol. 3.” Explication des treize moyens dont se servaient les rabbins pour entendre le Pentateuque, recueillis du Talmud.“4.” An Italian translation of the Apophthegms of the ancient Jewish doctors.“5.” Lacrimae in obitum illust. cardinal de Berulle,“his patron. 6.” Examen mundL“7.” Discours du Tabernacle et du Camp des Israelites,“Paris, 1623, 4to. 8.” Voces primitiae seu radices Gnecac," Paris, 1620, 16mo, and others. Louis D‘Aquin, his son, who became as great an adept as his father in the Oriental tongues, left behind him several rabbinical works. Antoine D’Aquin, first physician to Louis XIV. who died in 1696, at Vichi, was son of the last-mentioned Louis.

, commonly called the lady Arabella, was so often talked of for a queen, that custom seems to have given her a right to an article in this manner under her Christian name, as that by which our historians distinguish her. She was the daughter of Charles Stuart, earl oY Lenox, who was younger brother to Henry lord Darnley, father to king James VI. of Scotland, and First of England, by Elizabeth, daughter of sir William Cavendisu, km. She was born, as near as can be computed, in 1577, and educated at London, under the eye of the eld countess of Lenox, her grand-mother. She was far from being either beautiful in her person, or from being distinguished by any extraordinary qualities of mind; and yet she met with many admirers, on account of her royal descent and near relation to the crown of England. Her father dviug in 1579, and leaving her thereby sole heiress, as some understood, of the house of Lenox, several matches were projected for her at home and abroad. Her cousin, king James, inclined to have married her to lord Esme Stuart, whom he had created duke of Lenox, and whom before his marriage he considered as his heir; but this match was prevented by queen Elizabeth, though it was certainly a very fit one in all respects. As the English succession was at this time very problematical, the great powers on the Continent speculated on many husbands for the lady Arabella, such as the duke of Savoy, a prince of the house of Farnese, and others. In the mean time, this lady had some thoughts of marrying herself at home, as Thuanus relates, to a son of the earl of Northumberland, but it is not credible that this took effect, though he says it did privately. The very attempt procured her queen Elizabeth’s displeasure, who confined her for it. In the mean time her title to the crown, such as it was, became the subject, amongst many others, of father Persons’ s famous book, wherein are all the arguments for and against her, and which served to divulge her name and descent all over Europe; and yet this book was not very favourable to her interest. On the death of the queen, some malcontents framed an odd design of disturbing the public peace, and amongst other branches of their dark scheme, one was to seize the lady Arabella, and to cover their proceedings by the sanction of her title, intending also to have married her to some English nobleman, the more to increase their interest, and the better to please the people. But this conspiracy was fatal to none but its authors, and those who conversed with them; being speedily defeated, many taken, and some executed. As for the lady Arabella, it does not appear that she had any knowledge of this engagement in her behalf, whatever it was; for domestic writers are perplexed, and foreign historians ruu into absurdities, when they endeadeavour to explain it. She continued at liberty, and in apparent favour at court, though her circumstances were narrow till the latter end of the year 1608, when by some means she drew upon her king James’s displeasure. However, at Christmas, when mirth and good-humour prevailed at court, she was again taken into favour, had a service of plate presented to her of the value of two hundred pounds, a thousand marks given her to pay her debts, and some addition made to her annual income. This seems to have been done, in order to have gained her to the interest of the court, and to put the notions of marriage she had entertained out of her head; all which, however, proved ineffectual; for in the beginning of the month of February 1609, she was detected in an intrigue with Mr. William Seymour, son to the lord Beauchamp, and grandson to the earl of Hertford, to whom, notwithstanding, she was. privately married some time afterwards. Upon this discovery, they were both carried before the council, and severely reprimanded, and then dismissed. In the summer of 1610, the marriage broke out, on which the lady was sent into close custody, at the house of sir Thomas Parry, in Lambeth; and Mr. Seymour was committed to the Tower for his contempt, in marrying a lady of the royal family without the king’s leave. It does not appear that this confinement was attended with any great severity to either; for the lady was allowed the use of sir Thomas Parry’s house and gardensj and the like gentleness, in regard to his high quality, was shewn to Mr. Seymour. Some intercourse they had by letters, which after a time was discovered, and a resolution taken thereupon to send the lady to Durham, a resolution which threw her into deep affliction. Upon this, by the interposition of friends, she and her husband concerted a scheme for their escape, which was successfully executed in the beginning, though it ended unluckily. The lady, under the care of sir James Crofts, was at the house of Mr. Conyers, at Highgate, from whence she was to have gone the next day to Durham, on which she put a fair countenance now, notwithstanding the trouble she had before shewn. This made her keepers the more easy, and gave her an opportunity of disguising herself, which she did on Monday the 3d of June, 1611, by drawing over her petticoats a pair of large French-fashioned hose, putting on a man’s doublet, a peruke which covered her hair, a hat, black cloak, russet boots with red tops, and a rapier by her side. Thus equipped, she walked out between three and four with Mr. Markham. They went a mile and half to a little inn, where a person attended with their horses. The lady, by that time she came thither, was so weak and faint, that the hostler, who held the stirrup when she mounted, said that gentleman would hardly hold out to London. Riding, however, so raised her spirits, that by the time she came to Blackwall, she was pretty well recovered. There they found waiting for them two men, a gentlewoman, and a chambermaid, with one boat full of Mr. Seymour’s and her trunks, and another boat for their persons, in which they hasted from thence towards Woolwich. Being come so far, they bade the watermen row on to Gravesend. There the poor fellows were desirous to land, but for a double freight were contented to go on to Lee, yet being almost tired by the way, they were forced to lie still at Tilbury, whilst the rowers went on shore to refresh themselves; then they proceeded to Lee, and by that time the day appeared, and they discovered a ship at anchor a mile beyond them, which was the French bark that waited for them. Here the lady would have lain at anchor, expecting Mr. Seymour, but through the importunity of her followers, they forthwith hoisted sail and put to sea. In the mean time Mr. Seymour, with a peruke and beard of black hair, and in a tawny cloth suit, walked alone without suspicion, from his lodging out at the great west door of the Tower, following a cart that had brought him billets. From thence he walked along by the Towerwharf, by the warders of the south gate, and so to the iron gate, where one Rodney was ready with a pair of oars to receive him. When they came to Lee, and found that the French ship was gone, the billows rising high, they hired a fisherman for twenty shillings, to put them on board a certain ship that they saw under sail. That ship they found not to be it they looked for, so they made forwards to the next under sail, which was a ship from Newcastle. This with much ado they hired for forty pounds, to carry them to Calais, and the master performed his bargain, by which means Mr. Seymour escaped, and continued in Flanders. On Tuesday in the afternoon, my lord treasurer being advertised that the lady Arabella had made an escape, sent immediately to the lieutenant of the Tower to set strict guard over Mr. Seymour, which he promised, after his yxrt manner, “he would thoroughly do, that he would;” but, coming to the prisoner’s lodgings-, he found, to his great amazement, that he was gone from thence one whole day before. A pink being dispatched from the Downs into Calais road, seized the French bark, and brought back the lady and those with her; but, before this was known, the proclamation issued for apprehending them. As soon as she was brought to town, she was, after examination, committed to the Tower, declaring that she was not so sorry for her own restraint, as she should be glad if Mr. Seymour escaped, for whose welfare, she affirmed, she was more concerned than for her own. Her aunt, the countess of Shrewsbury, was likewise committed, on suspicion of having prompted the lady Arabella, not only to her escape, but to other things, it being known that she had amassed upwards of twenty thousand pounds in ready money. The earl of Shrewsbury was confined to his house, and the old earl of Hertford sent for from his seat. By degrees things grew cooler, and though it was known that Mr. Seymour continued in the Netherlands, yet the court made no farther applications to the archduke about him. In the beginning of 1612, a new storm began to break out; for the lady Arabella, either pressed at an examination, or of her own free will, made some extraordinary discoveries, upon which some quick steps would have been taken, had it not shortly after appeared, that her misfortunes had turned her head, and that, consequently, no use could be made of her evidence. However, the countess of Shrewsbury, who before had leave to attend her husband in his sickness, was, very closely shut up, and the court was amused with abundance of strange stories, which wore out by degrees, and the poor lady Arabella languished in her confinement till the 27th of September, 1615, when her life and sorrows ended together. Even in her grave this poor lady was not at peace, a report being spread that she was poisoned, because she happened to die within two years of sir Thomas Overbury. Sir Bull. Whitlocke has put this circumstance in much too strong a light; for it was a suspicion at most, and never had the support of the least colour of proof. As for her husband, sir William Seymour, he soon after her decease, procured leave to return, distinguished himself by loyally adhering to the king during the civil wars, and, surviving to the time of the Restoration, was restored to his great-grandfather’s title of duke of Somerset, by an act of parliament, which entirely cancelled his attainder and on the giving his royal assent to this act, king Charles II. was pleased to say in full parliament, what perhaps was as honourable for the family as the title to which they are restored, flis words were these: “As this is an act of an extraordinary nature, so it is in favour of a person of no ordinary merit: he has deserved of my father, and of myself, as much as any subject possibly could do; and I hope this will stir no man’s envy, because in doing it I do no more than' what a good master should do for such a servant.” By his lady Arabella, this noble person had no issue: but that he still preserved a warm affection for her memory, appears from hence, that he called one of his daughters by his second wife, Frances, daughter and coheiress of Robert Devereux, earl of Essex, Arabella Seymour.

Mr. Ballard has given a place, to the lady Arabella, in his Memoirs of British Ladies, who have been celebrated for their writings or skill in the learned languages, arts, and sciences. His reasons for so doing are, that Mr. Evelyn, in hisNumismata, has put her in his list of learned women, and Mr. Philips, in his Theatrum Poetarum, has introduced her among his modern poetesses. Though no works of this lady have appeared, which can serve to shew on what foundation her literary reputation is built, yet it is not probable that Mr. Evelyn and Mr. Philips should, without cause, have assigned her the rank they have done. Three letters of her’s are transcribed, by Mr. Ballard, from a ms yolume in Mr. Ashmole’s study, which prove her to have been a woman of good understanding. It also appears, from Mr. Oldys’s manuscripts, that she had, at least when young, a far greater share of beauty than is above represented. From a picture of her, which was drawn at full length in white in 1589, when she was thirteen years and a half old, it appears that she was, at that time, very beautiful in her person. Her complexion was fair as alabaster; she had sweet large grey eyes and long flaxen hair, flowing almost to her waist, and finely curled at top. Mr. Oldys says that she was born in 1575.

, an Arabian historian of the fifteenth century, is principally known as the author of a life of Timour, or Tamerlane, entitled “The wonderful effects of the divine decrees in the affairs of Timour,” a work in which there is a considerable display of eastern fancy, but many obscurities of style. It was published by Golius, at Leyden, 1636, and by Manger, with a Latin translation, 1767, and 1772, 2 vols. 4to. The imperial library at Paris contains two excellent manuscripts of this work. The author died in 1450.

, memorable for his erudition, and for superior abilities disgraced by an enormous crime, was born at Ramsgill, in Netherdale, Yorkshire, and received but a mean education, as it appears that all his mental acquirements, which were prodigious, were the result of indefatigable diligence and application, assisted by uncommon talents. His father was a gardener at Newby, whom he attended in that occupation, and where his propensity to Jiterature first discovered itself. Mathematics now engaged his attention, and he soon understood quadratic equations, and their geometrical constructions. Prompted by an irresistible thirst of knowledge, he determined to make himself master of the learned languages. He got and repeated all Lilly’s grammar by heart. He next undertook Camden’s Greek grammar, which he also repeated in the same manner. Thus instructed, he entered upon the Latin classics, and at first pored over five lines for a whole day; never, in all the painful course of his reading, leaving any passage till he thought he perfectly comprehended it, Having accurately perused all the Latin classics, both historians and poets, he went through the Greek Testament, and then applied to Hesiod, Homer, Theocritus, Herodotus, Thucydides, and all the Greek tragedians. In the midst of these literary pursuits, he went, in 1734, on the invitation of William Norton, esq. to Knaresborough, where he became much esteemed; and here, with indefatigable Diligence, he acquired the knowledge of the Hebrew.tongue. In April 1744 he came again to London, and taught both Latin and writing, at Mr. Painblanc’s, in Piccadilly, above two years. He next went, in the capacity of writingmaster, to a boarding-school at Hayes, in Middlesex, kept by the Rev. Anthony Hinton. He at length succeeded to several other places in the south of England, making use of every opportunity for improvement. He was afterwards employed in transcribing the acts of parliament to be registered in Chancery, and about the beginning of December 1757, went down to the free-school at Lynn. From his leaving Knaresborough to this period, which was a long interval, he had attained the knowledge of history and antiquities, and also of heraldry and botany. Few plants", either domestic or exotic, were unknown to him. Amidst all this, he ventured upon the Chaldee and Arabic, but had not time to obtain any great knowledge of the latter. He found the Chaldee easy enough, on account of its connection with the Hebrew. He then investigated the Celtic, as far as possible, in all its dialects; began collections, and made comparisons between that, the English, the Latin, the Greek, and even the Hebrew. He had made notes, and compared above three thousand words together, and found such a surprising affinity, that he was determined to proceed through the whole of all these languages, and form a comparative lexicon. He was also far from being a contemptible poet.

, a Greek poet, celebrated for his poem entitled the Phenomena, flourished about the 127th olympiad, or near 300 years before Christ, while Ptolemy Philadelphus reigned in Egypt. Being educated under Dionysius Heracleotes, a Stoic philosopher, he espoused the principles of that sect, and became physician to Antigonus Gonatus, the son of Demetrius Poliorcetes, king of Macedon. The Phenomena of Aratus gives him a title to the character of an astronomer, as well as a poet. In this work he describes the nature and motion of the stars, and shews their various dispositions and relations; he describes the figures of the constellations, their situations in the sphere, the origin of the names which they bear in Greece and in Egypt, the fables which have given rise to them, the rising and setting of the stars, and he indicates the manner of knowing the constellations by their respective situations.

The poem of Aratus was commented upon and translated by many authors: of whom, among the ancients, were Cicero, Germanicus Cocsar, and Festus Avienus, who made Latin translations of it; a part of the former of which is still extant. Aratus must have been much esteemed by the ancients, since we find so great a number of scholiasts and commentators upon him; among whom are Aristarchus of Samos, the Arystylli the geometricians, Apollonius, the Evaneti, -Crates, Numenius the grammarian, Pyrrhus of Magnesia, Thales, Zeno, and many others, as may be seen in Vossius, p. 156. Suidas ascribes several other works to Aratus. Virgil, in his Georgics, has translated or imitated many passages from this author: Ovid speaks of him with admiration, as well as many others of the poets: And St. Paul has quoted a passage from him; which is in hisspeech to the Athenians (Acts xvii. 23.) whore he tells them that some of their own poets have said, “For we are also his offspring,” these words being the beginning of the 5th line of the Phenomena of Aratus.

