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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

, a poetical and miscellaneous English writer, was educated at Westminster school, and thence elected to Christ-church, Oxford, where he took the degree of M.A. March 23, 1696, and of B. D. Dec. 12, 1706. On his coming to the university, he was very soon distinguished by dean Aldrich, and published “Fabularum Æsopicarurn delectus,” Oxon. 1698, 8vo, with a poetical dedication to lord viscount Scudamore, and a preface in which he took part against Dr. Bentley in the famous dispute with Mr. Boyle. This book, Dr. Warton observes, is not sufficiently known. It was better known at one time, however, if we may credit bishop Warburton, who, in one of his letters to Dr. Hurd, says that “a powerful cabal gave it a surprising turn.” Alsop passed through the usual offices in his college to that of censor, with considerable reputation; and for some years had the principal noblemen and gentlemen belonging to the society committed to his care. In this useful employment he continued till his merit recommended him to sir Jonathan Trelawny, bishop of Winchester, who appointed him his chaplain, and soon after gave him a prebend in his own cathedral, together with the rectory of Brightwell, in the county of Berks, which afforded him ample provision for a learned retirement, from which he could not be drawn by the repeated solicitations of those who thought him qualified for a more public character and a higher station. In 1717 an action was brought against him by Mrs. Elizabeth Astrey of Oxford, for a breach of a marriage contract; and a verdict obtained against him for 2,000l. which probably occasioned him to leave the kingdom for some time. How long this exile lasted is unknown; but his death happened, June 10, 1726, and was occasioned by his falling into a ditch that led to his garden-door, the path being narrow, and part of it giving way. A quarto volume of his was published in. 1752, by the late sir Francis Bernard, under the title of “Antonii Alsopi, sedis Christi olim alumni, Odarum libri duo.” Four English poems of his are in Dodsley’s collection, one in Pearch’s, several in the early volumes of the Gentleman’s Magazine, and some in the “Student.” He seems to have been a pleasant and facetious companion, not rigidly bound by the trammels of his profession, and does not appear to have published any sermons. Mr. Alsop is respectfully mentioned by the facetious Dr. King of the Commons (vol. I. p. 236.) as having enriched the commonwealth of learning, by “Translations of fables from Greek, Hebrew, and Arabic 5” and not less detractingly by Dr. Bentley, under the name of “Tony Alsop, a late editor of the Alisopean Fables.” Sir Francis Bernard, his editor, says, that among the various branches of philological learning for which he was eminent, his singularly delicate taste for the classic poets was the chief. This induced him to make use of the Sapphic numbers in his familiar correspondence with his most intimate friends, in which he shewed a facility so uncommon, and a style so natural and easy, that he has been, not unjustly, esteemed not inferior, to his nic;ter Horace.

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

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

, an ingenious physician and botanist, was the son of Mr. Alston, of Eddlewood, a gentleman of small estate in the west of Scotland, and allied to the noble family of Hamilton, who, after having studied physic, and travelled with several gentlemen, declined the practice of his profession, and retired to his patrimony. His son Charles was born in 1683, and at the time of his father’s death was studying at the university of Glasgow. On this event, the duchess of Hamilton took him under her patronage, and recommended to him the profession of the law, but his inclination for botany and the study of medicine superseded all other schemes; and from the year 1716, he entirely devoted himself to medicine. In that year he went over to Leyden, and studied under Boerhaave for three years; and having here formed an acquaintance with the celebrated Dr. Alexander Monro, the first of that name, on their return they projected the revival of medical lectures and studies at Edinburgh. For this purpose they associated themselves with Drs. Rutherford, Sinclair, and Plummer, and laid the foundation of that high character, as a medical school, which Edinburgh has so long enjoyed. Dr. Alston’s department was botany and the materia medica, which he continued to teach with unwearied assiduity until his death, Nov. 22, 1760, in the seventy-seventh year of his age.

, the reviver of industry and commerce in Sweden, was born in 1685, in the small town of Alingsas in West Gothland, of poor parents. After struggling for a long time with the evils of want, he came to London, where he paid particular attention to commercial speculations; and from his inquiries into the prosperity of England, he deduced the importance of manufactures and commerce. His native country, for several centuries engaged in war, had made little progress in the arts of industry, but was now endeavouring to promote them; and Alstroemer having formed his plan, returned to Sweden to assist his fellow-citizens in this undertaking. In 1723, he requested of the states a licence to establish manufactures in the town in which he was born, and it soon became the seat of activity and industry, which spread over other parts of the kingdom. In the mean time he travelled to acquire a knowledge of the inventions and the methods practised in Germany, Holland, and Flanders, collected able workmen, and the best models, and published several instructive papers. At the same time he carried on trade, in partnership with Nicholas Sahlgren, at Gottenburgh. Here he established a sugar-house, traded to the Indies and the Levant, and bestowed so much attention on rural opconomy, as to introduce some very essential improvements, cultivating plants proper for dying, and extending the culture of potatoes, then a novelty in Sweden. He also improved the wool-trade by importing the sheep of Spain and England, and even the Angora goat. The manufacture of cloth, and other articles from wool, was now much encouraged, and gave employment to a great number of hands, who manufactured to the value of three millions of livres tournois per annum, and relieved the country from the necessity of having recourse to foreign markets; but in other manufactures, as the silk, then did not succeed so well. Alstroemer has been accused of not paying sufficient attention to local circumstances in some of his schemes, and of having encouraged notions that were more showy than solid; but his design was truly patriotic, and his country readily acknowledged the benefit it has derived from his labours. The king Frederic bestowed on him the title of counsellor of commerce, and the order of the polar star; Adolphus Frederic granted him letters of nobility; and the academy of sciences chose him a member, while the States decreed that his statue should be placed on the exchange at Stockholm, with this inscription: “Jonas Alstjoemer, artium fabrilium in patria instaurator.” “J. A. the reviver of manufactures.” He died in 1761, leaving a considerable fortune. His four sons, Claude, Patrick, John, Augustus, were distinguished for talents and patriotism, and the first three were members of the academy of Stockholm.

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

, a celebrated Lutheran minister at Nuremberg, published in the sixteenth century several works in Divinity, as “Conciliationes locorum scripturæ,” 1528, 8vo, Latin and German; “Annotationes in Jacobi Epistolam;” “De Peccato Originali” and “De Sacramento altaris.” He likewise published “Sylva Biblicorum nominum,” Basil, 1535; and “Notes upon Tacitus de situ, moribus, et populis Germanise,” Nuremberg, 1529, 1536, and at Amberg, 1609, 8vo. He was at the conferences at Berne in 1528, which paved the way to the reformation of that canton. His principles appear to have inclined to Antinomianism, and he attacked the authority of the Epistle of St. James with great indecency: this afterwards was introduced in the dispute between Grotius and Rivet, of which an account may be seen in Bayle. Althamerus, who died about 1540, was sometimes called Andrew Brentius from the place of his nativity, Brentz, near Gundelfingcn, in Swabia; and sometimes he assumed the fictitious name of Palaeo Sphyra, 1. Arnold Ballenstad published a life of him in 1740.

, a German Protestant lawyer, was born about the middle of the sixteenth century, and became law-professor p.t Herborn, and syndic at Bremen. He wrote some treatises in the way of his profession, “De Jurisprudentia Romana,” and “De civili conversatione;” but what made him principally known, was his “Politica methodice digesta,” 1603, in, which he maintained the sovereignty of the people, and their right to put kings to death, and those other doctrines, the effects of which were so extensively displayed in England in the seventeenth, and in France in the eighteenth century. A recent French biographer, Michaud, observes that “these strange opinions produced by the revolutionary spirit which prevailed in the sixteenth century, have been revived in ours by the demagogues, who fancy that they are advancing something new.” Althusen died in the early part of the seventeenth century.

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

, an eminent German divine, was born at Embden, Feb. 17, 1583, of a family of considerable note in Friesland. His father, Menso Alting, was one of the first who preached the doctrines of the reformation in the territory of Groningen, about the year 1566, and under the tyrannical government of the duke of Alva. He faithfully served the church of Embden during the space of thirty-eight years, and died Oct. 7th, 1612. His sjn was from a child designed for the ministry, and sent very early to school, and afterwards into Germany in 1602. At Herborn he made such uncommon progress under the celebrated Piscator, Matthias, Martinius, &c. that he was allowed to teach philosophy and divinity. While preparing for his travels into Switzerland and France, he was chosen preceptor to three young counts, who studied at Sedan with the electoral prince Palatine, and took possession of that employment about September 1605; but the storm which the duke of Bomllon was threatened with by Henry IV. obliging the electoral prince to retire from Sedan with the three young noblemen, Alting accompanied them to Heidelberg. Here he continued to instruct his noble pupils, and was admitted to read lectures in geography and history to the electoral prince till 1608, when he was declared his preceptor. In this character he accompanied him to Sedan, and was afterwards one of those who were appointed to attend the young elector on his journey into England in 1612, where he became acquainted with Dr. Abbot, archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. King, bishop of London, Dr. Hackwell, preceptor to the prince of Wales; and also had the honour of an audience of king James. The marriage between the elector and the princess of England being solemnized at London in Feb. 1613, Alting left England, and arrived at Heidelberg. In the ensuing August he was appointed professor of the common places of divinity, and to qualify himself for presiding in theological contests, he took the degree of D. D. In 1616 he had a troublesome office conferred upyn him, that of director of the collegium supientite of Heidelberg. In 1618 he was offered the second professorship of divinity, vacant by the death of Coppeniiis, which he refused, but procured it for Scultetus.