, principal of the university of Aberdeen, was the son of the baron of Arbuthnot, and was born in the year 1538. He studied philosophy and the classics in the university of Aberdeen, and civil law in France, where he was five years under the care of the famous Cujacius. Having taken the degree of licentiate, he returned home in 1563, and appeared very warmly in support of the reformed religion. At this time queen Mary was resident in her kingdom; but the earl of Murray having the supreme direction of all things, the reformed church of Scotland was in a very flourishing condition. The friends of Mr. Arbuthnot prevailed upon him to take orders, but whether he received them from a bishop or from presbyters is uncertain. In 1568, he assisted as a member of the general assembly, which was held in the month of July at Edinburgh. By this assembly he was intrusted with the care of revising a book which had given offence, entitled “The Fail of the Roman Church,” printed by one Thomas Bassenden, in Edinburgh. The exception taken to it was, that the king had the style of the supreme head of the church: at the s,ame time there was another complaint against this Bassenden, for printing a lewd song at the end of the Psalm book. On these matters an order was made, forbidding the printer to vend any more of his books till the offensive title was altered, and the lewd song omitted. The assembly also made an order, that no book should be published for the future, till licensed by commissioners of their appointment.

A little after, he was appointed minister of Arbuthnot and Logy-Buchan. The year following, viz. 1569, on a visitation of the King’s College at Aberdeen, Mr. Alexander Anderson, principal, Mr. Andrew Galloway, sub-principal, and three regents, were deprived. Their sentence was published on the third of July, and immediately Mr. Arbuthnot was made principal of that college. He was a member also of the general assembly which sat at St. Andrew’s in 1572, when a certain scheme of church-government was proposed and called the Book of Policy, an invention of some statesmen, to restore the old titles in the church, but with a purpose to retain all the temporalities formerly annexed to them, amongst themselves. The assemhly, being apprized of this, appointed the archbishop of St. Andrew’s, and nineteen other commissioners, of whom Mr. Arbuthnot was one, to confer with the regent in his council; but these conferences either came to nothing, or, which is more probable, were never held. In the general assembly which met at Edinburgh the sixth of August 1573, Mr. Alexander Arbuthnot was chosen moderator. In the next assembly, which met at Edinburgh the sixth of March 1574, he was named one of the commissioners for settling the jurisdiction of the church, which seems to be no more than had been before done about the book of policy. This business required much time and pains, but at last some progress was made therein, and a plan of jurisdiction proposed. In the general assembly, which met at Edinburgh the first of April 1577, he was again chosen moderator. At this time the assembly were persuaded, upon some specious pretences, to appoint a certain number of their members to confer in the morning with their moderator, in order to prepare business. This committee had the name of the Congregation, and in a short time all matters of importance came to be treancd there, and the assembly had little to do but to approve their resolutions. At the close of this assembly, Mr. Arbuthnot, with other commissioners, was appointed to confer with the regent, on the plan of church policy before mentioned. In the general assembly held at Edinburgh the twenty-fifth of October 1578, he was again appointed of the committee for the same purpose, and in the latter end of the year, actually conferred with several noblemen, and other laycommissioners, on that important business. In 1582, Mr. Arbuthnot published Buchanan’s History of Scotland, in which, though he acted only as an editor, yet it procured him a great deal of ill-will, and in all probability gave his majesty king James VI. a bad impression of him. The practice of managing things in congregation still subsisting, the king forbad Mr. Arbuthnot to leave his college at Aberdeen, that he might not be present in the assembly, or direct, as he was used to do, those congregations which directed that great body. This offended the ministers very much, and they did not fail to remonstrate upon it to the king, who, however, remained firm. What impression this might make upon Mr. Arbuthnot’s mind, a very meek and humble man, assisting others at their request, and not through any ambition of his own, is uncertain; but a little after he began to decline in his health, and on the 20th of October 1583, departed this life in the forty -fifth year of his age, and was buried in the college church of Aberdeen. His private character was very amiable: he was learned without pedantry, and a great encourager of learning in youth, easy and pleasant in conversation, had a good taste in poetry, was well versed in philosophy and the mathematics, eminent as a lawyer, no less eminent as a divine; neither wanted he considerable skill in physic. In his public character he was equally remarkable for his moderation and abilities, which gained him such a reputation, as drew upon him many calls for advice, which made kim at last very uneasy. As principal of the college of Aberdeen, he did great service to the church in particular, and to his country in general, by bringing over many to the former, and reviving that spirit of literature which was much decayed in the latter. These employments took up so much of his time, that we have nothing of his writing, except a single book printed at Edinburgh, in 4to, 1572, under this title, “Orationes de origine et dignitate Juris;” “Orations on the origin and dignity of the Law.” It was esteemed a very learned and elegant performance, as appears by a fine copy of Latin yerses on its publication, by Mr. Thomas Maitland, who was equally admired as a poet and a critic. Arbuthnot’s countryman and contemporary, Andrew Melvil, wrote an elegant epitaph on him, (Delit. Poet. Scot. vol. II. p. 120.) which alone would have been sufficient to preserve his memory, and gives a very just idea of his character.

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

, a Greek poet of Antioch ia Asia, is more known from the eloquent orations pronounced by Cicero in his favour, than by the few fragments of his that are come down to us. He was denied the title of Roman citizen, which Cicero caused to be confirmed to him, by maintaining that he had it; and that even if he had it not, his probity and his talents ought to have procured it for him. He lived about 60 years before the common sera. Archias composed several pieces; among others, a poem on the War of the Cimbri, and had begun another on the Consulate of Cicero, but none of his works have reached our times, except some epigrams in the Greek Anthology, and in Brunck’s “Analecta veterum poetarum Grsecorum,” vol. II. p. 92. They were also lately published, with notes and a Latin translation by Ilgen, 1800, who has subjoined a critical inquiry into the life and genius of Archias. It is not from these, however, that we can estimate the value of Cicero’s high praise of this author. Except two or three, these epigrams scarcely rise above mediocrity.

, a Greek poet, born in the isle of Paros, was the son of Telesicles; and, according to Mr. Bavle, flourished in the 29th olympiad, or about 660 years before Christ. His poetry abounded with the most poignant satire, and his satirical vein had such an effect on Lycambes, that he is said to have hanged himself. The indignation of Archilochus against Lycambes arose from the latter’s not keeping his word with regard to his daughter, whom he first promised and afterwards refused to Archilochus. It is not unlikely that he attacked the whole family of Lycambes in his lampoon, for it is said by Horace, that the daughter followed the example of her father; and there are some who affirm, that three of Lycambes’s daughters died of vexation at the same time. In this piece of Archilochus, many adventures are mentioned, full of defamation, and out of the knowledge of the public. There were likewise many indecent passages in the poem; and it is supposed to have been on account of this satire that the Lacedaemonians laid a prohibition on his verses. “The Lacedaemonians,” says Valerius Maximus, “commanded the books of Archilochus to be carried out of their city, because they thought the reading of them not to be very modest or chaste: for they were unwilling the minds of their children should be tinctured with them, lest they should do more harm to their manners than service to their genius. And so they banished the verses of the greatest, or at least the next to the greatest poet, because he had attacked a family which he hated, with indecent abuse.” It has been affirmed by some, that he himself was banished from Lacedsemon; and the maxim inserted in one of his pieces is assigned for the reason thereof, “That it was better to fling down one’s arms, than to lose one’s life:” he had written this in vindication of himself.

But he became most famous for his curious contrivances, by which the city of Syracuse was so long defended, when besieged by Marcellus. “The vigorous efforts made to carry the place had certainly succeeded sooner,” says Livy, “had they not been frustrated by one man this was Archimedes, famous for his skill in astronomy, but more so for his surprising invention of warlike machines, with which in an instant he destroyed what had cost the enemy vast labour to erect. Against the vessels, which came up close to the walls, he contrived a kind of crow, projected above the wall, with an iron grapple fastened to a strong chain. This was let down upon the prow of a ship, and by means of the weight of a heavy counterpoise of lead, raised up the prow, and set the vessel upright iipon her poop: then dropping it all of a sudden, as if it had taUen from the walls, it sunk so far into the sea, that it let in a great deal of water, even when it fell directly on its keel.” However, notwithstanding all his art, Syracuse was at length taken by Marcellus, who commanded his soldiers to have a particular regard to the safety of Archimedes; but this ingenious man was unfortunatejy slain by a soldier, who did not know him. “What gave Marcellus the greatest concern,” says Plutarch, “was the unhappy fate of Archimedes, who was at that time in his museum and his mind, as well as eyes, so fiyed and intent upon some geometrical figures, that he neither heard the noise and hurry of the Romans, nor perceived the city to be taken. In this depth of study and contemplation, a soldier came suddenly upon him, and commanded him to follow him to Marcellus; which he refusing to do, till he had finished his problem, the soldier, in a rage, drew his sword, and ran him through.” Others write, tb.at Archimedes, seeing a soldier coming with a drawn sword to kill him, entreated him to hold his hand one moment, that be might notdie with the regret of having left his problem unfinished; but that the soldier, without paying any regard, killed him immediately. Others again write, that as Archimedes was carrying some mathematical instruments in a box to Marcellus, as sun-dials, spheres, and angles, with which the eye might measure the magnitude of the sun’s body, some soldiers met him, and believing there was gold in it, slew him. Livy says he was slain by a soldier, who did not know who he was, whilst he was drawing schemes in the dust: that Marcellus was grieved at his death, and took care of his funeral; making frs name at the same time a protection and honour to those who could claim a relationship to him. Archimedes is said to have been killed in the 143d olympiad, the 546th year of Homer, and about 208 years before the birth of Christ. When Cicero was quaestor for Sicily, he discovered the tomb of Archimedes, all over-grown with bushes and brambles: there was an inscription upon it, but the latter part of the verses was quite worn out, as he himself informs us. Many of the works of this great man are still extant, though the greatest part of them is lost. His pieces which remain are, 1. Two books of the sphere and cylinder. 2. The dimension of a circle. 3. Of centres of gravity or aequiponderants. 4. Of spheroids and conoids. 5. Of spiral lines. 6. The quadrature of a parabola. 7. Of the commensuration of sand. 8. Of bodies that float on fluids. 9. Lemmata.

, a Milanese count, the son of Horace Archinto and Leonora Tousa, was born about the end of the sixteenth century. He was employed in several political offices, and received from Philip III. king of Spain, the title of count de Barata. He died June 15, 1656. Much of his time had been devoted to the study of the antiquities of his country, and he formed a large collection of antiques, of which he published descriptions. His principal works are, 1. “Epilogati racconti delle aniichita, c nobilta dell a famiglia Archinti, &c. Aggiunlavi una breve expositione degli antichi marmi, che ne' palagi di questa famiglia si leggono,” Milan, 1648, fol. 2. “Collectanea antiquitatum in ejus domo,” fol. without date or place, and so rare as to be unknown to Argellati, who takes no notice of it in his library of Milanese writers; but it is frequently mentioned by Muratori.

, of Tarentum, a celebrated mathematician, cosmographer, and Pythagorean philosopher, flourished about 400 years before Christ, and was the master of Plato, Eudoxus, and Philolaus. He gave a method of finding two mean proportionals between two given lines; and thence the duplication of the cube, by means of the conic sections. His skill in mechanics was such, that he was said to be the inventor of the crane and the screw: and he made a wooden pigeon that could fly about, when it was once set off, but it could not rise again of itself, after it rested. He wrote several works, though few are now extant. It is said'he invented the ten categories. He acquired great reputation both in his legislative and military capacity, having commanded an army seven times without ever being defeated. He was at last shipwrecked, and drowned in the Adriatic sea. His philosophy as well as his moral character was more pure than that of many of the ancient philosophers. The sum of his moral doctrine was, that virtue is to be pursued for its own sake in every condition of life; that all excess is inconsistent with virtue; that the mind is more injured by prosperity than by adversity, and that there is no pestilence so destructive to human happiness as pleasure. Brucker thinks that Aristotle was indebted to Archytas for many of his moral ideas, particularly for the notion which runs through his ethical pieces, that virtue consists in avoiding extremes. With respect to his personal character, it is said of him that he never chastised a servant, or punished an inferior, in wrath. To one of his dependants who had offended him, he said, “It is well for you that I am angry; otherwise, I know not what you might expect.” We have only a metaphysic work by Archytas, “On the nature of the Universe,” published in Greek by Camerarius, Leipsic, 1564, 8vo; Venice, 1571, 4to. Gr. and Lat. and sundry fragments on “Wisdom,” and “Of the good and happy man,” preserved by Stobseus, and edited from him by Gale.

, a Swedish historian, was born at Helsingfors, Feb. 9, 1695, and died July 14, 1777. He published various political works, principally relating to the history of his own country, none of which have been very highly esteemed. He was, however, indefatigable in his researches for the materials of history and biography; and about the time of his death, a “History of Gustavus Adolphus, king of Sweden,” was published at Breslaw in 2 vols. 8vo. originally written by Mauvillon, a Frenchman; but now much improved from the Mss. of M. Arckenholz. He published in his life-time, “Memoirs concerning Christina, queen of Sweden,” 4 vols. 4to, Amst. 1751—1760, a work which may be consulted with advantage, although it has few of the charms of elegance or conciseness. A long account of this writer may be seen in Adelung’s continuation of Jocher’s Lexicon.

was descended of a most ancient and honourable family, seated at Parkhall, in Warwickshire. He was born' in 1532, and his father dying when he was an infant of two years old, he became, before he inherited the estate of the family, the ward of sir George Throkmorton, of Coughton, whose daughter Mary he afterwards married. In all probability, it was his engagement with this family, and being bred in it, that made him so firm a papist as he was. However, succeeding his grandfather, Thomas Arden, esq. in 1562, in the familyestate, he married Mary (Throkmorton), and settled in the country, his religion impeding his preferment, and his temper inclining him to a retired life. His being a near neighbour to the great earl of Leicester, occasioned his having some altercations with him, who affected to rule all things in that county, and some persons, though of good families, and possessed of considerable estates, thought it no discredit to wear that nobleman’s livery, which Mr. Arden disdained. In the course of this fatal quarrel, excessive insolence on one side produced some warm expressions on the other; insomuch that Mr. Arden npenly taxed the earl with his conversing criminally with the countess of Essex in that earl’s lite-time; and also inveighed against his pride, as a thing more inexcusable in a nobleman newly created. These taunts having exasperated that minister, he projected, or at least forwarded, his destruction. Mr. Arden had married one of his daughters to John Somerville, esq. a young gentleman of an old family and good fortune, in the same county, but who was a man of a hot rash temper, and by many thought a little insane. He was drawn in a strange manner to plot (if it may be so called) against the queen’s life; and thus the treason is alleged to have been transacted. In the Whitsun-holidays, 1583, he with his wife was at Mr. Arden’s, where Hugh Hall, his father-in-law’s priest, persuaded him that queen Elizabeth being an incorrigible heretic, and growing daily from bad to worse, it would be doing God and his country good service to take her life away. When the holidays were over, he returned to his own house with his wife, where he grew melancholy and irresolute. Upon this his wife wrote to Hall, her father’s priest, to come and strengthen his purpose. Hall excused his coming, but wrote at large, to encourage Somerville to prosecute what he had undertaken. This letter induced Somerville to set out for London, but he proceeded no farther than Warwick, where, drawing his sword and wounding some protestaats, he was instantly seized. While he was going to Warwick, his wife went over to her father’s, and shewed him and her mother Hall’s treasonable letter, which her father threw into the fire; so that only the hearsay of this letter could be alleged against him and his wife, by Hall who wrote it, who was tried and condemned with them. On Somerville’s apprehension, he said somewhat of his father and mother-in-law, and immediately orders were sent into Warwickshire for their being seized and imprisoned. October 30, 1583, Mr. Somerville was committed to the Tower for high-treason. November 4, Hall, the priest, was committed also; and on the seventh of the same month, Mr. Arden. On the sixteenth, Mary the wife of Mr. Arden, Margaret their daughter, wife to Mr. Somerville, and Elizabeth, the sister of Mr. Somerville, were committed. On the twenty-third Mr. Arden was racked in the Tower, and the next day Hugh Hall the priest was tortured likewise. By these methods some kind of evidence being brought out, on the sixteenth of December Edward Arden, esq. and Mary his wife, John Somerville, esq. and Hugh Hall the priest, were tried and convicted of high-treason at Guildhall, London; chiefly on Hall’s confession, who yet received sentence with the rest. On the nineteenth of December, Mr. Arden and his son-in-law, Somerville, were removed from the Tower to Newgate, for a night’s time only. In this space Somerville was strangled by his own hands, as it was given out; but, as the world believed, by such as desired to remove him silently. The next day, being December 20, 1583, Edward Arden was executed at Smithfield with the general pity of all spectators. He died with the same high spirit he had shewn throughout his life. After professing his innocence, he owned himself a papist, and one who died for his religion, and want of flexibility, though under colour of conspiring against the state. He strenuously insisted, that Somerville was murdered, to prevent his shaming his prosecutors; and having thus extenuated things to such as heard him, he patiently submitted to an ignominious death. His execution was according to the rigour of the law, his head being set (as Somerville’s also was) upon London-bridge, and his quarters upon the city gates; but the body of his son-in-law was interred in Moornelds. Mrs. Arden was pardoned; but the queen gave the estate which fell to her, by her and her husband’s attainder, to Mr. Darcy. Hugh Hall, the priest, likewise was pardoned; but Leicester, doubting his secrecy, would have engaged chancellor Hatton to send him abroad; which he refusing, new rumours, little to that proud earl’s honour, flew about. Holinshed, Stowe, and other writers, treat Mr. Arden as a traitor fairly convicted; but Camden. was too honest to write thus, and it may be probable, that he died for being a firm Englishman, rather than a bad subject. His son and heir Robert Arden, esq. being bred in one of the inns of court, proved a very wise and fortunate person: insomuch that by various suits he wrung from Edward Darcy, esq. the grantee, most of his father’s estates, and by marrying Elizabeth, daughter of Reginald Corbet, esq. one of the justices of the king’s bench, he restored the credit and splendour of this ancient family, and was so happy as to see Henry Arden, esq. his eldest son, knighted by king James, and married to Dorothy the daughter of Basil Fielding of Kewnham, esq. whose son became earl of Denbigh. On this account, the last editor of the Biographia Britannica remarks, that the conduct of lord Burleigh in Mr. Arden’s fate is somewhat equivocal. If that great man. was convinced of Mr. Arden’s innocence, it was totally unworthy of his character to charge him with having been a traitor. It is more 'honourable, therefore, to lord Burleigh’s reputation, and more agreeable to probability, to suppose that he believed Mr. Arden to be guilty, at least in a certain degree, of evil designs against the queen. Indeed, Arden was so bigoted a papist, that it is not unlikely but that by some imprudent words, if not by actions, he might furnish a pretence for the accusations brought against him. We can scarcely otherwise imagine how it would have been possible for the government to have proceeded to such extremities. We do not mean, by these remarks, to vindicate the severity with which this unfortunate gentleman was treated; and are sensible that, during queen Elizabeth’s reign, there was solid foundation for the jealousy and dread which were entertained of the Roman catholics.

, a learned civilian and writer, was born in the thirteenth century, according to some at Parma, or, as others report, in Flanders, and he has been sometimes confounded with James of Ravenna, but there is less doubt respecting his productions. He wrote commentaries on the Code and the Digest, which are yet consulted with advantage, and few works of the kind are in higher esteem than what he wrote on the duties of executors, entitled “De Commissariis,” Venice, 1584, folio. His treatise also, “De excussione bonarum,” Cologne, 1591, 8vo, is much valued, and that “De Bannitis” has a distinguished place in the collection of writers on criminal law, published at Francforr, 1587, fol. We have no dates of his birth and death, but he is said to have been law professor both at Padua and Bologna.

, of Milan, but born at Cremona about the year 1574, when his father came thereto be appointed podestat, or governor, was then called Caesar, and did not assume the name of Paul until he entered in his sixteenth year among the regular clerks or theatins, after his father’s death. He made such proficiency in his studies that his theological tutor was obliged to prepare himself with more than common care to answer the objections and doubts of his acute pupil, and he became a very celebrated preacher, although neither his voice nor manner were in his favour. He afterwards taught theology, philosophy, and rhetoric, at Rome and Naples. Isabella of Savoy, afterwards duchess of Modena, chose him for her confessor, and appointed him bishop of Tortona. Here he principally resided, and passed his days in an exemplary manner, and employed his leisure in many works, which have been; published, and for a long period uere highly popular. He died June 13, 1644. His principal Latin works were, 1. “In libros Aristotelis de Generation e et Corruptione,” Milan, 1617, 4to. 2. “De Aquæ transmutatione in sacrificio Missæ,” Tortona, 1622, 8vo. 3. “De Cantici Canticorum sensu, velitatio bina,” Milan, 1640, 4to. 4. “Velitationes sex in Apocalypsim,” Milan, 1647, fol. published by P. Sfondrati, with the life of the author. In Italian he wrote, 5. “Arte di predicar bene,” Venice, 1611, 4to, often reprinted. 6. “Impresse sacre con triplicati discorsi illustrate ed arrichite,” Verona, 1613, 4to, and reprinted and augmented by the author, in 7 vols. 4to, 1621—1635, to which he added an eighth, in 1640, under the title of “La Ritroguardia, &c.” 7. “Delia Tribolazione e suoi rimedii,” Tortona, 1624, 2 vols. 4to, and often reprinted. 8. “Panegirici fatti in diversi occasioni,” Milan, 8vo, no date, but the dedication is dated 1644. There was another edition in 1659, 4to. His Latin sermons, which some authors mention, never existed, nor was it usual in the seventeenth century to preach in Italy in any language but Italian.

, was a physician of Cappadocia, but in what time he flourished authors are not agreed; some placing him under Augustus Caesar, others under Trajan or Adrian. Saxius places him about the year 94. However his works are very valuable. The best editions were published by Dr. Wigan and Dr. Boerhaave. Dr. Wigan’s was elegantly and correctly printed in folio, at Oxford, 1723: in his preface he gives an account of all the preceding editions. To this are subjoined, dissertations on the age of Aretaeus, his sect, his skill in anatomy, and his method of cure. At the end is a large collection of various readings with notes on them; a treatise on the author’s Ionic dialect, and a Greek index by the learned Maittaire, who in 1726 published in 4to Peter Petit’s Commentary upon the first three books of Aretaeus, which had been discovered among the papers of Grsevius. Boerhaave’s edition was published at Leyden, 1731, and another by Haller in 1771, which some think inferior to Boerhaave’s. In 1786, Dr. Moffat published “Aretoeus, consisting of eight books, on the causes, symptoms, and cure of acute and chronic diseases; translated from the original Greek,” 8vo, London. Aretseus is an author yet much admired by every physician who has attentively read his writings. His style is equally remarkable for conciseness and perspicuity, and he particularly excels in describing symptoms, and in the therapeutic part has rarely been equalled. There is nothing known of his personal history.

Aretino, Bernard, or Unico Aretino. See Accolti.

During the performance of the hymn, he remarked the iteration of the words, and the frequent returns of Ut, Mi, Fa, Sol, La; be observed likewise a dissimilarity between the closeness of the syllable Mi and the broad open sound of Fa, which he thought could not fail to impress upon the mind a lasting idea of their congruity; and immediately conceived a thought of applying these six syllables to perfect an improvement either then actually made by him, or under consideration, viz. that of converting the ancient tetrachords into hexachords.

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

Here it was that he composed a tract on music, entitled “Micrologus,” or “A short Discourse,” which he dedicated to Theodald bishop of Arezzo, and finished, as he himself at the end of it tells us, under the pontificate of John XX. and in the 34th year of his age. Vossius speaks also of another musical treatise written by him, and dedicated to the same person. Most of the authors who have taken occasion to mention Guido, speak of the “Micrologus,” as containing the sum of his doctrine: but it is in a small tract, entitled “Argumentum novi Cantus inveniendi,” that his declaration of his use of the syllables, with their several mutations, and in short his whole doctrine of solmisation, is to be found. This tract makes part of an epistle to a very dear and intimate friend of Guido, whom he addresses thus, “Beatissimo atque dulcissimo fratri Michaeli;” at whose request the tract itself seems to have been composed.

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

, an Italian printer, and one of the most learned and laborious editors of his time, was born at Bologna about the end of the year 1685. His family, then one of the most ancient in that city, was originally of Florence. After having begun his studies at Bologna, he went to Florence, and became acquainted with many of the literati of that city, particularly the celebrated Magliabechi. From Florence he went to Lucca, and then to Leghorn, where he meant to embark for France, but the death of one of his uncles rendered it necessary for him to return to his own country. He first projected an edition of the works, already in print, or in manuscript, of Ulysses Aldrovandi, with additions, notes, and corrections, and engaged several learned persons to assist him, but death having removed the greater part of them in a few years, he was obliged to give up the undertaking. He then published a collection of the poems of Carlantonio Bedori, a Bolognese gentleman, at Bologna, 1715, 4to. Two years after, having been elected one of the magistrates of that city, known by the title of the tribunes of the people, when he came to resign his office, he made an eloquent address on the duties of the office, which his successors ordered to be registered among their acts. His next and most important undertaking was an edition of that immense historical collection, entitled “Scriptores Rerum Italicarum.” The learned Muratori having imparted to him the design he had conceived of collecting and publishing the ancient Italian historians, acknowledged at the same time that he had been obliged to abandon the plan from the impossibility of finding a press adequate to such an extensive undertaking, the art of printing, once so highly cultivated in Italy, having now greatly degenerated. Argellati being of opinion that Milan was the only place where a trial might be made with effect, to revive useful printing, immediately went thither, and communicated Muratori’s plan to count Charles Archinto, the patron of letters, and his own particular patron. Archinto formed a society of noblemen of Milan, called the Palatine Society, who undertook to defray the expence of the edition, sixteen of the members subscribing four thousand crowns each. Argellati then took every necessary step to establish a printing-office suited to this liberal patronage, and the “Scriptores Rerum Italicarum” was the first work printed, in which Argellati bore a considerable part, collecting and furnishing Muratori with most of the manuscripts, notices, and dedications of the first volumes. He superintended at the same time, the printing of other works, particularly an edition of Sigonius, 1738/6 vols. fol. The emperor Charles VI. to whom it was dedicated, and who had repaid him for the dedication of the first volume of the Italian historians, by the title of imperial secretary, and a pension of three hundred crowns, now doubled this pension. Argellati continued to publish, with incredible labour and dispatch, various editions of works of importance, as “Opere inedite di Ludovico Castelvetro,” 1727, 4to. “Grazioli, De antiquis Mediolani aedificiis,” 1736, fol. “Thesaurus novus veterum Inscriptionum,” by Muratori, 1739, fol. But we are more particularly indebted to him for, 1. “Bibliotheca scriptorum Mediolanensium,” Milan, 1745, 2 vols. fol. 2. “Biblioteca de' Volgarizzatori Italiani,” Milan, 5 vols. 4to, 1767, besides which he contributed a great number of essays and letters to various collections. He died at Milan Jan. 5, 1755, after having had the misfortune to lose his son, the subject of the following article.

, son of the preceding, was born at Bologna, May 8, 1712. He studied philosophy and law, and took his doctor’s degree in the latter faculty at Padua in 1736, but having afterwards applied himself to mathematics, he was, in 1740, appointed royal engineer, To all this he added a taste for the classics and Italian literature, which he cultivated in his father’s house, where he principally resided, either at Milan or Bologna, at which last he died in 1754. He published, 1. “Practica del fora Veneto,” Venice, 1737, 4to. 2. An Italian translation of Huet, on the situation of Paradise,“1737., 8vo. 3.” Saggio d'una nuova filosofia,“Venice, 1740, 8vo. 4.” Storia della nascita delle scienze e belle lettere,“&c. Florence, 1743, 8vo. This was to have extended to twelve volumes, but one only appeared. 5.” De praeclaris Jurisconsultis Bononiensibus Oratio,“&c. 1749, 4to, to which is added a letter by his father, dated Milan, where probably this work was published. 6,” II Decamerone,“Bologna, 1751, 2 vols. 8vo, an imitation of Boccaccio, the subjects taken from some curious facts in the English Philosophical Transactions, accounts of travellers, &c. and other remarkable events, and adventures, but more pure in point of morality than the work of his predecessor. 7.” Novissima sisteina di filosofia, &c." Modena, 1753, 8vo. He left also in manuscript, a life of John Gaston, grand duke of Tuscany, and of a female saint of the order of St. Francis.

His principal works were the “Lettres Juives;” “Lettres Chinoises;” and “Lettres Cabalistiques,” which were joined to “La Philosophic du bons sens,” and published in 1768, in 24 vols. 12mo, under the title of the “Works of marquis d'Argens.” In all these, religion is treated with contempt, under the pretence of attacking its ministers, a progress which has been uniformly observed in the writings of infidels. Besides these, he published a great many novels, or romances, of very inferior merit, and which never have been favourites with the public; he also published his own memoirs, which at least show that he had got the better of shame. In 1762, he published “Ocellus Lucanus, en Grec et en François, avec des dissertations sur les principales questions de la Metaphysique, de la Physique, et de la Morale des anciens: qui peuvent servir de suite a la Philosophic du Bons Sens,” Utrecht, 8vo. And afterwards he translated “Timæus Locrus,” the other eminent follower of Pythagoras, both writers who had been neglected by universal consent, but whom d'Argens hoped to have revived. He has, however, rather displayed his reading than his taste or judgment in this performance. He published also, “Memoires secrets de la Republique des Lettres,” 4 vols. 12mo, and “Discour de Julien sur la Christianisme,” Gen. 8vo, an infamous attack on religion. Both these are deservedly forgotten.