He distinguished himself by his learning at the synod of Dort, whither he. was sent with two other deputies of the Palatinate, Scultetus and Tossanus. He appears to have conceived great hopes soon after his return to Heidelberg, the elector Palatine having gained a crown by the troubles of Bohemia, but he met with a dreadful disappointment. Count Tilli took Heidelberg by storm in Sept. 1622, and allowed his soldiers to commit every species of outrage and violence. Alting escaped almost by a miracle, which is thus related: He was in his study, when news was brought that the enemy was master of the town, and ready to plunder it. Upon his bolting his door he had recourse to prayer. One of his friends, accompanied by two soldiers, advised him to retire by the back door into the chancellor’s house, which was protected by a strong guard, because count Tilli designed the papers that were lodged there should come entire into his hands. The lieutenant-colonel of the regiment of Hohenzollen was upon this guard, and addressing himself to Alting, said, “With this axe I have killed to-day ten men, and Dr. Alting shall be the eleventh, if I can discover where he has hid himself,” and concluded this barbarous speech by asking Alting, “who are you?” Alting, with great presence of mind, answered, “I have been regent in the college of Sapience.” This expression the savage murderer did not understand, and permitted him to escape. On this he contrived to retire to his family, which he had sent some time before to Heilbrun. He rejoined it at Schorndorf, but was not allowed to continue there more than a few months, owing to the illiberal conduct of some Lutheran ministers. In 1623 he retired with his family to Embden, and afterwards to the Hague, where the king of Bohemia engaged him to instruct his eldest son, but permitted him at the same time to accept a professorship of divinity at Groningen, which he entered upon, June 16, 1627, and kept to the day of his death.

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

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

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

, a celebrated lawyer of Padua, flourished in the fifteenth century. His family was originally of Hungary, and allied to the Speroni, both of which have produced very eminent men. The subject of this short article was very learned both in the civil and canon law, which he had studied under Barthelemi Saliceti and Francis Zabarella, who was afterwards cardinal. He then became professor at Padua, where he wrote several treatises, and among them “Comtnentaria in Libros Feudorum,” a work long held in estimation, and frequently quoted by the Italian lawyers. He died June 27, 1452, and was interred in the church of St. Anthony.

a modern German poet, was born at Vienna, Jan. 24, 1755; his father was a civilian, and consistory counsellor to the bishop of Passau, He studied the classics under the celebrated antiquary Eckhel, keeper of the medals at Vienna, and while with him, imbibed such a taste for reading-the ancient poets, that he knew most of their writings by heart, and was always so fond of this study, that he remembered with gratitude, to the last hour of his life, the master who had initiated him in it, nor did he neglect his favourite authors, even when obliged to attend the courts of law. When the death of his parents had put him in possession of a considerable patrimony, he made no other use of his doctor’s and advocate’s titles, than in reconciling the differences of such clients as addressed themselves to him for advice. His first poetical attempts appeared in the Muses’ Almanack, and other periodical publications at Vienna, and of these he published a collection at Leipsic in 1784, and at Klagenfurth in 1788, which procured him the honour of being ranked among the best poets of his country for elegance, energy, and fertility of imagination. In the “New Collection of Poetry,” printed at Vienna in 1794, he contributed some pieces not so favourable to his character; but he completely re-established his fame by the publication of “Doolin of Mentz,” and “Bliomberis,” two poems of the romantic cast, in imitation of.Wieland, to whom the last was dedicated. In 1791, he published a German translation of Florian’s “Numa Pompilius,” which some have thought equal to the original, but in many parts it is deficient in elegance. It was, however, his last performance, except the assistance he gave to some literary contemporaries in translating the foreign journals. During the three last years of his life, he was secretary and inspector of the court theatre, and died May 1, 1797, of a nervous fever. He was a man of warm affections and gaiety of temper, and of his liberality he afforded a striking instance in the case of Haschka the poet, whom he regarded as one of the cipal supporters of German literature. He not only ac commodated him with apartments in his house, but made him a present of 10,000 florins. Of his faults, it is only recorded that he was a little vain, and a little given to the pleasures of the table.

, of the fourth century, was an architect in the service of Julian the apostate, who com?­mitted to his care the rebuilding the temple of Jerusalem, which he was forced to abandon, by fires which issued from under the earth, and rendered the place inaccessible. Eight years after, he found himself involved in an accusar tion of magic, and with a great many others condemned without proof and banished, after his goods had been confiscated. His son Hierocles, condemned to death on the same accusation, made his escape when they were leading him to execution; and the news of this happy circumstance softened the affliction of Alvpius in his banishment. He is the reputed author of a geographical work published by Godefroy, at Geneva, in Gr. and Lat. 1628, 4to, but there is no good atithority for attributing it to him.

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

were brothers who flourished in the early part of the sixteenth century, and distinguished themselves as men of letters. The place of their birth was Oderzo, a city of the Venetian territory. Hieronyrnus, the elder, united in his own person the characters of a skilful physician and a pleasing poet. His Latin poems are in general written in a style of singular elegance and purity. The celebrated French critic and commentator, Marc-Antoine Muret, in his correspondence with Lambin, classes them among the best productions of the Italians, in that species of composition. In poems of the light and epigrammatic kind, he particularly excelledThis learned man is also much commended for his urbanity of manners, and the suavity of his disposition. He cultivated his talent for poetry at an advanced age with undiminished spirit, as appears in his verses to his friend Melchior, notwithstanding the complaint they breathe of decaying powers. He died at the place of his nativity, in 1574, in his sixty-eighth year. His fellow-citizens are said to have inscribed an epitaph on his tomb, in which they represent him as another Apollo, equally skilled in poesy and the healing art. His poems, together with those of his brothers, were first collected and published entire by Hieronymns Aleander, at Venice, in the year 1627, and afterwards by Graevius with those of Sannazarius at Amsterdam in 1689.

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

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

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

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

lived in the latter end of the sixteenth, and beginning of the seventeenth centuries, and acquired in his own time considerable fame upon account of his learning, and some portion of the spirit of literary research. He was the son of a surgeon, but became a great favourite in the courts of Charles IX. of France, and his brother Henry III. and was gradually advanced to offices of high trust in the state. From his childhood, he said, he had been always fond of looking into old libraries, and turning over dusty manuscripts. In some of these researches he laid his hands on the letters of Abelard and Heloise, which he read with much pleasure, and was induced to pursue his inquiries. He found other works of the same author; but they were ill-written, and not to be unravelled without great labour, yet nothing can withstand the indefatigable toil of a true antiquary. Amboise procured other manuscripts; collated them together, and finally produced one fair copy, which made ample compensation, he says, for all the labour he had endured. Even posterity, he thinks, will be grateful to him, and know how to value the pleasure and the profit, they will derive from his researches. Not satisfied, however, with the copy he possessed, he still wished to enlarge it. He applied to different monasteries, and he again searched the libraries in Paris, and not without success. His friends applauded his zeal, and gave him their assistance. His manuscripts swelled to a large bulk, and he read, arranged, and selected what pleased him best. The rising sun, he says, often found him at his task. So far fortune had smiled upon his labours, but somewhat was wanting to give them the last finish. He went over to the Paraclet, where the abbess, Madame de Rochefoucauld, received him with the greatest politeness. He declared the motive of his journey; she took him by the hand, and led him to the tomb of Abelard and Heloise. Together they examined the library of the abbey, and she shewed him many hymns, and prayers, and homilies, written by their founder, which were still used in their church. Amboise then returned to Paris, and prepared his work for the press. As the reputation of his author, he knew, had been much aspersed by some contemporary writers, he wished to remove the undeserved stigma, and to present him as immaculate as might be, before the eyes of a more discerning age. With this view he wrote a long “Apologetic preface,” which he meant should be prefixed to the work. In this preface, an inelegant and affected composition, he labours much to shew that Abelard was the greatest and best man, and Heloise the greatest and best woman, whom the annals of human kind had recorded. He first, very fairly, brings the testimony of those, who had spoken evil of them, whom he endeavours to combat and refute. To these succeeds a list of their admirers. He dwells on their every word, and gives more weight to their expressions, and the result is what we might expect from the pen of Amboise. The compilation, however, although unsuccessful in its main design, contains. some curious matter, and may be read with, pleasure. But he did not live to see it published, for it was not printed till the year 1616. He died before this, but the exact time is not known. The editor of the Dictiounaire Historique places his death in 1620, which must be a mistake. His works are, 1. “Notable Discours, en forme de dialogue, touchant la vraie et parfaicte amitie,” translated from the Italian of Piccolomini, Lyons, 1577, 16mo. 2. “Dialogue et Devis des Damoiselles, pour les rendre vertueuses et bienheureuses en la vraye et parfaicte amitie.” Paris, 1581 and 1583, 16mo. 3. “Regrets facetieux et plaisantes Harangues funebres sur la mort de divers animaulx,” from the Italian of Ortensio Lando, Paris, 1576, 1583. These three works were published under the name of Thierri de Thymophile, a gentleman ofPicardy, which has procured him a place in Baillet’s catalogue of disguised authors. 4. “Les Neapolitaines,” a French comedy, Paris, 1584, 16mo. 5. An edition of the works of Abelard. 6. “Desesperades, ou Eglogues amourouses,” Paris, 1572, 8vo. His yourrger brother Adrian, who was born at Paris 1551, and died bishop of Treguier, July 28, 1616, wrote in his youth, a species of sacred drama, entitled “Holophernes,” printed at Paris, 1580, 8vo.