, the name of two Spanish poets, brothers, and natives of Balbastro in Aragon, who descended from a family originally of Ravenna. Their poems were published under the title of “Rimas de Lupercio, i del doctor Bartolome Leonardo de Argensola,” Saragossa, 1634, 4to. Antonio, the Spanish biographer, speaks in high terms of this volume, and after him Baillet and Feutry declare that these brothers were the Horaces of Spain. Lupercio, or Lobergo-Leonardo d‘Argensola, the eldest, born about the year 1565, was gentleman of the chamber to cardinal Albert of Austria, secretary to the empress Maria of Austria, and secretary of state and of war under count de Lemes, the viceroy of Naples, where he went to reside in 1611, and where he died in 1613. He wrote three tragedies, Isabella, Phillis, and Alexander. Bartholomew Leonard d’ Argensola, the brother, born in 1566, was successively canon of the metropolitan church of Saragossa, chaplain to the empress Maria, and rector of Villa Hermosa. He accompanied his brother to Naples, and after his death, became historiographer of Aragon, and died at Saragossa, Feb. 26, 1631. Besides the poems printed with those of his brother, he wrote, 1. “Conquista delas islas Molucas,” Madrid, 1609, fol. 2. “Primera parte de los analesde Aragon que prosigue los de Zurita,” Saragossa, 1630, fol. and some other works enumerated by Antonio.

, a Bolognese physician, was for many years professor of logic, astronomy, and medicine, and died at Bologna in 1423. He appears to have been one of those who contributed to the advancement of the chirurgical art in Italy. His Works are replete with sensible observations, and a candour which induces him to acknowledge such errors in his practice or opinions as experience had discovered. His observations on the use of the suture, the cure of the spina ventosa, and on muscular motion, ai'e particularly valuable. His works, “Chirurgiae libri sex,” went through four editions in less than twenty years, Venice, 1480, 1492, 1497, 1499, fol. Haller mentions also an edition, 1520.

, was born at Paris in 1634, and died a Carthusian monk, at Gaillon near Rouen, Jan. 23, 1704, at the age of seventy. He did not entirely quit the world on becoming monk. His talents and learning had procured him illustrious friends, with whom he carried on a literary correspondence. We have by him, 1. “Traite de la lecture des Peres de l'Eglise.” The best edition is of 1697, 12mo. 2. “Melanges d'histoire et de literature,” published under the name of “Vigneul Marvilliana,” reprinted in 1725, in 3 vols. 12mo, of which the abbé Banier compiled almost the whole of the last: this edition is preferable to the others. It is a curious and interesting collection of literary anecdotes, of critical reflections, and satirical strokes. There appear occasionally some violations of truth and justice in both the one and the other; and the public never forgave his censures on la Brnyere. But these miscellanies, says Dr. Warton, have more learning than the “Menagiana,” or indeed than any of the numerous “Anas,” so much at present in vogue. Bayle was fond of them, and frequently quotes them in his Dictionary, and in his Letters, 1699, where he was the first who informs us of the real name of the author. He published also under the assumed name of Moncade, “L'Education, maximeset reflexions,” 1691, 12mo.

was one of the first of those learned persons who fled into Italy upon the taking of Constantinople by Mahomet II. in 1453, and contributed to the revival of Greek learning in the west. Cosmo de Medicis, duke of Tuscany, made him professor of Greek at Florence, and appointed him preceptor to his son Peter, and to his grandson Lorenzo. He had several illustrious pupils at Florence, to whom he read lectures in the Greek language and philosophy; and amongst the rest Angelas Politianus^ Acciaioli, and Reuchlinus. In 1456, he went into France, to ask the assistance of Charles VII. in behalf of some friends and relations, whom he wanted to redeem from Turkish slavery. He continued many years in his professorship at Florence; but, the plague at length obliging him to quit it, he went to Rome, where he publicly read lectures upon the Greek text of Aristotle. He died of an autumnal fever, which was brought on by an intemperate eating of melons, in the 70th year of his age, and (as is believed) soon after his settlement in Rome; but the time of his death is uncertain, yet it must have been after 1478, because he survived Theodorus Gaza, who died in that year. He was allowed to be very learned, but learning does not seem to have civilized or softened his manners, for he is represented as having been very capricious and very morose. He affirmed, that Cicero understood neither the Greek language nor philosophy, and is supposed to have conceived this peculiar prejudice against Cicero for saying, that the Greek was a language veibonim inops t poor and scanty in words. He was also a notorious epicure, and spent all his salaries, though very considerable, in the luxuries of the table. He was not so serious about his latter end, but that he bequeathed his debts in form to his richer friends, almost in the very act of dying. He translated several pieces of Aristotle into Latin, which language he also understood very well.

, a celebrated musical performer and composer in the end of the seventeenth and beginning of the eighteenth century, was a native of Bologna, and was diverted from the concerns of the church, to which his parents had intended to educate him, by an early passion for music. He became an opera-composer at Bologna and Venice, and, passing into Germany, was made maestro di capella to the electoral princess of Brandenburgh, for whom he had composed the opera of “Attis.” Both there and in Italy he continued in high estimation as a composer, and as a performer on the violincello, and particularly on the viol d'amore, which he either invented, or brought into notice. In 1716 he visited England, and performed on this instrument, which was a novelty in this country, but went again abroad until 1720, when, at the establishment of the Hoyai Academy of Music, he was invited to return, and was employed to compose several operas. Handel and Bononcini were his contemporaries. After some stay in this country, during which he probably dissipated what he got, he was obliged to publish a book of cantatas by subscription, and then he left England, The place and date of his death are not known.

Ludovico was the first-born of his father’s children, and is reported to have surpassed the rest in the endowments of the mind; giving, from his tender years, uncommon presage of a future genius. Being yet in hn rudiments, he composed a kind of tragedv from the story of Pyramus and Thisbe, which he caused to be represented by his brothers and sisters. He applied himself very early to the study of the Latin, in which he made greater progress than almost any one of his age; and, in the very beginning of his studies, he composed and recited an elegfuit Latin oration, which gave the highest expectations of him. Tito Strozza, a man of great learning and consummate knowledge, took particular delight to hear him, and to propose, difticult questions for his solution; often encouraging a dispute, on literary subjects, between him and Hercules his son, a youth whose age and studies agreed with Ariosto. But his father Niculo, having little taste for literature, was desirous, that, as his eldest-born, he should pursue some lucrative profession, and sent him to Padua, to study the civil law, under Angelo Castrinse and 11 Ma'mo; in which employment he spent five years, highly disagreeable to one of his disposition; which circumstance he laments in one of his satires addressed to Bembo. But although Ariosto durst not openly di’sobey his father, he could not so far conquer his inclinations as to desist from perusing trench and Spanish romances, with which languages h6 was well acquainted, having translated two or three of these authors himself into his native tongue; and availed himself, in his future works, of every beauty that occurred in these wild productions of imagination. Nicolo, atlnst, perceiving the aversion his son had to the profession of the law, and the little progress he made therein, permitted him to obey the strong propensity of genius, and is said to have been, in a great degree, influenced by Pandolfo Ariosto, a youth of excellent endowments, and a near kinsman to Ludovico.

Ariosto now appeared to lead a life of tranquillity; which was the more agreeable to him, as he was not so deeply engaged by the duke, but that he had sufficient leisure to pursue his studies; the service of Alphonso being far more easy than that of Hippolito. About this time he published his Satires, besides those he had formerly written; in the whole, to the number of seven, till, being again involved in family difficulties, and harassed with law-suits, he was obliged, for some time, to lay aside his compositions. At last, having brought his affairs to a happy crisis, he purchased a piece of ground opposite the church of St. Benedict, where he built a commodious dwelling; which, some say, he was enabled to do by the liberality of the duke. He had a garden adjoining to this house, the usual scene of his poetical meditations. Here he passed the remainder of his life, as much as possible secluded from all public employments. Having attained the 59th year of his age, he was seized, on the last day 'but one of the year 1532, with a lingering illness, though some say his illness first came upon him in October or November, about which time the ducal palace took fire, which accident consumed the superb theatre that had been built for the exhibition of his comedies; in the sameyear he had sent his Furioso to the press with his last improvements, corrected and enlarged as we now have it. Some physicians attributed the cause of his malady to the custom he had of eating fast, and chewing his victuals little, that occasioned an indigestion; the means they made use of to remove this co nplaint brought on a consumption, which, in spite of all the assistance of medicine, at last put a period to his life, at Ferrara, on the 6th of June, or, as others say, on the 8th of July, 1533.

Ludovico Arios-to was a man of uncommon eminence, whether we consider him as a member of the republic of society, or of the more extensive world of literature: as the first, he acquired the affection and esteem of persons of the highest consideration; he contracted the closest intimacy with the family of Medicis, and was beloved by Leo X. the Augustus of that age; as the second, he was one of the few great poets who see that reputation attend their works, during their life-time, which continues to be transmitted down to posterity; and perhaps few books have been so often printed as the Orlando, which has passed through upwards of eighty editions, and not only been rendered into all the European languages, but is said to have found its way into every part of the world. The uncommon popularity of this author may be further gathered from the numbers that have drawn their subjects from his original.

Several writers have affirmed, that he was solemnly crowned with laurel by the victorious Charles Y. in the city of Mantua, in 1532, for his Orlando Furioso; and this circumstance has been as positively denied by others. Mazzuchelii, in his life of Ariosto, has considered the arguments on both sides; and observes, that the silence of those authors on the subject, who certainly would not have passed over such an event, may justly render the whole suspected; that, among others, surely little attention can be paid to the authority of one writer, who relates that Ariosto had scarcely received the laurel crown, when, transported with joy, and inspired as it were with a poetical phrensy, he ran. through the city apparently as mad as his own Orlando. P'ornari speaks of the coronation; but Pigna and Garafolo make no mention of it. II siu;nore Dottore Barotti thus examines the supposed fact: “Many have doubted of the coronation by Charles, and writers, who speak of it, do not agree upon the time or place: some say that the ceremony was performed at Mantua, and others at Bologna; some, that it happened in 1530, and others, in 1532; but, surely it could not be in 1530, as the complete edition of the poem, with the praises of the emperor, was not published till 1532. In a manuscript book, delivered down for the hand-writing of his son Virginio, are these words: ‘E una baia che fosse coronato.’ But, in a public instrument between his son Virginio and his brother, in October 1542, we read as follows: ‘ Cum annis decursis animam egerit magnificus et Laureatus D. Ludovicus Areostus, &c.’ both which, the manuscript book and instrument, are in my possession. In a letter of Galasso Ariosto it is said, that Ariosto had scarce published the last edition of his work when he fell ill, and died after eight months. The publication was in October 1532, and it is difficult to suppose that he could be crowned in November, the time mentioned. Yet the epitaph, caused to be engraved by his nephew’s son Ludovico, sets forth the coronation. If Pigna and Garafolo affirm that he fell ill in December, it may be understood that he then took to his bed; and as to the medal of Ariosto crowned, nothing can be proved front that.” To this Mazzuchelli adds, that We may refer to the declaration of Franco, who asserts that he was not crowned; and concludes the argument, by opposing to all these, the authority of the exact Apostolo Zeno, who observes, that Franco petulantly denies that Ariosto was crowned poet, though, besides other testimonies, we have the exclusive privilege granted him by Charles V. The fact upon the whole appears doubtful.

The name of this poet is still held in that kind of veneration by his countrymen with which the English consider their Shakspeare. Antonio Zatta, in his edition of Ariosto' s works of 1772, relates, that a chair and ink-standish, which, according to tradition, belonged to Ariosto, were then in the possession of II signor Dottore Giovanni Andrea Barotti, at Ferrara, and that a specimen of his hand -writing was preserved in the public library of that city. The republic of Venice did him the honour to cause his picture to be painted, and hung up with the senators and other illustrious men in the great council hall, which was afterwards destroyed by fire. It appears, however, that Ariosto did not finally receive from his professed patrons those rewards, or obtain that establishment, to which he thought his merits had entitled him. Probably the government of Grafagnana added more to his reputation than his fortune; and, from what he says in several parts of his Satires, he was by no means satisfied with his patrons of Ferrara. Nothing particular is recorded of the benefactions of the cardinal to him, before he incurred the displeasure of that prelate. The duke, indeed, gave him two assignments on certain gabels or taxes, the first of which ceased with the abolition of the tax; and the second, which produced him only twenty-five crowns every fourth month, collected, as he says himself, with great trouble, was contested and withheld from him during the wars of Lombardy; and some say, that the cardinal, upon withdrawing his patronage, deprived him of this slender advantage^ Such were the great advantages which he derived from those in whose service he had engaged, and whose names he had immortalized by his Muse.

Two medals are said to have been struek, both bearing his effigies, but the devices different: on the first was figured a serpent, over which was suspended a hand, with a pair of shears ready to cut off the head or sting; and the other representing a bee-hive, where the bees are driven from their habitation with fire and smoke, that the countryman may possess himself of their honey. The motto of both these medals was “Pro bono malum.” Some affirm that these devices were of Ariosto’s invention; the first to express the nature of his detractors; and the second, to show that, instead of honours and rewards for his labours, he met only with scoff and derision, alluding to the reception given his Orlando by the cardinal, who, having perused it, asked him, with the most tasteless indifference, where he had collected so many fooleries. Dolce relates, that he caused the device of the serpent to be prefixed to the second edition of his poem; but that in the third he changed it into the bee-hive. In an edition of the Orlando, printed at Bologna in 1540, is a device in the titlepage of two serpents, with a band and shears; the tongue of one of these serpents is cut out, with this motto round them: “Dilexisti malitiam super benignitatem.”