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

, a miscellaneous French writer, who, in his works, assumed the title of signior de Chevillon, was the natural son of Chaumont d'Amboise, admiral of France, and lieutenant-general in Lombarcly. He was born at Naples in the beginning of the sixteenth century, and was educated with the legitimate son of hig father, but the latter died suddenly, in 1511, before he had made any provision for Michael. He then went to Paris, and was intended for the profession of the law, but was so attached to poetry, although his first performances were unsuccessful, that he could not be prevailed on to study law, and his friends abandoned him. He married also imprudently, and his accumulated disappointments and distresses are supposed to have shortened his life. He died in 1547. Niceron has given a large catalogue of his works, all nominally poetical, but without any characteristics of the art, and which probably procured him some small degree of reputation, chiefly from the rapidity with which he wrote and published.

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

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

The first step he took, which probably confirmed the good opinion to which he owed his election, was to give to the church and to the poor all his personal property, and his lands in reversion, after the death of his sister Marcellina. His family he committed to the care of his brother Satyrus. He now applied himself to the study of theology, under Simplician, a presbyter of Rome, a man of great learning and piety, whom he invited to Milan, and who was afterwards his successor in that see. His studies he pursued with ardour and perseverance; but it has been uniformly regretted that he made the works of the fanciful Origen so much the object of his study, for to this all the extravagant opinions in his writings may be referred. He soon, however, commenced preacher, and officiated everj Sunday, and as head of the church of Milan, he labouret unremittingly in discouraging the Arian heresy in Italy, ii which, it will soon appear, he would have made little progress, had he not been endowed with an uncommon share of heroic firmness.

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

His steady adherence to the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity, in opposition particularly to the Arians, induced him to take very active measures, and involved him in much trouble. About the year 381, he condemned, in a council held at Aquileia, Palladius and Secundianus, two Arian bishops, and the chief supporters of that heresy in the west, and they were formally deposed. Justina, the empress, was a decided patroness of Arianism, and after the death of her husband, she endeavoured to instil those principles into her son Valentinian, and to induce him to threaten Ambrose, who exhorted him to support the doctrine received from the Apostles. In a rage the young emperor ordered his guards to surround the church, and commanded Ambrose to come out of it; but when the latter told him, that although his life was in his hands, he could not obey such an order, Valentinian desisted, and Justina was obliged to have recourse to more secret hostilities, dreading, probably, the people, who were generally inclined to support their bishop.

About this time Ambrose had to contend with an attempt of another kind. The Pagans, taking advantage of the minority of Valentinian, and the confusions of the empire, endeavoured to recover their ancient establishment. The senate of Rome contained still a considerable proportion of Gentiles, and many of the great families piqued themselves on their constancy, and contempt for the innovations of Christianity. Symmachus, one of their number, a man of great learning and powers of eloquence, applied to the emperor for permission to restore the altar of victory to the senate-house. Ambrose immediately discerned that this was a request for something more than toleration. “If,” said he, in his letter to Valentinian, “he is a Pagan who offers you this advice, let him give the same liberty which he takes himself. You compel no man to worship what he does not approve. Here the whole senate, as far as it is Christian, is endangered. Every senator takes his oath at the altar; and every person who is obliged to appear before the senate upon oath, takes his oath in the same manner. The divinity of the false gods is evidently allowed by the practice, and Christians are by these means obliged to endure a persecution.” The address of Symmachus, with Ambrose’s reply, are still extant; but Ambrose was successful, and lived to defeat Symmachus when he made a second attempt, in the reign of Theodosius.

The news of Maximus’s intention to invade Italy arriving at this time (387), Justina condescended to employ Ambrose again on an embassy to the usurper, which he cheerfully undertook, and executed with great fortitude, but it was not in his power to stop the progress of the enemy. Theodosius, who reigned in the east, coming at length to the assistance of Valentinian, put an end to the usurpation, and the life of Maximus, and by his means the young emperor was induced to forsake his mother’s principles, and to embrace those of Ambrose. After his death, in the year 392, Ambrose composed a funeral oration to his praise, in which he seems to believe the real conversion of his royal pupil. The oration is not worthy of Ambrose, and perhaps the best excuse that can be made for him, is that he praised one when dead, whom he never flattered when living.

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

Such are the outlines of the life of this eminent father, which might have perhaps been filled up with many collateral events in which he was partially concerned; but for these our readers may be referred to Cave, in his lives of the fathers, and other ecclesiastical historians. Some of these, indeed, seem inclined to depreciate his character by a common error, of estimating the characters of distant and dark ages by the opinions which now prevail, and in this they have been followed by all who are hostile to ecclesiastical establishments.

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

, deacon of Alexandria, the intimate friend and admirer of Origen, was a man of great learning and piety, and worthy of being recorded, although his history has not in all particulars been exactly ascertained. Eusebius says that he followed the Valentinian heresy, but was brought over to orthodoxy by the preaching of Origen. St. Jerome says that he was at first a Marcionite, but being convinced of his error by Origen, he became a deacon of the church, and had the honour of suffering for Christ, as a confessor. To him, he adds, and to Protoctetus, Origen inscribed his book on Martyrdom, and dedicated to him many other volumes which were published at his desire and expence. Ambrose was a man of a good family, and of considerable wit, as his letters to Origen show. He died before Origen, and is blamed by many, because, though he was rich, he did not at his death remember his friend, who was not only poor, but in his old age.

Of these two accounts of Ambrose’s first opinions, Dr. Lardner prefers that of Eusebius, and thinks that Ambrose’s conversion from the heresy of Valentinus, took place about the year 212. Eusebius says nothing of his being a deacon of the church of Alexandria, which we have named him, and Dr. Lardner is inclined to think he held that office in the church of Csesarea. Origen, in a letter of which a fragment only remains, calls him “a man indeed devoted to God,” and speaks of his earnest desire to understand the scriptures, and of his great application to them. He had a wife, named Marcella, by whom he had several children; she is commended by Origen as a true Christian, and faithful wife. Eusebius also informs us, that Ambrose was the person who excited Origen to write commentaries upon the scriptures, and that not only by words and entreaties, but by supplies of all things necessary, furnishing him with amanuenses, whom he paid liberally. With respect to his bequeathing nothing to Origen, Tillemont thinks that Ambrose knew his friend’s mind, and that Origen chose to be poor, and to live in a dependence on providence. St. Jerome speaks of Ambrose’s “Epistles;” but there are none of them extant. It appears by the best conjectures, that he lived nearly to the year 250.

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

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

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

, a learned printer of the fifteenth century, was born at Rutlingen, in Suabia, and settled at Basil. He was the first who made use of the round type, instead of the Italic and Gothic. In 1506, he published the first edition of the works of St. Augustine, corrected by himself, with a type known long by the name of the St. Augustine type. He began also the works of St. Jerome; but his death, which took place in 1515, prevented his finishing them, and he left them to the care of his sons, by whom they were published. All his editions are valued for their accuracy. Boniface, his eldest son, who died in 1562, was for thirty years law professor at Basil, five times rector of the university, and went through the different offices of magistracy with the reputation of a man of great integrity. In 1659, was printed at Basil, 4to, the “Bibliotheca Amerbachiana,” a scarce work, which throws considerable light on the history of printing, and mentions many early editions omitted in our largest catalogues. Erasmus and Boniface Amerbach contributed to this Bibliotheca. Boniface had a son Basil, also a man of learning, syndic of the city, and rector of the university. He contributed much to the cabinet of pictures, and medals, and to the library which his father had founded. He founded likewise some charitable establishments, and a new professorship in the university, called the Amerbachian.