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

His Italian biographers inform us, that in his conversation he was modest and affable to every body, demeaning himself in such a manner, as if altogether unconscious of that great superiority which Nature had given him; he was close in argument and ready in repartees, but was seldom observed to laugh more than became the dignity of a philosopher; yet, though his temper was rather inclined to melancholy, he was very remote from a rigid disposition; being particularly open and sprightly in his conversation with women, by whom his company was much coveted. He was an avowed enemy to ceremony, though always ready to pay due respect to place and rank. He abhorred all those dignities that could only be acquired by servility; he was a sincere lover of his country, loyal to his prince, and steady in his friendships. In his diet he was abstemious, making only one meal a day, 'and that generally towards the evening, and was neither curious for variety or luxuries, being indeed a contemner of luxury in general. While he was composing his Orlando, he would frequently rise in the middle of the night, and cause his servant Gianni to bring him pen, ink, and paper, when he wrote down what had immediately occurred to his imagination, which in the day he communicated to his friends. His integrity was incorruptible, as appears by what he says to his brother Galasso of the old man, who, being possessed of great wealth, was fearful of being poisoned by his relations, and therefore would trust himself in no hands but Ariosto. He took great delight in building, but was an economist in his expences that way: a friend once expressing an astonishment, that he, who had described such magnificent edifices in his poem, should be contented with so poor a dwelling, Ariosto answered very aptly, that “words were much easier put together than bricks;” and leading him to the door of his house, pointed to this distich which he had caused to be engraved on the portico:

Ariosto’s reputation rests now entirely on his Orlando, concerning which modern critics are nearly agreed, and can perceive its blemishes without a wish to detract from its genuine merit. The monstrous extravagance of his fictions, as far as respects the agency of demons and aerial beings, were not ill suited to the age in which he lived, and supported the reputation of his poem, until it attracted the admiration of more enlightened minds, by the display of an imagination infinitely exuberant, yet directed by the finest taste, by the extraordinary power the author possessed of interesting both the gentler and severer passions, and by his masterly skill in all graphical paintings and descriptions. “Orlando,” says Dr. Blair, who seems to have collected the opinions of all the modern critics on this poem, "unites all sorts of poetry sometimes comic and satiric; sometimes light and licentious; at other times, highly heroic, descriptive, and tender. Whatever strain the poet assumes, he excels in it. He is always master of his subject; seems to play himself with it; and leaves us sometimes at a loss to know whether he be serious or in jest. He is seldom dramatic; sometimes, but not often, sentimental; but in narration and description, perhaps no poet ever went beyond him. He makes every scene which he describes, and every event which he relates, pass before our eyes; and in his selection of circumstances, is eminently picturesque. His style is much varied, always suited to the subject, and adorned with a remarkable smooth and melodious versification. The most valued editions of the Orlando are, that printed at Venice, fol. 1584, with Ruscelli’s notes, and engravings by Porro; and the edition of Molini, published in 1772, in 4 vols. 8vo, which has very beautiful engravings, and was printed with Baskerville’s types. There is likewise a very correct edition published at Paris by Pankouke in 10 vols. 12mo, 1787; and another, likewise very correct, in 4 vols. 8vo, by Mr. Isola, at London, 1789. Ariosto’s other pieces have been frequently reprinted, but none of them are in much demand. The English reader has been made acquainted with the merits of the Orlando by Mr. Hoole, who, in 1783, completed his translation, in 5 vols. 8vo. His predecessors in that labour were sir John Harrington and Mr. Huggins, but they are now little known and little read. In 1759 the satires of Ariosto were translated into English, and published in a 12mo volume. Ariosto had a nephew, Horace, who was born in 1555, and died in 1593. He defended the Orlando Furioso against the criticisms of Pellegrino, and was himself a poet, and a writer of comedies.

, an Italian lawyer, and a scholar of great learning, was born at Cremona, Feb. 3, 1657, the son of Louis Arisi and Lucia Negri, both of distinguished families in that place. His infirm state of health in his infancy made him be consigned, for some time, to the care of a private tutor; but he afterwards studied philosophy in the Jesuits’ college. In 1674, his father sent him to Rome to study law, from whence, in 1677, he went to Bologna with a view to continue that pursuit, but the death of his father obliged him next year to return to his own country. Still desirous, however, to complete his course, he went first to Pavia, where he obtained a doctor’s degree, and then to Milan for six months, where he improved himself under an able advocate. On his return to Cremona, he divided his time between his professional studies, and that of polite literature, particularly poetry, for which he had a very early taste. Connecting himself, by correspondence or personal acquaintance, with the most eminent scholars of nis time, he became a member of many of the Italian academies; and the extensive knowledge and probity he displayed as a lawyer, occasioned his being employed in many public transactions, in which he acquitted himself to the entire satisfaction of the government of his country. He died of a lingering disorder, Jan. 25, 1743. Mazzuchelli’s list of his works, printed and manuscript, amounts to sixtyfour articles. The most esteemed of the printed works are, 1. “La Tirranide soggiogata,” an oratorio for St. Anthony of Padua, Cremona, 1677, 4to, and he published three others in different years for the festival of that saint. 2. “Cremona litterata, sen in Cremonenses, doctrina et litterariis dignitatibus eminentiores, chronologic^ adnotationes,” 3 vols. fol. The first two were published at Parma, 1702 and 1705, and the third at Cremona, 1741. 3. “Scnatorum Mediolanensium ex collegio judicum Cremonae ab ipso erecto, usque ad hocc tempora continuata series,” &c. Cremona, 1705, fol. 4. “Rime per le sacre stimate del Santo Patriarca Francesco,” &c. Cremona, 1713, 4to, an astonishing instance of superstitious poetry, containing no less than three hundred and twenty-five sonnets on the marks on the body of St. Francis. He published many other poems separately, and in collections.

was, according to, the common opinion, a Greek pagan writer, who lived in the fourth century, but his existence has been doubted. If indeed he be the person mentioned by Ammianus Marcellinus, who lived in that century, there is some foundation to believe that there was such a person. Some think, however, that the name prefixed to the first “Love Epistle” was taken by the publisher for that of the writer. His work, which consists of “Love Epistles,” w:is never known, or certainly not generally known, till Sambucus published it in 1566; since which time there have been several editions of it printed at Paris, where the book seems to have been held in greater estimation than amongst us. As to the real date of its composition, we have nothing but conjecture to offer. By the twenty-sixth epistle it should appear that the author lived in the time of the later emperors, when Byzantium was called New Rome; and in that epistle mention is made of the pantomime actor Caramallus, who was contemporary with Sidonius Apollinaris. The Epistles are certainly terse, elegant, and very poetical, both in language and sentiment; yet they have scarcely any thing original in them, being a cento from the writings of Plato, Lucian, Philostratus, and almost all the ancient Greek authors, whose sentences are pleasingly woven together, and applied to every passion incident to love.

The best editions of Aristsenetus are those of Pauw, printed at Utrecht, 12mo, 1736 7; and of Abresch, 8vo, Zwoll, 1749, a most excellent edition, not only on account of the learned editor’s notes, but also for the emendations of Tollius, d'Orville, and Valckenaer. Abresch published a small volume of supplemental notes and observations at Amsterdam, 1752. About the beginning of the last century the facetious Tom Brown, as he is usually called, translated, or rather imitated, some select pieces of Aristaenetus, but without either fidelity, or poetic beauty. The first part of the epistles, however, were translated with more effect, and published in 1771, 12mo, by two young gentlemen who have since risen to high distinction in the literary and political world. But it is to be regretted that they imbibed rather too much of the licentious spirit of their author; and the offence taken at this by the critics of that time was probably the reason of their not being encouraged to proceed in translating the second part. Yet as the production of one of the first oriental scholars, and one of the first orators of the day, of Halhed and of Sheridan, this translation may be regarded as a literary curiosity.

, a celebrated grammarian, who flourished 160 years B. C. was born in Samothracia, but chose Alexandria for the place of his residence. He was highly esteemed by Ptolemy Philometor, who intrusted him with the education of his son. He applied himself much to criticism, and made a revisal of Homer’s poems with great exactness, but without the equity or impartiality of critic cism, for such verses as he did not like he treated as spurious. He marked these with the figure of a dart, uStbixe: whence othieiv was used for to condemn in general. Some have said, that he'never would publish any thing, for fear of giving the world an opportunity of retorting upon him; but others assure us that he published several works. Cicero and Horace have used his name to express a very rigid critic, and it is employed to this day for the same purpose, but not without opprobrium, derived partly from himself, and perhaps yet more from the manner of modern verbal critics. Growing dropsical, he found no other remedy than to starve himself to death. Suidas relates, that he died in Cyprus, aged seventy-two. Villoison, in his edition of the Iliad, has afforded the moderns an opportunity of appreciating the value of Aristarchus’ s criticisms on Homer, as well as those of the first editors of that immortal bard.

, a celebrated Greek philosopher and astronomer, was a native of the city of Samos; but of what date is not exactly known; it must have been, however, before the time of Archimedes, as some parts of his writings and opinions are cited by that author, in his Arenarius: he probably, therefore, flourished about 420 years B. C. He held the opinion of Pythagoras as to the system of the world, but whether before or after him, is uncertain, teaching that the sun and stars were fixed in the heavens, and that the earth is moved in a circle about the sun, at the same time that it revolved about its own centre or axis. He taught also, that the annual orbit of the earth, compared with the distance of the fixed stars, is but as a point. On this head Archimedes says, “Aristarchus the Samian, confuting the notions of astrologers, laid down certain positions, from whence it follows, that the world is much larger than is generally imagined; for he lays it down, that the fixed stars and the sun are immoveable, and that the earth is carried round the sun in the circumference of a circle.” On which account, although he did not suffer persecution and imprisonment, like Galileo, yet he did not escape censure for his supposed impiety; for it is said Cleanthus was of opinion, that Aristarchus ought to have been tried for his opinions respecting the heavenly bodies and the earth. Aristarchus invented a peculiar kind of sun-dial, mentioned by Vitruvius. There is extant of his works only a treatise upon the magnitude and distance of the sun and moon; this was translated into Latin, and commented upon by Commandine, who first published it with Pappus’s explanations, in 1572, Pisaur, 4to. Dr. Wallis afterwards published it in Greek, with Commandine’s Latin version, in 1688, at Oxford, and which he inserted again in the third volume of his mathematical works, printed in folio at Oxford, in 1699. In 1644 was published, at Paris, a work entitled “De Mundi Systemate, cum notis Bl. P. Roberval,” 8vo, which goes under the name of Aristarchus; but it has been supposed to be a fiction.

, a prefect or officer under Ptolemy Philadelphus, king of Egypt, who respected him on account of his moderation and wisdom, is said to have been df Jewish origin. Ptolemy is reported to have sent him to demand of the high priest Eleazar, some learned men to translate the Jewish laws from Hebrew into Greek, and Eleazar complied by choosing seventy-two persons, who made the translation known by the name of the Septuagint. ArLteas has the credit of having written the history of this translation; and there exists a work of the kind which bears his name, entitled “Historia de S. Scripturse interpretibus,” Oxon. 1692, 8vo, which was first published in the Bible printed at Rome in 1471 2 vols. fol. But archdeacon Hody published it, with a confutation, in his work entitled “De Bibliorum Textibus Originalibus,” Oxon. 1705, fol. Van Dale and others have taken the same side of the question, which is amply discussed in Hody, already mentioned, and in Van Dale, “Dissert, sup. Arist.” Amst. 1704, 4to; Prideaux’s “Connections;” Owen’s “Inquiry into the Septuagint Version;” Blair’s “Lectures on the Canon;” Dupin’s “Preliminary Dissertation to the Bible;” Michaelis’s “Introduction to the New Testament,” &c. &c.

, the Proconnesian, an ancient Greek historian and poet, flourished in the time of Cyrus 5 and of Crœsus, about 565 years B. C. He is said to have written an epic poem, in three books, on the war of the Arimaspes, or Scythian hyperboreans, which is now lost. Longinus quotes six verses from it in his treatise on the Sublime, and Tzetzes six others. He had also composed a book on Theogony, or the history of the gods, which is likewise lost. Herodotus, Pliny, Pausanias, and Suidas, relate the grossest absurdities about this author, as, that his soul could leave his body at pleasure, and that he wrote poems after he was dead, &c.

, the sophist, was a native of Adriani, a small town in Mysia, and was disciple of Polemon the rhetorician of Smyrna, son of Eudaimon, a philosopher and priest of Jupiter in his own country. He also heard Herod at Athens, and Aristocles at Pergamus. He is supposed to have flourished about the year 176 of the Christian era. He appears to have been a good writer and an able orator. He is credulous, indeed, and superstitious, but there are many excellent passages in his writings in favour of truth and virtue, and he seems to have considered private virtue as indispensable to public character. A man of such eminence was no doubt an ornament to the heathen religion; and his eloquent hymns to the gods, and his other orations, must have had powerful attractions. To the city of Smyrna he was a great benefactor, for when, it was almost destroyed by an earthquake, he so pathetically represented their calamities, in a letter to the emperor Marcus, that this prince could not forbear weeping at some parts of it, and presently promised to restore the city. Besides this letter, he published a monody, bewailing the unhappy circumstances of the people of Smyrna, and after that wrote an oration, or epistle, in the year 173, congratulating tjiem on their restoration. In this last he celebrates not only the favour and liberality of the emperor, but likewise the generous compassion of many others, among whom Tillemont thinks he glanced at the Christians. Lardner has produced several passages from him, among his “Testimonies of ancient Heathens.” Aristides’s constitution was infirm, yet it is supposed he reached his sixtieth or seventieth year. The best edition of his works was published by Dr. Jebb, 2vols. 4to, Oxford, 1722—30.

, an eminent painter, was a native of Thebes, and contemporary with Apelles, about the year 300 or 340 B. C. His cheftfaeuvrc was the sacking of a town. Mr. Fuseli gives a very high character of him and of it. He applied the refinements of art to the mind. The passions which history had organized for Timanthes (an illustrious predecessor), Aristides caught as they rose from the breast, or escaped from the lips of nature herself: his volume was man, his scene society: he drew the subtle discriminations of mind in every stage of life, the whis. pers t the simple cry of passion, and its most complex accents. Such, as history informs us, was the suppliant whose voice you seemed to hear, such his sick man’s half extinguished eye and labouring breast, such the sister dying for her brother, and above all, the half-slain mother shuddering lest the eager babe should suck the blood from her palsied nipple. This picture was probably at Thebes, when Alexander sacked that town: what his feelings were when he saw it, we may guess from his sending it to Pella. Its expression, poised between the anguish of maternal affection and the pangs of death, gives to commiseration, an image, which neither the infant piteously caressing his slain mother in the groupe of Epigonus, nor the absorbed feature of the Niobe, nor the struggle of the Laocoon, excite. Euphranor the Isthmian, who excelled equally as painter and statuary, was the disciple of Aristides, and carried the refinements of expression still farther. Pliny gives an account of the principal works of Aristides, a great part of which were destroyed at the taking of Corinth by the Romans. King Attalus, having discovered among the booty a Bacchus painted by Aristides, offered 6000 sesterces for it, which Mummius the consul hearing, got possession of the picture, and brought it to Rome. When on his death-bed, Aristides began an Iris, which he left unfinished, and which no painter of the age would undertake to finish.

, a celebrated comic poet, was the son of Philip, and probably an Athenian by birth; but his place of nativity has been contested, his enemies endeavouring to represent him as a stranger. He was contemporary with Plato, Socrates, and Euripides; and most of his plays were written during the Peloponnesian war. His imagination was warm and lively, and his genius particularly turned to raillery: he had also great spirit and resolution, and was a declared enemy to slavery, and to all those who wanted to oppress their country. When the Athenians suffered themselves in his time to be governed by men who had no other view than to make themselves masters of the commonwealth, Aristophanes exposed their artifices with great wit and severity upon the stage. Cleo was the first whom he attacked, in his comedy of the “Equites:” and when none of the comedians would venture to personate a man of his great authority, Aristophanes played the character himself; and with so much success, that the Athenians obliged Cleo to pay a fine of five talents, which were given to the poet. This freedom of his likewise was so well received by the Athenians, that they cast handfuls of flowers upon his head, and carried him through the city in triumph with the greatest acclamation. They made also a public decree, that he should be honoured with a crown of the sacred olive-tree in the citadel, which was the greatest honour that could be paid to a citizen. He described the affairs of the Athenians in so exact a manner, that his comedies are a faithful history of that people. For this reason, when Dionysius king of Syracuse desired to learn the state and language of Athens, Plato sent him the plays of Aristophanes, telling him these were the best representation thereof. He wrote above 50 comedies, but there are only 11 extant which are perfect; these are “Plutus, the Clouds, the Frogs, Equites, the Acharnenses, the Wasps, Peace, the Birds, the Ecclesiazusae or Female Orators, the Thesmophoriazusae or Priestesses of Ceres, and Lysistrata.” The “Clouds,” which he wrote in ridicule of Socrates, is the most celebrated of all his comedies: Socrates had a contempt for the comic poets, and never went to see their plays, except when Alcibiades or Critias obliged him to go thither. He was shocked at the licentiousness of the old comedy; and as he was a man of piety, probity, candour, and wisdom, could not bear that the characters of his fellow-citizens should be insulted and abused. This contempt which he expressed to the comic poets, was the ground of their aversion to him, and the motive of Aristophanes’s writing the “Clouds” against him. Madam Dacier tells us, she was so much charmed with this performance, that after she had translated it, and read it over 200 times, it did not become tedious; and that the pleasure she received from it was so exquisite, as to make her forget all the contempt and indignation which Aristophanes deserved, for employing his wit to ruin a man, who was wisdom itself, and the greatest ornament of the city of Athens. Aristophanes having conceived some aversion to the poet Euripides, satirizes him in several of his plays, particularly in his “Frogs” and his “Thesmophoriazusae.” He wrote his “Peace” in the 10th year of the Peloponnesian war, when a treaty for 50 years was concluded between the Athenians and the Lacedaemonians, though it continued but seven. The “Acharnenses” was written after the death of Pericles, and the loss of the battle in Sicily, in order to dissuade the people from intrusting the safety of the commonwealth to such imprudent generals as Lamachus. Soon after, he represented his “Aves” or Birds, by which he admonished the Athenians to fortify Decelaea, which he calls by a fictitious name Nepheloccoccygia. The “Vespae,” or Wasps, was written after another loss in Sicily, which the Athenians suffered from the misconduct of Chares. He wrote the “Lysistrata” when all Greece was involved in a war, and in this the women are introduced debating on the affairs of the commonwealth, and come a resolution, not to cohabit with their husbands, 'till a peace should be concluded. His “Plutus,” and other comedies of that kind, were written after the magistrates had given orders, that no person should be exposed by name upon the stage. He invented a peculiar kind of verse, which was called by his name, and is mentioned by Cicero in his “Brutus;” and Suidas says, that he also was the inventor of the tetrameter and octameter verse.

, the chief of the peripatetic philosophers, and one of the most illustrious characters of ancient Greece, was born in the first year of the ninety-ninth olympiad, or 384 years before the Christian sera, at Stagyra, a town of Thrace, whence he is usually called the Stagyrite. His father was a physician, named Nicomachus: his mother’s name was Phaestias. He received the first rudiments of learning from Proxenus, of Atarna in Mysia, and at the age of 17 went to Athens, and studied in the school of Plato, where his acuteness and proficiency so attracted the notice of his master, that he used to call him “The mind of the school;” and said, when Aristotle happened to be absent, “Intellect is not here.” His works, indeed, prove that he had an extensive acquaintance with books; and Strabo says, he was the first person who formed a library. At this academy he continued until the death of Plato, whose memory he honoured by a monument, an oration, and elegies, which contradicts the report of his having had a difference with Plato, and erecting a school in opposition to him, as related by Aristoxenus. At the time of the death of Plato, Aristotle was in his thirty-seventh year; and when Speusippus, the nephew of Plato, succeeded him in the academy, our philosopher was so much displeased, that he left Athens, and paid a visit to Hermias, king of the Atarnenses, who had been his fellow-disciple, and now received him with every expression of regard. Here he remained three years, prosecuting his philosophical researches; and when Hermias was taken prisoner and put to death, he placed a statue of him in the temple at Delphos, and married his sister, who was now reduced to poverty and distress, by the revolution which had dethroned her brother. After these events, Aristotle removed to Mitelene, where, after he had resided two years, he received a respectful letter from Philip, king of Macedon, who had heard of his great fame, requesting him to undertake the education of his son, Alexander, then in his fifteenth year. Aristotle accepted the charge, and in 343 B. C. went to reside in the court of Philip.

Aristotle, upon his return to Athens, conceived the design of becoming a leader in philosophy, by founding a new sect, and chose for his school, the Lyceum, a grove in the suburbs of Athens, where he held daily conversation on subjects of philosophy with those who attended him, walking as he discoursed, whence his followers were called Peripatetics. According to the long-established practice of philosophers among the Grecians, Egyptians, and other nations, Aristotle had his public and his secret doctrine, the former of which he called the Exoteric, and the latter the Acroamatic or Esoteric. Hence he divided his auditors into two classes, to one of which he taught his Exoteric doctrine, discoursing on the principal subjects of logic, rhetoric, and policy; the other he instructed in the Esoteric, or concealed and subtle doctrine, concerning Being, Nature, and God. His more abstruse discourses he delivered in the morning to his select disciples, whom he required to have been previously instructed in the elements of learning, and to have discovered abilities and dispositions iuited to the study of philosophy. In the evening he delivered lectures to all young men without distinction; the former he called his Morning Walk, the latter his Evening Walk, and both were much frequented.

The character of Aristotle appears to be justly appreciated by Brucker, who observes, that some of Aristotle’s panegyrists, not contented with ascribing to him the virtues of a philosopher, or rather, perhaps, jealous of the credit which heathen philosophy might acquire from so illustrious a name, have ascribed his wisdom to divine revelation. The Jews have said that he gained his philosophy in Judea, and borrowed his moral doctrine from Solomon, and have even asserted, that he was of the seed of Israel, and the tribe of Benjamin. Christians have assigned him a place amongst those who were supeniaturally ordained to prepare the way for divine revelation, and have acknowledged themselves indebted to the assistance of the Peripatetic philosophy, for the depth and accuracy of their acquaintance with the sublime mysteries of religion. Others, who have confined their encomiums within the limits of probability, have said, that Aristotle was an illustrious pattern of gratitude, moderation, and the love of truth; and in confirmation of this general praise, have referred to his behaviour to his preceptor, his friends, and his countrymen, and to the celebrated apophthegm which has been commonly ascribed to him: Amicus Plato, amicus Socrates, magis tamen arnica veritas; “I respect Plato, and I respect Socrates, but I respect truth still more.” On the other hand, there have not been wanting writers who have represented Aristotle as the most infamous of human beings, and charged him with every kind of impiety and wickedness. Many of the calumnies against his memory, which have been transmitted to posterity, doubtless originated in the jealousy and envy of the rival sects, which were contemporaries with the Peripatetic school. To this source may be fairly referred the abuse of Timaeus, the Tauromenite, who says, that Aristotle, when he was a young man, after wasting his patrimony in prodigality, opened a shop for medicine in Athens, and that he was a pretender to learning, a vile parasite, and addicted to gluttony and debauchery.

If, without regard to the fictions either of calumny or panegyric, the merit of Aristotle be weighed in the equal balance of historical truth, it will, perhaps, be found, that neither were his virtues of that exalted kind which command admiration, nor his faults so highly criminal as not to admit of some apology. He may, perhaps, be justly censured for having taught his pupil Alexander, principles of morals and policy which were accommodated to the manners of a court, and which might easily be rendered subservient to his ambitious views. And it cannot be doubted that his philosophical doctrines concerning nature were not favourable to the public forms of religion. But neither his doctrine, nor his life, afford sufficient grounds for condemning him as the advocate of immorality or impiety.

To this general character by Brucker, it may be added, that no philosopher ever enjoyed so long a reign in the schools, or came nearer to our own times in the extent of his doctrine. The charm is, indeed, now broken: Christianity, the revival of letters and of sound learning since the reformation, and especially the introduction of experimental philosophy, have tended to lessen the value of the labours of this distinguished philosopher. Much praise, however, may be yet attributed to him, on permanent ground. His Dialectics show how the reasoning faculties may be employed with skill and effect; his ten celebrated Categories have not yet been convicted of great error, and his political and critical writings have very recently obtained the attention and approbation of some of our most eminent scholars and critics. “Whoever surveys,” says Dr. Warton, “the variety and perfection of his productions, all delivered in the chastest style, in the clearest order, and the most pregnant brevity, is amazed at the immensity of his genius. His Logic, however neglected for those redundant and verbose systems, which took rise from Locke’s Essay on the Human Understanding, is a mighty effort of the mind; in which are discovered the principal sources of art and reasoning, and the dependences of one thought on another; and where, by the different combinations he hath made of all the forms the understanding can assume in reasoning', which he hath traced for it, he hath so closely confined it, that it cannot depart from them, without arguing inconsequentially. His Physics contain many useful observations, particularly his History of Animals. His Morals are perhaps the purest system in antiquity. His Politics are a most valuable monument of the civil wisdom of the ancients, as they preserve to us the descriptions of several governments, and particularly of Crete and Carthage, that otherwise would have been unknown. But of all his compositions, his Rhetoric and Poetics are most complete: no writer has shewn a greater penetration into the recesses of the human heart than this philosopher, in the second book of his Rhetoric, where he treats of the different manners and passions that distinguish each different age and condition of man; and from whence Horace plainly took his famous description in the Art of Poetry. La Brnyere, Rochefoucalt, and Montaigne himself, are not to be compared to him in this respect. No succeeding writer on eloquence, not even Tully, has added any thing new or important on this subject. His Poetics seem to have been written for the use of that prince, with whose education Aristotle was honoured, to give him a just taste in reading Homer and the tragedians; to judge properly of which was then thought no unnecessary accomplishment in the character of a prince. To attempt to understand poetry without having diligently digested this treatise, would be as absurd and impossible, us to pretend to a skill in geometry without having studied Euclid. The fourteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth chapters, wherein he has pointed out the properest methods of exciting terror and pity, convince us that he was intimately acquainted with these objects, which most forcibly affect the heart. The prime excellence of this precious treatise is the scholastic precision, and philosophical closeness, with which the subject is handled, without any address to the passions or imagination. It is to be lamented that the part of the Poetics, in which he had given precepts for comedy, did not likewise descend to posterity.”

But before mentioning the opinions of modern critics, it may be necessary to give some account of the various writings of Aristotle, in which we shall partly follow Brucker, who observes that many of his writings are lost: few of them were made public during his life, and it was not long after his death before spurious productions were mixed with his genuine writings, so that it became difficult to distinguish them. Those which are at present generally received under his name, may he classed under the several heads of Logic, Physics, Metaphysics, Mathematics, Ethics, Rhetoric, and Poesy. The Logical writings of Aristotle are the “Categories,” attributed by some to Archytas, a Pythagorean; “Of the Explanation of Nouns and Verbs,” a work which explains the philosophical principles of grammar; “Analytics,” including the whole doctrine of syllogism and demonstration eight books of “Topics,” or common places, from which probable: arguments are to be drawn; and “Sophistic Arguments,” enumerating the several species of false reasoning. These logical pieces are usually published in one volume under the general title of the “Organon” of Aristotle. His Physical writings are, “On the Doqtrine of Nature,” explaining the principles and properties of natural bodies; “On Meteors;” “Of Animal Life;” “Physical Miscellanies;” “On the Natural History of Animals;” “On the Anatomy of Animals;” “On Plants;” “On Colours;” “On Sound;” “A Collection of Wonderful Facts;” “Against the doctrine of Xenophanes, Zeno, and Gorgias;” “On the Winds;” “On Physiognomy;” and “Miscellaneous Problems.” The Metaphysics of Aristotle are contained in fourteen books. Under the head of Mathematics, are included “A Book of Questions in Mechanics,” and another “On Incommensurable Lines.” His doctrine of Ethics is contained in ten books “To Nicomachus.” “The greater Morals;” “Seven Books to Eudemus,” ascribed by some to Theophrastus; a book “On Virtue and Vice;” two “On Œconomics;” and eight “On Government.” He treats in three distinct books “On the art of Rhetoric,” and in another, “On the art of Poetry.”

The first edition of Aristotle’s works was in Latin by Averroes, Venet. 1472—3, 4 vols. fol. The first Greek edition, usually reckoned thetiditioprinceps, is that of Aldus, in six volumes, 1495, fol. which is very rare. His distinct treatises have been published so often, that it is impossible to enumerate then) in this place, but the reader will find a copious list in the Bibliographical Dictionary. The best editions of the entire works are those of Casaubon, Ludg, 1590, 1606, 2 vols. fol. and of Duval, 2 or 4 vols. fol. Par. 1629.

Of Aristotle’s other writings, Mr. Ellis published the “Treatise on Government,” 4to, 1778. In 1797 Dr. Gillies made the English reader acquainted with tl Aristotle’s Ethics and Politics, comprising his practical Philosophy.“This elaborate work was illustrated by introductory matter and notes; the critical history of Aristotle’s life, and a new analysis of his speculative writings, the whole comprised in 2 vols. 4to. In 1801, Mr. Thomas Taylor published a quarto volume of which we shall give only the title,” The Metaphysics of Aristotle, translated from the Greek; with copious notes, in which the Pythagoric and Platonic Dogmas respecting numbers and ideas are unfolded from ancient sources. To which is added, a dissertation on Nullities and diverging Series; in which the conclusions of the greatest modern mathematicians on this subject are shown to be erroneous, the nature of infinitely small quantities is explained, and the To tv or the one of the Pythagoreans and Platonists, so often alluded to by Aristotle in this work, is elucidated." Mr. Bridgman in 1804, published a Synopsis of the Virtues or Vices, 8vo; and in 1807, the same gentleman gave “The paraphrase of Andronicus Rhodius on the Nicomachean Ethics of Aristotle,” a work which we regret we had not seen while preparing the article of Andronicus. As to the commentators on Aristotle, they are so numerous as to include the learned of all ages until within a century, and many hundreds are noticed in this Dictionary.