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

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

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

Of Mr. Ames’s character, the opinion seems to be uniform, that he possessed an amiable simplicity of manners, and exemplary integrity and benevolence in social life. Mr. Cole, who bears him no ojood will, because, as he asserts, he was an Anabaptist, allows that he “was a little, friendly, good-tempered man, a person of vast application, and industry in collecting old printed books, prints, and other curiosities, both natural and artificial.” It is confessed, on the other hand, that he had not much of what is called literature, and knew nothing of composition. His preface to the “Typographical Antiquities” commences in the form of a preamble to an act of parliament, “Whereas it appears from reason and ancient history,” &c. His style, indeed, very much resembles that of his brother antiquary and equally laborious collector, Strype. With all this, he appears to have been a man entitled to high respect for his acquisitions; they were entirely his own, and instigated by a laudable desire to be useful. The dates in the preceding account of his life will be sufficient to prove the absurdity of Horace Walpole’s flippant notice of him, in which he says, that Mr. Ames took to the study of antiquities “late in life,” and thac he was “originally” a ship-chandler. The truth is, and it is to the honour of his industry, that he was always an antiquary, and always a ship-chandler, but principally in articles of ironmongery. It is necessary to add that an enlarged edition of the “Typographical Antiquities” was published by the late learned and industrious Mr. William Herbert, of whom some account will be given in its proper place. This was extended to three volumes quarto, the first of which appeared in, 1785, the second in 1786. and the third in 1790, a work of inestimable value to the antiquary, the historian, and the general scholar. To the first volume, Mr. Gough prefixed “Memoirs of Mr. Joseph Ames,” from which all that is valuable in the present article has been taken; and the same has been retained, with many additional particulars, in the new and very splendid edition of Ames and Herbert, by the rev. Thomas Frognall Dibdin, F. S. A. of which one volume was published in 1810 and a second in 1812, which promise ample gratification to the lovers of typographical antiquities.

, a divine in the reigns of king James and Charles I. and famous for his casuistical and controversial writings, but much more so abroad than in his own country, was descended from an ancient family, which is said to remain in Norfolk and Somersetshire, and was born in 1576. He was educated at Christ-church college, in Cambridge, under the celebrated champion of Calvinism, Mr. William Perkins, and this gave a rigid strictness to his opinions, which was not agreeable to some of his associates in the university. One instance of this is given by Fuller, which we shall transcribe as recording a feature in the manners of the times. He says, that “about the year 1610-11, this Mr. Ames, preaching at St. Mary’s, took occasion to inveigh against the liberty taken at that time; especially in those colleges which had lords of misrule, a Pagan relique; which, he said, as Polydore Vergil has observed, remains only in England. Hence he proceeded to condemn all playing at cards and dice anirming that the latter, in all ages, was accounted the device of the devil and that as God invented the one-and-twenty letters whereof he made the bible, the devil, saith an author, found out the one-and-twenty spots on the die that canon law forbad the use of the same saying Inventio Diaboli nulla consuetudine. potest validari. His sermon,” continues our author, “gave much offence to many of his auditors the rather because in him there was a concurrence of much nonconformity insomuch that, to prevent an expulsion from Dr. Val. Gary, the master, he fairly forsook the col lege, which proved unto him neither loss nor disgrace being, not long after, by the States of Friesland, chosen Professor of their university.” There seems, however, some mistake in this, and Dr. Maclaine has increased it by asserting in his notes on Mosheim’s Ecclesiastical history, that Ames fled to Franeker to avoid the persecution of archbishop Bancroft. This prelate certainly pressed conformity on the Puritans as much as he could, but a man who only preached against cards and dice could have nothing to fear from him. The fact was, that the archbishop died some months before this sermon at St. Mary’s.

It might not, however, be long after, that he went to Holland, the common refuge of many of the divines of this period who were strong opponents to church discipline, for in 1613, his dispute with Grevinchovius, minister at Rotterdam, appeared in print. From thence, we are told, he was invited by the states of Friesland, to the divinity chair in the university of Franeker, which he filled with universal reputation for many years. He was at the synod of Dort, in 1618, and informed king James’s ambassador, from time to time, of the debates of that assembly. After he. had been at least twelve years in the doctor’s chair at Franeker, he resigned his professorship, and accepted of an invitation to the English congregation at Rotterdam, the air of Franeker being too sharp for him, who tvas troubled with such a difficulty of breathing, that he concluded every winter would be his last. Besides, he was desirous of preaching to his own countrymen, which he had disused for many years. He held many public discourses, published many learned books, and acquired a great degree of popularity among all classes. Upon his removal to Rotterdam, he wrote his “Fresh suit against Ceremonies” but did not live to publish it himself, for his constitution was so shattered, that the air of Holland was of no service, upon which, he determined to remove to New England; but his asthma returning at the beginning of winter, put an end to his life at Rotterdam, where he was buried, Nov. 14, (N. S.) 1633, aged fifty-seven. In the spring following, his wife and children embarked for New England, and carried with them his valuable library of books, which was a rich treasure to that country at tliat time Of his private character we know little, but it is generally agreed that he was a man of very great learning, a strict Calvinist in doctrine, and of the persuasion of the Independents, with regard to the subordination and power of classes and synods. As a teacher he was so much approved, that students came to him from many parts of Europe, particularly Hungary, Poland, Prussia, and Flanders. Mosheim, who, upon what authority we know not, calls him a Scotch divine, says, that he was one of the first among the reformed who attempted to treat morality as a separate science, to consider it abstractedly from its connection with any particular system of doctrine, and to introduce new light and a new degree of accuracy and precision into this master-science of life and manners. The attempt, he adds, was laudable, had it been well executed; but the system of this learned writer was dry, theoretical, and subtle, and was thus much more adapted to the instruction of the studious, than to the practical direction of the Christian.

Some time before this, general Abercrornbie had made an unsuccessful attempt on Ticonderoga, in which, together with a considerable number of men, the British army had been deprived of those gallant young officers, lord Howe, and col. Roger Townsend. On the 26th July 1759, however, the day after the reduction of Niagara, Ticonderoga surrendered, and this paved the way for the subjection of Canada; accordingly, we find that on the 14th of the following month, the long and obstinately disputed post of Crown Point surrendered to the British forces; the 18th of the ensuing September, beheld the chief settlement of the enemy in this part of the globe, the ever-to-be-remembered Quebec, surrendered upon capitulation to our commanders; and in the month of August, 1760, the French army evacuating Isle au Noix, abandoning the Isle Gallot, and Picquet’s island, at the approach of general Amherst, Isle Royale being taken by him, and Montreal, the last remaining port of the foe, surrendering on the 8th September following, the whole province became subject to the British government. In the mean time, the island of Newfoundland having been reduced by the French, general Amherst projected an expedition for its recovery. The command of this was intrusted to the late major-general William Amherst (then lieutenant colonel), who, giving effect and action to his brother’s plan, happily restored the island to its British owners, and captured the various garrisons which had been stationed by the enemy in the respective posts.

In 1732, on the change of the administration usually called that of lord North, the command of the army, and the lieutenant-generalship of ordnance, were put into other hands. In 1787, he received another patent of peerage, as baron Amherst, of Montreal, with remainder to his nephew, William Pitt Amherst. On the staff being reestablished, he was, Jan. 22, 1793, again appointed to the command of the army in Great Britain, although at that time, general Conway, the duke of Gloucester, sir George Howard, the duke of Argyle, the hon. John Fitz-­william, and sir Charles Montagu, were his seniors. On the 10th of February 1795, the command of the army being given to the duke of York, an offer of earldom, and the rank of field marshal, were made to lord Amherst, who then declined accepting them, but on the 30th July 1796, accepted the rank of field-marshal. His increasing age and infirmities, had, however, rendered him unfit for public business nearly two years before this period, and he now retired to his seat at Montreal in Kent, where he August 3, 1797, in the eighty-first year of his age. and was interred in the family vault in Seven Oaks church, on the 10th. Lord Amherst had been twice married; first, to Jane, only daughter of Thomas Dallison, of Manton, in Lincolnshire, esq. who died Jan. 7, 1765; and secondly, to Elizabeth, eldest daughter of general George Gary, brother to viscount Falkland, who survived him; but by neither had he any issue. His two brothers had distinguished themselves in the service of their country; John, an admiral of the blue, died Feb. 12, 1778 and William, already mentioned, a lieutenant-general in the army, died May 13, 1781. His son inherits lord Amherst’s title and estate.