, the founder of the sect of Arians, in the fourth century, was a presbyter, probably a native of Alexandria, and officiated in a church in that city, although it is not certainly known in what capacity. It was, here, however, that he first declared those doctrines which afterwards rendered his name so celebrated, and which have descended to our own times. In an assembly of the presbyters of Alexandria, the bishop of that city, Alexander, in a speech on the subject of the Trinity, maintained, among other points, that the Son was not only of the same eminence and dignity, but also of the same essence with the father. This assertion was opposed by Arius, on account, as he pretended, of its affinity with the Sabellian errors, which had been condemned by the church, and he took this opportunity to assert that the Son was totally and essentially distinct from the Father; that he was the first and noblest of those beings whom God the Father had created out of nothing, the instrument by whose subordinate operation the Almighty Father formed the universe, and therefore inferior to the Father both in nature and dignity. What his opinion was concerning the Holy Ghost, or the other doctrines connected with the orthodox belief, is not known. Alexander, however, in two councils assembled at Alexandria, accused him of impiety, and caused him to be expelled from the communion of the church. This was in the year 319, or 320. The sentence appears to have extended to expulsion from the city, upon which he retired to Palestine, and wrote several letters to the most eminent men of the times, in favour of his doctrine, and exhibiting himself as a martyr for truth. Constantine, the emperor, at first looked upon this controversy as of trivial import, and addressed a letter to the contending parties, in which he advised them not to injure the church by their particular opinions, but, finding this of no avail, and observing the increase of the followers of Arius, in the year 325, he assembled the famous council of Nice in Bithynia, in which the deputies of the church universal were summoned to put an end to this controversy. Here, after much debate, the doctrine of Arius was condemned, and himself banished among the Illyrians. He and his adherents received also the opprobrious name of Porphyrians, his books were ordered to be burnt, and whoever concealed any of them were to be put to death. This severity, however, rather repressed than abolished the tenets, or lessened the zeal of Arius and his friends, who regained their consequence by a trick which marks the unsettled state of public opinion, and the wavering character of the emperor Constantine. A few years after the council of Nice, a certain Arian priest, who had been recommended to the emperor in the dying words of his sister Constantia, found means to persuade Constantine, that the condemnation of Arius was utterly unjust, and was rather owing to the malice of his enemies, than to their zeal for the truth. In consequence of this, the emperor recalled him from banishment, about the year 328, repealed the laws that had been enacted against him, and permitted his chief protector, Eusebius of Nicomedia, and his vindictive faction, to vex and oppress the partisans of the Nicene council in various ways. Athanasius, who was now become bishop of Alexandria, was one of those who suffered most from the violent measures of the Arian party, but invincibly firm in his principles, and deaf to the most powerful solicitations and entreaties, he refused to restore Arius to his former rank and office. On this account he was deposed by the council held at Tyre in the year 335, and was afterwards banished into Gaul, while Arius and his followers were, with great solemnity, reinstated in their privileges, and received into the communion of the church. The people of Alexandria, however, unmoved by these proceedings in favour of Arius, persisted in refusing him a place among their presbyters; on which the emperor invited him to Constantinople in the year 336, and ordered Alexander, the bishop of that city, to admit him to his communion; but before this order could be carried into execution, Arius died suddenly as he was easing nature. As this event happened on the day appointed for his admission, his friends gave out that he was poisoned; and his enemies, that he died by the just, judgment of God. On the latter report, we need make no remark, but the accounts of his death by no means favour the belief that he was poisoned. It is said that as he was Walking, he felt a necessity for retiring to ease nature, and that in the operation his entrails fell out, but no poison could have produced an effect so violent without having produced other and previous effects on the stomach: of his having been so affected, however, or making any complaint, we hear nothing, and as he was proceeding to the solemn act of being reinstated in the church, it is not probable that he felt any indisposition.

With respect to his personal character, he is said to have been grave and serious, yet affable and courteous, with good natural parts, and no inconsiderable share of secular learning of all sorts; he was particularly distinguished by his skill in logic, or the art of disputing. Dr. Lardner, whom we follow in this part of the history of Arius, says that he had at least the outward appearance of piety, and that from all the authorities he was able to recollect, his conduct was unblameable, excepting what relates to his zeal for maintaining his doctrines, and that he is charged with dissembling his real sentiments, upon some occasions, when pressed hard by the prevailing power of his adversaries. His character, however, as may be readily supposed, has been very differently represented by his contemporaries, and will be raised or lowered by succeeding writers as they are more or less disposed to represent his doctrines as truth or error. His works do not appear to have been voluminous, though it is probable he wrote many letters; we have still an epistle written by him to Eusebius of Nicomedia, and another to Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, between whom and him the controversy first arose. He also wrote several little poems, fitted for the use of the common people, in order to promote his peculiar opinions. There is a book called Thalia attributed to him by Athanasius, who speaks of it as being written with softness, pleasantry, or buffoonery.

, an eminent improver on English manufactures, was a native of Derbyshire, and in his early days, followed the humble occupation of a barber at Wirksworth, where, if we are not mistaken, his father had carried on the same trade. About the year 1767, he quitted both his occupation and residence, and went through the country buying hair. Soon after he became acquainted with a mechanic, with whom in concert he contrived, or, from whom, as some think, he learned the structure of a machine for spinning cotton, which after various adventures, and incredible perseverance, he brought to such perfection, as to become of the greatest advantage to the commerce of his country. He afterwards erected cotton works at Crumford in Derbyshire, and realized an immense fortune. In 1786, he served the office of high sheriff for that county, and was knighted on presenting an address to his majesty. He died at Crumford, August 3, 1792. Various opinions have been entertained of his right to the honour of inventing the machines by which he became enriched, and the kingdom so essentially benefited; but it is universally allowed that he discovered that spirit and perseverance in bringing them to perfection which were wanting in all preceding attempts.

, one of those buffoons who disgrace the regular professions, was the curate of the parish of St. Juste in Florence, in the fifteenth century. The name of his family was Mainardi, but he is generally known by that of Arlotto. He acquired notice in his time by his jests and witticisms, some of which that have been transmitted to us are upon subjects too sacred for ridicule or trifling. After his death, a collection was published with the title of “Facetie piacevoli, Fabule e Motti del Piovano Arlotto, Prete Fioreritino,” Venice, 1520, 8vo, reprinted at Florence, 1568, 8vo. He died Dec. 16, 1483, in the 87th year of his age, and was buried in a tomb which he had erected in his life-time. He is said to have made a journey to England in the time of Edward V.

, founder of the sect of Arminians, or Remonstrants, was born at Oudewater in Holland, 1560. He lost his father in his infancy, and was indebted for the first part of his education to a clergyman, who had imbibed some opinions of the reformed, and who, to avoid being obliged to say mass, often changed his habitation. Arminius was a student at Utrecht, when death deprived him of his patron, which loss would have embarrassed him greatly, had he not had the good fortune to be assisted by iiodolphus Snellius, his countryman, who took him with him to Marpurg in 1575. Soon after his arrival here, he heard the news of his country having been sacked by the Spaniards: this plunged him into the most dreadful affliction, yet he visited Holland, to be himself an eye-witness of the state tc which things were reduced; but having found that his mother, his sister, his brothers, and almost all the inhabitants of Oude-water, had been murdered, he returned to Marpurg. His stay here was, however, but short; for, being informed of the foundation of the university of Leyden, he went again to Holland, and pursued his studies at this new academy with so much assiduity and success, that he acquired very great reputation. He was sent to Geneva in 1583, at the expeuce of the magistrates of Amsterdam, to perfect his studies; and here he applied himself chiefly to the lectures of Theodore Beza, who was at this time explaining the Epistle to the Romans. Armiuius had the misfortune to displease some of the leading men of the university, because he maintained the philosophy of Ramus in public with great warmth, and taught it in private: being obliged therefore to retire, he went to Basil, where he was received with great kindness. Here he acquired such reputation, that the faculty of divinity offered him the degree of doctor without any expence, but he modestly excused himself from receiving this honour, and returned to Geneva; where having found the adversaries of Ramism. less violent than formerly, he became also more moderate. Having a great desire to see Italy, and particularly to hear the philosophical lectures of the famous James Zabarella, at Padua, he spent six or seven months in the journey: and then returned to Geneva, and afterwards to Amsterdam; where he found many calumnies raised against him, on account of his journey to Italy, which had somewhat cooled the affections of the magistrates of Amsterdam, his friends and patrons. He easily justified himself to some, but others remained prejudiced against him. He was ordained minister at Amsterdam in 1588, and soon distinguished himself by his sermons, which were so esteemed for their solidity and learning, that he was much followed, and universally applauded. Martin Lyclius, professor of divinity at Franeker, thought him a fit person to refute a writing, wherein the doctrine of Theodore Beza upon Predestination had been attacked by some ministers of Delft: Beza, and his followers, represented man, not considered as fallen, or even as created, as the object of the divine decrees. The ministers of Delft, on the other hand, made this peremptory decree subordinate to the creation and fall of mankind. They submitted their opinion to the public, in a book entitled “An Answer to certain arguments of Beza and Calvin, in the treatise concerning Predestination, upon the ninth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans.” This piece, which contained several difficulties, with which the doctrine of the divines of Geneva seemed to be embarrassed, was transmitted by the ministers of Delft to Martin Lydius, who promised to write a reply; but he applied to Arminius to take this upon him. Arminius, accordingly, at his earnest entreaty, undertook to refute this piece: but, upon examining and weighing the arguments on both sides, he embraced the opinions he proposed to confute; and even went farther than the ministers of Delft. He was threatened with some trouble about this at Amsterdam, being accused of departing from the established doctrine; but the magistrates of Amsterdam interposing their authority, prevented any dissension. In 1603, he was called to the professorship of divinity at Leyden: he began his lectures with three elegant orations; the first, Of the Object of Theology; the second, Of the Author and End of it; and the third, Of the Certainty of it; and then proceeded to the exposition of the prophet Jonah. The disputes upon grace were soon after kindled in the university, and the states of the province were forced to appoint conferences betwixt him and his adversaries. Gomarus was the great antagonist of Arminius; but the reputation of the latter was so well established, that he was continually attended by a numerous audience, who admired the strength of argument and solid learning which he shewed in all his lectures: this exposed him to the envy of his brethren, who treated him with great outrage. In 1607, he wrote an excellent letter to the ambassador of the elector Palatine, to vindicate his conduct with regard to the contests about religion, in which he was engaged: and the same year gave a full account to the states of Holland, of his sentiments with regard to the controverted points. These contests, however, his continual labour, and his uneasiness at seeing his reputation attacked in all quarters, threw him into a fit of sickness, of which he died the 19th of October, 1609.

His character has been represented in various lights, but it appears upon the whole to have been without reproach. Bertius, Curcellaeus, Episcopius, and others, who were his followers, have amply vindicated him; but Hornbeck and some of the Calvinistic writers represent him as an apostate from his original principles. King James I. whose authority may not perhaps be thought of much consequence, reflected on him with great severity in his letter to the States of the United Provinces in 1611. His principles, however, obtained many friends in England, and during the seventeenth century the divines of England were in general attached to them, particularly after the time of Laud, and more openly after the restoration. Before this period, the Puritans, and afterwards the Nonconformists, adhered to the Calvinistic system. How far the articles of the church of England belong to the one or the other, has lately been the subject of a very elaborate and learned controversy, of which some notice will be taken under the article Calvin. In the mean time, we shall state the distinguishing tenets of the Arminians; but it must be remarked that among modern divines there are many shades of opinion, which renders it difficult to lay down any set of principles which shall be admitted by general conseut. The Arminians, however, hold, That God, from all eternity, determined to bestow salvation on those whom he foresaw would persevere unto the end; and to inflict everlasting punishments on those who should continue in their unbelief, and resist his divine succours; so that election is conditional, and reprobation, in like manner, the result of foreseen infidelity and persevering wickedness: That Jesus Christ, by his sufferings and death, made an atonement for the sins of all mankind in general, and of every individual in particular: but that none except those who believe in him can be partakers of divine benefits: That true faith cannot proceed from the exercise of our natural faculties and powers, nor from the force and operation of free will; since man, in consequence of his natural corruption, is incapable either of thinking or doing any good thing: and that, therefore, it is necessary, in order to his conversion and salvation, that he be regenerated and renewed by the operation of the Holy Ghost, which is the gift of God through Jesus Christ: That this divine grace or energy of the Holy Ghost begins and perfects every thing that can be called good in man, and consequently all good works are to be attributed to God alone; that nevertheless this grace is offered to all, and does not force men to act against their inclinations, but may be resisted and rendered ineffectual by the perverse will of the impenitent sinner: That God gives to the truly faithful who are regenerated by his grace the means of preserving themselves in this state, or, according to the more modern Arminians, the regenerate may lose true justifying faith, fall from a state of grace, and die in their sins.

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

In 1760, he was appointed physician to the army in Germany, where in 1761 he wrote a poem called “Day,” addressed to Mr. Wilkes. It was published in the same year, probably by some person to whom Mr. Wilkes had lent it. The editor, in his prefatory advertisement, professes to lament that it is not in his power to present the public with a more perfect copy of this spirited letter. He ventures to publish it exactly as it came into his hands, without the knowledge or consent of the author, or of the gentleman to whom it is addressed. His sole motive is to communicate to others the pleasure he has received from a work of taste and genius. He thinks himself secure of the thanks of the public, and hopes this further advantage will attend the present publication, that it will soon be followed by a correct and complete edition from the author’s own manuscript.

All this is somewhat mysterious, but there will not, however, be much injustice in supposing that Mr. Wilkes conveyed to the press as much of this epistle as he thought would do credit to the author, and to himself. It is certain the poem was published by Andrew Millar, who was well acquainted with Dr. Armstrong, and would not have joined in any attempt to injure his fame or property. The poem contains many striking allusions to manners and objects of taste, but the versification is frequently careless; the author did not think proper to add it to his collected works, nor was it ever published in a more correct form.

His character is said to have been that of a man of learning and genius, of considerable abilities in his profession, of great benevolence and goodness of heart, fond of associating with men of parts and genius, but indolent and inactive, and therefore totally unqualified to employ the means that usually lead to medical employment, or to make his way through a crowd of competitors. An intimate friendship always subsisted between him and Thomson the poet, as well as other gentlemen of learning and genius; and he was intimate with, and respected by sir John Pringle, at the time of his death. In 1753, Dr. Theobald addressed two Latin Odes, “Ad ingenuum viriim, turn naedici^, tum-poeticis facultatibus praestantem, Joannem Armstrong, M. D.”

, or Merruil, a poet of Provence, lived at the beginning of the thirteenth century. Having made some progress in learning, he thought it necessary to travel, and studied particularly the Provençal language, which was then most esteemed by those who were fond of poetry and romances. He entered into the service of the viscount of Beziers, who was married to the countess of Burlas, with whom Arnaud fell violently in love. He durst not, however, declare his passion; and several sonnets which he wrote in her praise, he ascribed to others: but at length he wrote one, which made such an impression on the lady, that she behaved to him with great civility, and made him considerable presents. He wrote a book intitled “Las recastenas de sa comtessa;” and a collection of poems and sonnets. He died in 1220. Petrarch mentions him in his “Triumph of Love.”

, a surgeon of some eminence in London, was originally a native of France, and a member of the Academy of surgery at Paris, which city he left about the year forty-six or seven, and came to reside in London. Here he published several works, particujarly on Ruptures; the first was entitled “Dissertations on Ruptures,” 1749,in 2 vols. 12mo, and in 1754 he published “Plain and familiar instructions to persons afflicted with Ruptures,” 12mo; “Observations on Aneurism,” 1760; “Familiar instructions on the diseases of the Urethra and Bladder,” 1763; “Dissertations on Hermaphrodites,” 1765; “A discourse on the importance of Anatomy,” delivered at Surgeons’ hall, Jan. 21, 1767, 4to. His principal work appeared in 1768, entitled “Memoires de Chirurgie, avec des remarques sur l'etat de la Medicine et de la Chirurgie en France et en Angleterre,” 2 vols. 4to. This is the only work he published in French, after his coming to England It consists of eleven memoirs, two of which are translated from the English of Dr. Hunter’s Medical Commentaries, on the Hernia Congenita, and a particular species of Aneurism. He appears, as a practitioner, to have possessed much skill, and as a writer to have been industrious in collecting information on the topics which employed his pen, but was somewhat deficient in judgment, and not a little credulous. So much was he attached to the ancient prejudices of his church, that he employs one of the memoirs in these volumes on the question, whether a rupture should incapacitate a man from performing the functions of the Romish priesthood, which he, however, is disposed to decide in the negative. Ie informs us in this work, that he had studied rupture cases for the space of fifty years, and that the same study had been cultivated in his family for the space of 200 years. The only notice we have of his reputation in his own country is to be found in the dis course on Anatomy which he delivered in Surgeons’ hall. In this he informs us that he had the honour to instruct Adelaide of Orleans, princess of the blood, and a very accomplished lady, in the operations of surgery.