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

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

Notwithstanding this show of firmness, and his other services, Mr. Amhurst was totally neglected by his coadjutors in the Craftsman, when they made their terms with the crown; and he died soon after, of a fever, at Twickenham. His death happened April 27, 1742; and his disorder was probably occasioned, in a great measure, by the ill usage he had received. Mr. Ralph, in his “Case of Authors,” speaks with much indignation upon the subject. “Poor Amhurst, after having been the drudge of his party for the best part of twenty years together, was as much forgotten in the famous compromise of 1742, as if he had never been born! and when he died of what is called a broken heart, which happened a few months afterwards, became indebted to the charity of a bookseller for a grave; not to be traced now, because then no otherwise to be distinguished, than by the freshness of the turf, borrowed from the next common to cover it.” Mr. T. Davies the bookseller, in his character of Mr. Pulteney, expresses himself concerning the treatment of Mr. Amhurst in the following terms: “But if the earl of Bath had his list of pensioners, how comes it that Arnhurst was forgotten? The fate of this poor man is singular: He was the able associate of Bolingbroke and Pulteney, in writing the celebrated weekly paper called ‘ The Craftsman.’ His abilities were unquestionable: he had almost as much wit, learning, and various knowledge, as his two partners: and when those great masters chose not to appear in public themselves, he supplied their places so well, that his essays were often ascribed to them. Am-, hurst survived the downfall of Walpole’s power, and had reason to expect a reward for his labours. If we excuse Bolingbroke, who had only saved the shipwreck of his fortunes, we shall be at a loss to justify Pulteney, who could with ease have given this man a considerable income. The utmost of his generosity to Amhurst, that I ever heard of, was a hogshead of claret! He died, it is supposed, of a broken heart, and was buried at the charge of his honest printer, Richard Francklin.” Mr. Amhurst was, however, one of those imprudent and extravagant men, whose irregularities, in spite of their talents, bring them at length into general disesteem and neglect; although this does not excuse the conduct cf his employers. His want of purity in morals was no objection to their connection with him, when he could serve their purpose. And they might have easily provided for him, and placed him above necessity during the remainder of his days. The ingratitude of statesmen to the persons whom they make use of as the instruments of their ambition, should furnish an instruction to men of abilities in future times; and engage them to build their happiness on the foundation of their own personal integrity, discretion, and virtue.

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

His next communication was, 4. “On the music of the Chinese, ancient and modern,” which fills the greater part of vol. VI. of the “Memoires sur les Chinois.” 5. “The Life of Confucius,” the most accurate history of that philosopher, and taken from the most authentic sources, with a long account both of his ancestors and descendants, who yet exist in China, a genealogy which embraces four centuries. This life, which is illustrated with plates from Chinese designs, occupies the greater part of vol. XII. of the “Memoires, &c.” 6. “Dictionnaire Tatarmantcheou-Français,” Paris, 1789, 3 vols. 4to, a work of great value, as this language was before unknown in Europe. The publication of it was owing to the spirit and liberality of the deceased minister of state, M. Bertin, who bore the expence of the types necessary, and employed M. Langles, a learned orientalist, to superintend the press. Amiot also sent over a grammar of that language, which is printed in the XIIIth volume of the “Memoires.” He published in the same work, a great many letters, observations, and papers, on the history, arts, und sciences of the Chinese, some of which are noticed in the Monthly Review (see Index), and in the index to the “Memoires,” in which his contributions fill many columns. He died at Pekin, in 1794, aged seventy-seven.

, a Swiss physician, born at Schaffhausen in 1669, applied himself particularly to the teaching of those to speak who were born deaf, and acquired great reputation for this talent both in France and Holland, as well as in his own country. He published the method he had employed, in two small tracts, which are curious, and much sought after: one under the title of “Surdus loquens,” Harlemii, 1692, 8vo; the other, “De Loquela,” Amst. 1700, 12mo; which last, translated into French, is inserted in Deschamps’ “Cours d'education des sourds et muets,” 1779, 12tno. Amman also published a good edition of the works of Ccelius Aurelianus, 1709, 4to, with Janson D'Almeloveen’s notes. He died at Marmund, in Holland, in 1724. His son, John, born in 1707, was also a physician, but particularly skilled in Botany, on which he gave lectures at Petersburgh, where he was elected a member of the academy of sciences. He was also a member of the Royal Society of London. Being desirous of extending the knowledge of those plants which Gmelin and other travellers had discovered in the different countries of Asiatic Russia, he published “Stirpium rariorum in imperio Rutheno sponte provenientinm icones et descriptiones,” Petersburgh, 1739, 4to, which would have been followed by another volume, if the author had not died in the prime of life, in 1740.

, a learned German physician and botanist, was born at Breslaw in 1634. After studying in various German universities, he travelled to Holland and England, received his doctor’s degree at Leipsic, and was admitted a member of the society of natural history (l'academie de curieux de la nature) under the 1 name of Dryander. In 1674, an extraordinary professorship was established for him, from which he-was promoted to that of botany, and in 1682, to that of physiology. Amman was a man of a lively and somewhat turbulent cast, and although all his writings discover great learning and talents in his profession, yet he is often harsh in his remarks on others, fond of paradox, and affects a jocular humour not very well suited to the nature of the subjects on which he treats. His first work was a critical extract from the different decisions in the registers of the faculty of Leipsic, Erfurt, 1670, 4to; on which they thought proper to pass a public censure, in their answer published in the same year, under the title “Facultatis medicse Lipsiensis excusatio, &c.” His other productions were, 1. “Paraenesis ad docentes occupata circa institutionum medicarum emendationem,” Rudulstadt, 1673, 12mo, a vehement invective against medical systems, especially the Galenic, in which he certainly points out errors and abuses; but, as Haller observes, without pointing out any thing better. Leichner and others wrote against this work, whom he answered, in 2. “Archaeas syncopticus, Eccardi Leichneri, &c. oppositus,” 1674, 12mo. 3. “Irenicum Numae Pompilii cum Hippocrate, quo veterum medicorum et philosophorum hypotheses, &c. a prseconceptis opinionibus vindicantur,” Francfort, 1689, 8vo, a work of a satirical cast, and much in the spirit of the former. 4, “Praxis vulnerurn lethalium,” Francfort, 1690, 8vo. As a botanist, he published a description of the garden at Leipsic, and “Character naturalis plantarum,” 1676, a work which, entitles him to rank among those who have most ably contributed to the advancement of the science of botany as we now have it. Nebel published an improved edition of this work in 1700. Amman, whom, we may add, Haller characterises as a man of a caustic turn, and somewhat conceited, died in 1691, in his fifty-fifth year.

, an eminent historian, was born at Lucca, in the kingdom of Naples, the 27th of September 1531. He studied first at Poggiardo, afterwards at Brundusium; and, in 1547, he went to Naples, in order to go through a course of civil law. When he was at Barri with his father, he was deputed by that city to manage some affairs at Naples, which he executed with great success. Some time after, he determined to enter into the church, and was accordingly ordained by the bishop of Lucca, who conceived so high an esteem for him, as to give him a canonry in his church; but not meeting afterwards with the preferment he expected, he formed a design of going to Venice, and entering into the service of some ambassador, in order to visit the several courts of Europe. Alexander Contarini, however, dissuaded him from this resolution of travelling, and engaged him to continue with him at Venice; where he had an opportunity of contracting a friendship with many learned men. But he was prevented by a very singular circumstance. The wife of Contarini, who used to take great pleasure in Ammirato’s conversation, having sent him a present as a token of her friendship, some ill-natured persons represented this civility in a light sufficient to excite the resentment of a jealous husband, and Ammirato was obliged immediately to fly, in order to save his life. He returned to Lucca, and his father being then at Barri, he went thither to him, but met with a very cool reception, as he was dissatisfied to find him in no probable way of making a fortune, from having neglected the study of the law; and with this he reproached him very frequently.

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

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

, surnamed Saccas, one of the most celebrated philosophers of his age, was born in Alexandria, and flourished about the beginning of the third century. His history and his opinions have been the subject of much dispute among modern writers, to some of whom we shall refer at the close of this article, after stating what appears to be the probable account. In the third century, Alexandria was the most renowned seminary of learning. A set of philosophers appeared there who called themselves Eclectics, because, without tying themselves down to any one set of rules, they chose what they thought most agreeable to truth from different masters and sects. Their pretensions were specious, and they preserved the appearance of candour, moderation, and dispassionate inquiry, in words and declarations, as their successors, the modern free-thinkers, have since done. Ammonius Saccas seems to have reduced the opinions of these Eclectics to a system. Plato was his principal guide; but he invented many things of which Plato never dreamed. What his religious profession was, is disputed among the learned. Undoubtedly he was educated a Christian; and although Porphyry, in his enmity against Christianity, observes that he forsook the Gospel, and returned to Gentilism, yet the testimony of Eusebius, who must have known the fact, proves that he continued a Christian all his days. His tracts on the agreement of Moses and Jesus, and his harmony of the four gospels, demonstrate that he desired to be considered as a Christian. His opinion, however, was, that all religions, vulgar and philosophical, Grecian and barbarous, Jewish and Gentile, meant the same thing at bottom. He undertook, by allegorizing and subtilizing various fables and systems, to make up a coalition of all sects and religions; and from his labours, continued by his disciples, some of whose works still remain, his followers were taught to look on Jew, philosopher, vulgar Pagan, and Christian, as all of the same creed. Longinus and Plotinus appear to have been the disciples of Ammonius, who is supposed to have died about the year 243. His history and principles are discussed by Dr. Lardner, in his Credibility, and by Mosheim in his history, the translator of which differs from Dr. Lardner in toto, and has been in this respect followed by Milner in his Church History recently published.

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

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

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

In his public character, as a teacher of religion, Dr. Amory was greatly respectable. The devotional part of worship was conducted by him with admirable propriety, seriousness, and fervour. His sermons were close, accurate, solid, and affectionate. He never devoted the pulpit to trifling subjects. If any thing disputable was ever introduced by him, it was to expose the doctrines of rigid Calvinism; as his sentiments, with regard to both natural and revealed religion, nearly agreed with those of Dr. Samuel Clarke, and of the divines who were his coadjutors. As to his learning, it was solid, judicious, and extensive. He was well acquainted with every part of theology, and much conversant with ethics, natural and experimental philosophy, and the best ancients, especially their moral writings. Nor was he above amusing himself with history, books of travels, poetry, and other entertaining species of composition. But his general application was to those more serious and important parts of study, that were immediately suited to his profession.

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

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

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

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

, a native of Cappadocia, bishop of Iconium in the fourth century, was the friend of St. Gregory Nazianzen and St. Basil. He assisted at the first general council of Constantinople in the year 381, and presided at the council of Sidae. In the year 383, he contrived the following method of persuading the emperor to prohibit the assemblies of the Arians: observing that Theodosius encouraged the Arians, he went to his palace, and approaching Arcadius, his son, caressed him as if he had been an infant, but did not treat him with the customary respect. Theodosius, enraged at an affront offered to himself in the person of his son, ordered the bishop to be thrust out of the palace, when, turning to Theodosius, he cried, “My lord, you cannot bear that your son should be injured, and are displeased at those who do not treat him with respect; can you then doubt, that the God of the universe also abhors those who blaspheme his son?” Theodosius, upon this, called back the bishop, begged his pardon, and soon after published severe laws against the assemblies of the Arians. St. Amphilochius died about the year 394. Very few of his works remain. Jerome mentions but one, concerning the “Divinity of the Holy Spirit,” which is not extant. The principal is an Iambic poem of considerable length, in which is inserted a catalogue of the books, of the Old and New Testament. Cave and Dupin say that it was the production of Gregory Nazianzen, but Combesis and Tillemont contend for its belonging to Amphilochius. The fragments which remain of his other works are in the Bibl. Patrum, and there is a letter of his concerning synods, published by Cotelerius. Father Combesis published all he could collect, in 1644, fol. Greek and Latin, but he has inserted some pieces on very doubtful authority.

, an associate of Luther in the reformation, was born in 1483, near Wurtzen in Misnia, of a noble family. After studying divinity, he became one of the clergy of Wittemberg, and preached also at Magdeburgh and Naumburgh. In 1527, he accompanied Luther, to whose doctrines he was zealously attached, to the diet of Worms, and on his return, was in the same carriage with that reformer, when he was seized by order f the elector of Saxony, and conducted to Wartburgh. In 1573, he concurred in drawing up the articles of Smalcalde, and was, in 1542, appointed bishop of Naumburgh by the elector John Frederick, who disapproved of the choice which the chapter had made of Julius de Pflug. But, five years after, when his patron was taken prisoner by Charles V. he was obliged to surrender the bishopric to Pflug, and retire to Magdeburgh. He afterwards assisted in founding the university of Jena, which was intended as a rival to that of Wirtemberg, and died at Eisenach, May 14, 1565. The principal thing objected to him by the popish writers, and by some of his biographers, is, that in a dispute with G. Major, he maintained that good works were hurtful to salvation: but however improper this expression in the heat of debate, it is evident from his writings, that he meant that good works impeded salvation by being relied on as the cause of it, and that they were the fruit and effect of that faith to which pardon is promised. He was one of the boldest in his time in asserting the impiety and absurdity of the principal popish doctrines, but from his bigotted adherence to Lutheran principles, had too little respect for the other reformers who were of different sentiments in some points. Moreri is wrong in asserting that he formed a sect called by his name. Thesame principles were held by many of the Lutheran divinos. He wrote on the “Lord’s Supper,” and some other controversial pieces enumerated by JVlelchior Adam, Joecher, and Adelung.

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

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

, bishop of Auxerre and grand almoner of France, was born Oct. 1514, of an obscure family at Melun. The following particulars of his origin are from various authors. Variilas affirms, That at the age often years, Amyot was found lying sick in a ditch on the road to Paris, by a gentleman, who was so singularly compassionate, as to set him upon his horse, and carry him to a house, where he recovered, and was furnished with sixteen pence to bear his charges home. This goodness met with an ample reward, as Amyot left to the heirs of this early benefactor the sum of 1600 crowns a year. It is also said, that as Henry II. was making a progress through his kingdom, he stopt at a small inn in Berry to sup. After supper a young man sent in to his majesty a copy of Greek verses. The king, being no scholar, gave them to his chancellor to read, who was so pleased with them, that he desired him to order the boy who wrote them to come in. On inquiry he found him to be Amyot, the son of a mercer, and tutor to a gentleman’s son in that town. The chancellor recommended his majesty to take the lad to Paris, and to make him tutor to his children. This was complied with, and led to his future preferments.

By what means he was educated is not certainly known, but he studied philosophy at Paris in the colUge of the cardinal ie Moine, and although naturallyof slow capacity, his uncommon diligence enabled him to accumulate a large stock of classical and general knowledge. Having taken the degree of master of arts at nineteen, he pursued his studies under the royal professors established by Francis I. viz. James Tusen, who explained the Greek poets; Peter Dones, professor of rhetoric; and Oronce Fine, professor of mathematics. He left Paris at the age of twenty-three, and went to Bourges with the sieur Colin, who had the abbey of St. Ambrose in that city. At the recommendation of this abbot, a secretary of state took Amyot into his house, to be tutor to his children. The great improvements they made under his direction induced the secretary to recommend him to the princess Margaret duchess of Berry, only sister of Francis I.; and by means of this recommendation Amyot was made public professor of Greek and Latin in the university of Bourges: he read two lectures a day for ten years; a Latin lecture in the morning, and a Greek one in the afternoon. It was during this time he translated into French the “Amours of Theagenes and Chariclea,” with which Francis I. was so pleased, that he conferred upon him the abbey of Bellosane. The death of this prince happening soon after, Amyot thought it would be better to try his fortune elsewhere, than to expect any preferment at the court of France; he therefore accompanied Morvillier to Venice, on his embassy from Henry II. to that republic. When Morvillier was recalled from his embassy, Amyot would not repass the Alps with him; choosing rather to go to Rome, where he was kindly received by the bishop of Mirepoix, at whose house he lived two years. It was here that, looking over the manuscripts of the Vatican, he discovered that Heliodorus, bishop of Tricca, was the author of the Amours of Theagenes; and finding also a manuscript more correct and complete than, that which he had translated, he was enabled to give a better edition of this work. His labours, however, in this way, did not engage him so as to divert him from improving his situation, and he insinuated himself so far into the favour of cardinal de Tournon, that his eminence recommended him to the king, to be preceptor to his two younger sons. While he was in this employment he finished his translation of “Plutarch’s Lives,” which he dedicated to the king; and afterwards undertook that of “Plutarch’s Morals,” which he finished in the reign of Charles IX. and dedicated to that prince. Charles conferred upon him the abbey of St. Cornelius de, Compeigne, although much against the inclination of the queen, who had another person in her eye; and he also made him grand almoner of France and bishop of Auxerre; and the place of grand almoner and that of curator of the university of Paris happening to be vacant at the same time, he was also invested in both these employments, of which Thuanus complains. Henry III. perhaps would have yielded to the pressing solicitations of the bishop of St. Flour, who had attended him on his journey into Poland, and made great interest for the post of grand almoner; but the duchess of Savoy, the king’s aunt, recommended Amyot so earnestly to him, when he passed through Turin, on his return from Poland, that he was not only continued in his employment, but a new honour was added to it for his sake: for when Henry III. named Amyot commander of the order oiF the Holy Ghost, he decreed at the same time, as a mark of respect to him, that all the grand almoners of France should be of course commanders of that order. Amyot did not neglect his studies in the midst of his honours, but revised all his translations with great care, compared them with the Greek text, and altered many passages: he designed to give a more complete edition of them, with the various readings of divers manuscripts, but died before he had finished that work. He died the 6th of February, 1593, in the 79th year of his age.