, eldest son of Anthony Arnauld, and advocate-general to Catherine de Medicis, was born at Paris in 1550, or, according to some, in 1560, and in that city he was educated, and took his degree of M. A. in 1573. Some time after, he was admitted advocate of the parliament of Paris, in which capacity he acquired great reputation by his integrity and extraordinary eloquence. Henry IV. had great esteem for Arnauld; and his majesty once carried the duke of Savoy on purpose to hear him plead in, parliament. He was appointed counsellor and attorneygeneral to queen Catherine of Medicis. Mr. Marion, afterwards advocate-general, was one day so pleased with hearing him, that he took him into his coach, carried him home to dinner, and placed him next his eldest daughter, Catherine, and afterwards gave her to him in marriage. One of the most famous causes which Arnauld pleaded, was that of the university against the Jesuits, in 1594. There was published about this time a little tract in French, entitled “Franc et veritable discours,” &c. or, A frank and true discourse to the king, concerning the re-establishment of the Jesuits, which they had requested of him. Some have ascribed this to Arnauld, but others have positively denied him to be the author. Some have supposed that Arnauld was of the reformed religion; but Mr. Bayle has fully proved this to be a mistake. His other works were, 1. “Anti-Espagnol,” printed in a collection of discourses on the present state of France, 1606, 12mo, and in the “Memoires de la Ligue, vol. IV. p. 230. 2.” La Fleur de Lys,“1593, 8vo. 3.” La Delivrance de la Bretagne.“4.” La Premiere Savoisienne,“8vo. 1601, 1630. 5.” Avis au roi Louis XIII. pour bien regner,“1615, 8vo. 6. The first and second” Philippics" against Philip II. of Spain, 1592, 8vo. He died Dec. 29, 1619, leaving ten children out of twenty-two, whom he had by his wife Catherine.

, eldest son of the preceding, was born at Paris in 1589. He was introduced at Court when very young, and employed in many considerable offices, all which he discharged with great reputation and integrity. No man was ever more esteemed amongst the great, and none ever employed more generously the influence he had with them, in defence of truth and justice. He quitted business, and retired to the convent of Port Royal des Champs, at fifty-five years of age; where he passed the remainder of his days in a continual application to works of piety and devotion. He enriched the French language with many excellent translations: he also wrote poems on sacred and other subjects. Mr. Arnauld, during his retirement at Port Koyal des Champs, after seven or eight hours study every day, used to divert himself with rural amusements, and particularly with cultivating his trees, which he brought to such perfection, and had such excellent fruit from them, that he used to send some of it every year to queen Anne of Austria, which this princess liked so well, that she always desired to be served with it in the season. He died at Port Royal, Sept. 27, 1674, in his 86th year. He married the daughter of the sieur le Fevre de la Boderie, famous for his embassy to England, and had by her three sons and five daughters. He wrote a great many devotional works, of which there is a catalogue in Moreri, and in the Journal de Savans for Sept. 9, 1695. He also enriched the French language by some translations of the “Confessions of St. Augustine,” 8vo and 12 mo; a translation, rather elegant than faithful, of “Josephus,” 5 vols. 8vo; “Lives of the Saints,” 3 vols. 8vo; the “Works of St. Theresa,” 1670, 4to; and “Memoirs of his own Life,” 2 vols. 12mo, 1734.

He died on the 9th of August 1694, of a short illness, aged 82 years and six months. He had a remarkable strength of genius, memory, and command of his pen, nor did these decay even to the last year of his life. Mr. Bayle says, he had been told by persons who had been admitted into his familiar conversation, that he was a man very simple in his manners; and that, unless any one proposed some question to him, or desired some information, he said nothing that was beyond common conversation, or that might indicate the man of great abilities; but when he set himself to give an answer to such as proposed a point of learning, he then spoke with great perspicuity and learning, and had a particular talent at making himself intelligible to persons of not the greatest penetration. His heart, at his own request, was sent to be deposited in the Port Royal.

The most famous work of Arndt, is his “Treatise of true Christianity,” in the German language. The first book of it was printed separate in 1605 at Jena, by Stegman: he published the three others in 1608. The first is called the “Book of Scripture:” he endeavours in it to shew the way of the inward and spiritual life, and that Adam ought to die every day more and more in the heart of a Christian, and Christ to gain the ascendant there. The second is called “The Book of Life:” he proposes in it to direct the Christian to a greater degree of perfection, to give him a relish for sufferings, to encourage him to resist his enemies after the example of his Saviour. The third is entitled “The Book of Conscience:” in this he recalls the Christian within himself, and discovers to him the kingdom of God seated in the midst of his own heart. The last book is entitled “The Book of Nature:” the author proves here, that all the creatures lead men to the knowledge of their Creator. This work was translated into many different languages, and among the rest into English, the first part, or the Book of Scripture, 1646, 12mo; and afterwards the whole was published at London 1712, 8vo, and dedicated to queen Anne, by Mr. Boehm; but the editions of 1720, one of which is in 3, and the other in 2 vols. 8vo, are the most complete.

, an eminent English musician, was the son of Thomas Arne, upholsterer, of Kingstreet, Covent-garden, at whose house the Indian kings lodged in the reign of queen Anne, as mentioned in the Spectator, No. 50, and who had been before pleasantly depicted by Addison, in the Tatler, Nos. 155 and 160, as a crazy politician. He sent this son, who was born May 28, 1710, to Eton school, and intended him for the profession of the law; but even at Eton his love for music interrupted his studies and after he left that school, such was his passion for his favourite pursuit, that he used to avail himself of the privilege of a servant, by borrowing a livery, and going into the upper gallei'y of the opera, which was then appropriated to domestics. At home he had contrived to secrete a spinet in his room, upon which, after muffling the strings with a handkerchief, he used to practise in the night while the rest of the family were asleep, His father, who knew nothing of this, bound him to a three years’ clerkship, during which this young votary of Apollo dedicated every moment he could obtain fairly, or otherwise, to the study of music. Besides practising on the spinet, and studying composition, by himself, he contrived to acquire some instructions on the violin, of Festing, a performer of much fame at that time; and upon this instrument he had made so considerable a progress, that soon after he quitted his legal master, his father accidentally calling at a gentleman’s house in the neighbourhood, was astonished to find a large party, and a concert, at which his son played the first fiddle. His father was at first much irritated at this disappointment of his hopes, but was soon prevailed upon to let his son follow the bent of his inclinations; and the young man was no sooner at liberty to play aloud in his father’s house, than he bewitched the whole family. In particular, he cultivated the voice of one of his sisters, who was fond of music, by giving her such instruct tions as enabled her to become a favourite public performer. For her and for a younger brother, who performed the character of the page, he set to music Addison’s opera of Rosamond, which was performed at Lincoln’s Inn Fields, ten nights successively, and with great applause.

Having succeeded so well in a serious opera, Mr. Arne tried his powers at a burletta, and set Fielding’s Tom Thumb, under the title of “The Opera of Operas,” to music, after the Italian manner, which had afterwards a considerable run. In 1738, he established his reputation as a lyric composer, by the admirable manner in which he set Milton’s Comus. In this masque he introduced a light, airy, original, and pleasing melody, wholly different from that of Purcell or Handel, whom all English composers had hitherto either pillaged or imitated. Indeed, says Dr. Burney, to whom we are indebted for all that is valuable in this memoir, the melody of Arne at this time, and of his Vauxhall songs afterwards, forms an era in English music; it was so easy, natural, and agreeable to the whole kingdom, that it had an effect upon our national taste; and till a more modern Italian style was introduced in the pasticcio English operas of Messrs. Bickerstaff and Cumberland, it was the standard of all perfection at our theatres and public gardens, In 1762, Arne quitted the former style of melody, in which he had so well set Comus, and furnished Vauxhall and the whole kingdom with such songs as had improved and polished our national taste; and when he set the bold translation of Metastasio’s opera of Artaserse, he crowded the airs with all the Italian divisions and difficulties which had ever been heard at the opera. This drama, however, by the novelty of the music to English ears, and the talents of the original performers, Tenducci, Peretti, and Miss Brent, had very great success, and still continues to be represented whenever singers of superior abilities can be procured. But in setting Artaxerxes, though the melody is less original than that of Comus, Arne had the merit of first adapting many of the best passages of Italy, which all Europe admired, to our own language, and of incorporating them with his own property, and with what was still in favour of former English composers.

The general melody of Arne, if analyzed, would perhaps appear to be neither Italian nor English, but an agreeable mixture of Italian, English, and Hcotch. Many of his ballads, indeed, were professed imitations of the Scotch style, but in his other songs he frequently dropped into it, perhaps without design. Arne was never a dose imitator of Handel, nor thought, by the votaries of that great musician, to be a sound contrapuntist. However, he had an inward and secret reve.renc.e for his abilities, and for those of Geminiani, as vvejl as for the science of Pepusch; but except when he attempted oratorios, theirs was not the merit requisite for him, a popular composer who had different performers and different hearers to write for. In the science of harmony, though he was chiefly self-taught, yet being a man of genius, quick parts, and great penetration, in his art, he betrayed no ignorance or want of study in his scores. The oratorios he produced were so unfortunate, that he was always a loser whenever they were performed. And yet it would be unjust to say that they did not merit a better fate; for though the chorusses were much inferior in force to those of Handel, yet the airs were frequently admirable. None, indeed, of his capital productions had full and unequivocal success but Comus and Artaxerxes, at the distance of twenty-four years from each other. The number of his unfortunate pieces for the stage was prodigious; yet none of them were condemned or neglected for want of merit in the music, but the words, which he too frequently wrote himself. Upon the whole, though Arne had formed a new style of his own, there did not appear that fertility of ideas, original grandeur of thought, or those resources upon all occasions, which are discoverable in the works of his predecessor, Purcell, both for the church and stage; yet in secular music, he must be allowed to have surpassed him in ease, grace, and variety; which is no inconsiderable praise, when it is remembered, that from the death of Purcell to tnat of Arne, a period of more than fourscore years, no candidate for musical fame among our countrymen had appeared, who was equally admired by the nation at large.

, an Italian physician and poet, was born at Brescia, in Lombardy, in 1523. His father was a poor blacksmith, with whom he worked until his eighteenth year. He then began to read such books as came in his way, or were lent him by the kindness of his friends, and, with some difficulty, was enabled to enter himself of the university of Padua. Here he studied medicine, and was indebted for his progress, until he took the degree of doctor, to the same friends who had discovered and wished to encourage his talents. On his return to Brescia, he was patronised by the physician Consorto, who introduced him to good practice; but some bold experiments which he chose to try upon his patients, and which ended fatally, rendered him so unpopular, that he was obliged to fly for his life. After this he gave up medicine, and cultivated poetry principally, during his residence at Venice and some other places, where he had many admirers. He died at last, in his own country, in 1577. His principal works are, 1. “Le Rime,” Venice, 1555, 8vo. 2. “Lettera, Rime, et Orazione,” 1558, 4to, without place or printer’s name. 3. " Lettura letta publicamente soprq, il sonetto del Petrarca,

, an African, and a celebrated apologist for Christianity, is said to have taught rhetoric at Sicca in Africa, with great reputation, and to have been converted to Christianity, but the means by which his conversion was effected are variously represented by ecclesiastical writers. Jerom says that he was admonished in his dreams to embrace Christianity; that when he applied to the bishop of the place for baptism, he rejected him, because he had been wont to oppose the Christian doctrine, and that Arnobius immediately composed an excellent work against his old religion, and was consequently admitted into the Christian church. But this seems highly improbable. Lardner, who has investigated the early history of Arnobius with his, usual precision, is inclined to think that Arnobius had been a Christian for a considerable time before he wrote his great work “Disputationes adversus Gentes,” and it is certain that he continually speaks of himself as being a Christian, and describes the manner of the Christian worship, their discourses, and prayers, which he could not have done if he had not been fully acquainted wiili it; nor could he have undertaken the public defence of that religion without being thoroughly versed in its doctrines. He allows, indeed, that he was once a blind idolater, and he professes to have been taught by Christ, but imputes no part of his conversion to dreams. Besides, his work is a very elaborate composition, and illustrated by a profusion of quotations from Greek and Latin authors, which must have been the result of long study. The exact time when Arnobius flourished is uncertain. Cave places him about the year 303; Tillemont is inclined to the year 297, or sooner. He wrote his book probably about the year 297 or 298; but Lardner is of opinion not so soon. The time of his death is uncertain. His work is not supposed to have come down to us complete, but that some part is wanting at the end, and some at the beginning. He appears, however, to have studied both the internal and external evidences of Christianity with much attention. He was learned and pious, and although his style is generally reckoned rough and unpolished, and has some uncouth and obsolete words, it is strong and nervous, and contains some beautiful passages. It is very highly to the honour of Arnobius, who was accomplished in all the learning of Greece and Rome, that he embraced the Christian religion when it was under persecution. There is reason, indeed, to suppose that the patience and magnanimity of the Christian sufferings induced him to inquire into the principles of a religion which set human wickedness and cruelty at defiance. His work “Adversus Gentes” has been often reprinted; the first edition at Rome, 1542, folio; to which, it is rather singular, that the editor added the Octavius of Minucius Felix, as an eighth book, mistaking Octavius for Octavus. It was reprinted at Basil, 1546; Antwerp, 1582; Geneva, 1597; Hamburgh, 1610; and at Leyden, but incorrectly, in 1651.

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

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

, pastor and inspector of the churches of Perleberg, and historiographer to the king of Prussia, was born at Annaburg in Misnia, in 1666. He was a man of considerable eloquence and extensive reading, but he disturbed the tranquillity of the church by his singular opinions in theology, and especially by his “Ecclesiastical History,” in which he seemed to place all opinions, orthodox or heretic, on the same footing, but considered the mystic divines as superior to all other writers, and as the only depositaries of true wisdom. He wished to reduce the whole of religion to certain internal feelings and motions, of which, perhaps, few but himself or his mystical brethren could form an idea. As he advanced in years, however, he is said to have perceived the errors into which he had been led by the impetuosity of his passions, and became at last a lover of truth, and a pattern of moderation. His principal works were this “Ecclesiastical History,” which was printed at Leipsic in 1700, and his “History of Mystic Theology,” written in Latin. He died in 1714. There is a very elaborate account of his life and writings in the General Dictionary, and of his opinions in Mosheim’s Ecclesiastical History.