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

Amyraut, being a man well acquainted with the world, was very entertaining in conversation, which contributed no less than the reputation of his learning to render him the favourite of many persons of quality, though of opposite principles in religious matters among those who particularly distinguished him, were the marshals de Breze and de la Meilleriac, Mr. le Goux de la Berchere, first president of the parliament of Burgundy, and cardinal Mazarin. What gained him the favour of this cardinal was, in all probability, his openly declaring in favour of the obedience due to sovereigns, which proved very advantageous to the court of France during the troubles of the league against cardinal Maaarin, called de la Fronde. In his Apology, published in 1647, in behalf of the protestants, he excuses very plausibly the civil wars of France; but he declares at the same time, that he by no means intends to justify the taking up of arms against the lawful sovereign upon any pretence whatsoever; and that he always looked upon it as more agreeable to the nature of the gospel and the practice of the primitive church, to use no other arms but patience, tears, and prayers. Yet, notwithstanding his attachment to this doctrine, he was not for obeying in matters of conscience, which plainly appeared when the seneschal of Saumur imparted to him an order from the council of state, enjoining all those of the reformed religion to hang the outside of their houses on Corpus Christi day. The seneschal notified this order to him the eve of that holiday, entreating hini at the same time to persuade the protestants to comply with it. To this Amyraut made answer, that, on the contrary, he would go directly and exhort his parishioners against complying with it, as he himself was resolved not to obey such orders: that in all his sermons he had endeavoured to inspire his hearers with obedience and submission to superior powers-, but not when their consciences were concerned. ' Having thus acquainted the seneschal with his resolution, he went from house to house, laying before his parishioners the reasons why he thought they ought not to obey the order of the council, and the king’s lieutenant not thinking it proper to support the seneschal, the matter ended without disturbance.

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

, a peripatetic philosopher, of the fifteenth century, and a native of Trebizond, was at first in great esteem at the court of the emperor David his master, and signalized himself by writing in favour of the Greeks against the decisions of the council of Florence; but at last forfeited, by his apostacy, all the reputation he had gained. He was one of those who accompanied the emperor Davicl to Constantinople, whither that prince was carried by order of Mahomet II. after the reduction of Trebizond, in 1461, and there, seduced by the promises of the Sultan, he renounced the Christian religion, and embraced Mahometism, together with his children, one of which, under the name of Mehemet-Beg, translated many hooks of the Christians into Arabic, by the order of Mahomet II. That prince honoured Amyrutzes with considerable employments in the seraglio, and used sometimes to-discourse with him and his son about points of learning and religion. By the manner Allatius expresses himself, it would appear that this philosopher had borne the employ^ ment of protovestiarius in the court of the emperor of Trebizond, but this emperor was not the first prince that shewed a particular value for Amyrutzes, as he had been greatly esteemed at the court of Constantinople long before. He was one of the learned men, with whom the emperor John Paleologus advised about his journey into Italy, and he attended him in that journey. Of his death we haveno account, and Bayle seems to think there were two of the name.

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

The apophthegms related of Anacharsis are numerous, and in general shrewd and apposite, but some are of a strong satirical cast. He used to say, that the vine produced three sorts of grapes, the first of pleasure, the second of drunkenness, and the third of repentance. He expressed his surprize, that in all the public assemblies at Athens, wise men should propose business, and fools determine it. He could not comprehend the reason why those were punished, who abused others with their tongue, and yet great rewards were given to the wrestlers, who treated one another with the utmost fury and barbarity. He was no less astonished that the Greeks at the beginning of their banquets should make use of glasses, which were of a moderate size, and yet should call for very large ones at the close of the feast, when they had drunk sufficiently. He could by no means approve of the liberties which every person thought were allowable in banquets. Being asked one day what method was to be taken in order to prevent one from ever drinking wine, he replied, There is no better means than to view a drunken man with all his extravagance of behaviour. As he was one day considering the thickness of the planks of a ship, he cried out, Alas! those who go to sea, are but four inches distant from death. Being asked what was the most secure ship, he replied, That which is arrived in the port. He very often repeated it, that every man should take a particular care to make himself master of his tongue and his belly. He had always when he slept his right hand upon his mouth, to shew that there is nothing which we ought to be so cautious of as the tongue. An Athenian reproaching him one day with being 9. beytiuun, he replied, My country is a disgrace to me; but you are a disgrace to your country. Being asked what was the best and what the worst part of a man, he answered, The tongue. It is much better, said he, to have but one friend, if he be but faithful to us, than a great number, who are always ready to follow the change of fortune. When he was asked, whether there were more persons living than dead, he answered, In which number do ye rank those who are at sea? He used to say, that the forum was a place which men had established in order to impose upon each other. It remains to be noticed, that the letters published under his name, Paris, 1552, Greek and Latin, 4to, are unquestionably spurious.

, a Greek poet of great celebrity, was born at Teos, a sea-port of Ionia. Madam Dacier endeavours to prove from Plato, that he was a kinsman of Solon’s, and consequently allied to the Codridae, the noblest family in Athens; but this is not sufficiently supported. The time when he flourished is uncertain; Eusebius placing it in the 62d, Suidas in the 52d, and Mr. le Fevre in the 72d olympiad. He is said to have been about eighteen years of age, when Harpagus, the general of Cyrus, came with an army against the confederate cities of the lonians and Æolians. The Milesians immediately submitted themselves; but the Phocseans, when they found themselves unable to withstand the enemy, chose rather to abandon their country than their liberty; and getting a fleet together, transported themselves and families to the coast of France, where, being hospitably received by Nannus the king of the country, they built Marseilles. The Teians soon followed their example; for, Harpagus having made himself master of their walls, they unanimously went on board their ships, and, sailing to Thrace, fixed themselves in the city Abdera. They had not been there long, when the Thracians, jealous of their new neighbours, endeavoured to give them disturbance; and in these conflicts it seems to be, that Anacreon lost those friends whom he celebrates in his epigrams. This poet had much wit, but was certainly too fond of pleasures, for love and wine had the disposal of all his hours. In the edition of Anacreon and Sappho published in 1789 by Fred. G. Born, of Leipsiclc, this editor endeavours to defend Anacreou against the charges of inebriety and unnatural lust, and with considerable success. These imputations, however, have been cast on his memory by the majority of writers, except, perhaps, Ælian. How long Anacreon continued at Samos is uncertain, but it is probable he remained there during the greatest part of the reign of Polycrates; for Herodotus assures us, that Anacreon was with that prince in his chamber, when he received a message from Oraetes governor of Sardis, by whose treachery Polycrates was soon after betrayed and inhumanly crucified. It seems to have been a little before this, that Anacreon left Samos and removed to Athens; having been invited thither by Hipparchus the eldest son of Pisistratus, one of the uiost virtuous and learned princes of his time; who, as Plato assures us, sent an obliging letter, with a vessel of fifty oars to convey him over the Ægean sea. After Hipparchus was slain by the conspiracy of Harmodius and Aristogiton, Anacreon returned to Teos, where he remained till the revolt of Hisfciseus, when he was obliged once more to remove to Abdera, where he died. The manner of his death is said to have been very extraordinary; for they tell us he was choaked with a grape-stone, which he swallowed as he was drinking some new wine. A small part only of Anacreon’s works remain. Besides odes and epigrams, he composed elegies, hymns, and iambics: the poems which are extant consist chiefly of bacchanalian songs and lovesonnets; and with respect to such subjects, they have been long regarded as standards of excellence. They are distinguished by their native elegance and grace from every other kind of poetical composition: and the voluptuous gaiety of all his songs is so characteristic, that his style and manner have produced innumerable imitations, called Anacreontics, Little can be said, however, of the moral purity of his sentiments, and it is to be feared that the fascinations of the Anacreontic school have been most destructive to the morals and prudence of the young and gay.

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

, of Clazomene, one of the most eminent of the ancient philosophers, was born in the first year of the seventieth olympiad, B. C. 500, and was a disciple of Anaximenes. He inherited from his parents a patrimony which might have secured him independence and distinction at home; but such was his thirst after knowledge, that, about the twentieth year of his age, he left his country, without taking proper precautions concerning his estate, and went to reside at Athens. Here he diligently applied himself to the study of eloquence and poetry, and was particularly conversant with the works of Homer, whom be admired as the best preceptor, not only in style, but in morals. Engaging afterwards in speculations concerning nature, the fame of the Milesian school induced him to leave Athens, that he might attend upon the public instructions of Anaximenes. Under him he became acquainted with his doctrines, and those of his predecessors, concerning natural bodies, and the origin of things. So ardently did he engage in these inquiries, that he said concerning himself that he was born to contemplate the heavens. Visiting his native city, he found that, whilst he had been busy in the pursuit of knowledge, his estate had run to waste, anct remarked, that to this ruin he owed his prosperity. One of his fellow-citizens complaining that he, who was so well qualified, both by rank and ability, for public offices, had shown so little regard for his country, he replied, “My first care is for my country,” pointing to heaven. After remaining for some years at Miletus, he returned to Athens, and there taught philosophy in private. Among his pupils were several eminent men, particularly the tragedian Euripides, and the orator and statesman Pericles; to whom some add Socrates and Themistocles.

After his banishment, Anaxagoras passed the remainder of his days at Lampsacus, where he employed himself in instructing youth, and obtained great respect and influence among the magistrates and citizens. Through his whole life he appears to have supported the character of a true philosopher. Superior to motives of avarice and ambition, he devoted himself to the pursuits of science, and in the midst of the vicissitudes of fortune, preserved an equal mind. When one of his friends expressed regret on account of his banishment from Athens, he said, “It is not I who have lost the Athenians, but the Athenians who have lost me.” Being asked, just before his death, whether he wished to be carried for interment to Clazomene, his native city, he said, “It is unnecessary; the way to the regions below is every where alike open.” In reply to a message sent him, at that time, by the senate of Lampsacus, requesting him to inform them in what manner they might most acceptably express their respect for his memory after his decease, he said, “By ordaining that the day of my death may be annually kept as a holiday in all the schools of Lampsacus.” His request was complied with, and the custom remained for many centuries. He died about the age of seventy-two years. The inhabitants of Lampsacus expressed their high opinion of his wisdom, by erecting a tomb, with an inscription signifying that his mind explored the paths of truth; and two altars were raised in honour of his memory, one dedicated to Truth, the other to Mind, which latter appellation was given him on account of the doctrine which he taught concerning the origin and formation of nature.

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

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

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

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

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

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

There can be little doubt, that mathematics and astronomy were indebted to Anaximander. He framed a connected series of geometrical truths, and wrote a summary of his doctrine. He was the first who undertook to delineate the surface of the earth, and mark the divisions of land and water, upon an artificial globe. The invention of the sun-dial is ascribed to him; but it is not likely that mankind had remained, till this time, unacquainted with so useful an instrument, especially considering how much attention had, in many countries, been paid to astronomy, and how early we read of the division of time into hours. Herodotus, with much greater probability, ascribes this invention to the Babylonians. Perhaps he made use of a gnomon in ascertaining, more correctly than Thales had done, the meridian line, and the points of the solstices. Pliny says, that he first observed the obliquity of the ecliptic; but this cannot be true, if Thales was acquainted with the method of predicting eclipses, which supposes the knowledge of this obliquity.

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

, an eminent civilian of the fourteenth century, was born at Bologna in Italy, and descended from the illustrious family of the Farneses. Besides his uncommon knowledge in the civil law, he was a philosopher and politician and an eloquent speaker. These qualifications raised his reputation, and gave him a great authority among his countrymen. He was likewise in high esteem with the princes of Italy, and applied to by many cities and universities. He studied chiefly under Baldus, whose intimate friendship he gained, and who instructed him in the most abstruse parts of the civil law. He read public lectures upon the law at first in Padua, and afterwards at Bologna, in conjunction with Bartholomew Salicetus, with the greatest applause of his auditors. He flourished about 1380, and the following years; for in May, 1382, Salicetus, who was his contemporary, began his commentaries in IX Libros Codic. at Bologna. Our author died there about the year 1410, and was buried in the church of St. Benedict; though some writers pretend, that he lived till 1497, which they infer from his epitaph, which was only repaired in that year. But the manuscript of his lecture upon the Clementines and Rescripts, which is preserved in the library at Augsburg, appears to have been written in 1397; and another manuscript of his lecture upon the second book of the Decretals, which is likewise in that library, shews that it was finished at Venice in 1392. He wrote, 1. “Commentaria in sex Libros Decretalium;” with the Scholia of Codecha and John de Monteferrato, at Bononia, 1581, fol. 2. “Lectura super Clementinas,” with the additions of Cathar. Panel and others, Lyons, 1549 and 1553, fol. 3. “Seleetae Quaestiones omnium praestantissimorum Jurisconsultorum in tres tomos digestae,” Francfort, 1581, fol. 4. “Consilia sive Responsa Juris,” with the additions of Jerom Z'anchius, Venice, 1568, 1585, 1589, 1599, folio. 5. “Repetitiones in C. Canonum Statuta, de Constit.” Venice, 1587.

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

His library was very curious and very extensive, and he enlarged it every day with all that appeared new and important in the republic of letters; so that at last it was one of the noblest collections in the hands of any private person in the kingdom. Learned foreigners used to visit it, as they passed through the city of Metz, as the most valuable curiosity there. When he saw the catalogue of pretended heretical books, published by the archbishop of Paris, he laid aside all those books which were ordered to be suppressed, and they composed his library in the foreign countries which he retired to, for his own was plundered after the revocation of the edict of Nantes, nor would he have had a book remaining, if those which he had hid, had not been concealed from the persons who seized the rest of his library. The monks and ecclesiastics of Metz and the neighbouring towns had long coveted the library of Mr. Ancillon, and his being obliged to depart on a sudden gave them a fair pretence to take possession of it. Some of them proposed to buy the whole together, and others required, that it should be sold by retail; but the issue was that it was completely plundered.

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

, son of the above, was born at Metz, July 29, 1659: he began his studies in that city, and went to Hanau for the prosecution of them. He afterwards applied himself to the civil law at Marpurg, Geneva, and Paris, in the last of which cities he was admitted an advocate. Upon his return to Metz, in 1679, he followed the bar, where he began to raise himself a considerable reputation. After the revocation of the edict of Nantes in 1685, the protestants of Metz deputed him to court, in order to represent that they ought not to be comprehended in this revocation. But all that he could obtain was, that this city should be treated with more lenity and favour. He followed his father to Berlin, where the elector of Brandenbourg appointed him judge and director of the French in that city. In 1695, that prince gave him, new marks of his confidence and favour, by sending him to Swisserland in order to negociate some affairs of importance. The marquis of Baden Dourlach, who was then at Basil, having had an opportunity of seeing him, entertained so great an esteem for him, that he chose him for his counsellor, and desired the elector of Brandenbourg to give Ancillon leave that he should serve him for some time. Our author did not return to Berlin till the end of the year 1699, and was then appointed inspector of all the courts of justice which the French had in Prussia, and counsellor of the embassy. The elector, being crowned king of Prussia, made him likewise his historiographer and superintendant of the French school, which had been founded at Berlin, according to the scheme which he had formed. He died in that city the 5th of July, 1715, being fifty-six years of age. His works are, 1. “L‘Irrevocabilité de l’Edit de Nantes prouvé par les principes du droit & de la politique,” Amsterdam, 1688, 12mo. 2. “Reflexions politiques, par lesquelles on fait voir que la persecution des reformez est contre les veritable interets de la France,” Cologne, 1686, 12mo. Mr. Bayle is mistaken in supposing, that this work was written by Sandras des Courtils, the author of the “Nouveaux Interets des Princes.” 3. “La France interessée a rétablir l'Edit de Nantes,” Amsterdam, 1690, 12mo. 4. “Histoire de l'Etablissement des François Refugiez dans les Etats de son altesse electorate de Brandebourg,” Berlin, 1690, 8vo. He wrote this out of gratitude to the elector for the generosity which he had shewn to the French Protestants. It appears from this piece, that the elector’s humanity extended to all the different ranks of persons among them. The men of learning tasted all the satisfactions of ease notwithstanding the pressure of misfortune and distress, and enjoyed the charms of society in the conferences which were held at Mr. Spanheim’s, their patron and Mæcenas, who was one of the ornaments of that court, as well as of the republic of letters. 5. “Melange Critique,” mentioned before in his father’s article. 6. “Dissertation sur l‘usage de mettre la premiere pierre au fondement des edifices publics, addressée au prince electoral de Brandebourg, à l’occasion de la premiere pierre, qu‘il a posée lul même au fondement du temple qu’on construit pour les François Refugiez dans le quartier de Berlin nommé Friderichstadt,” Berlin, 1701, 8vo. The author having given an account of every thing which his knowledge and reading would supply him with on this subject, acknowledges at last, that this custom is very like those rivers, whose source is unknown, though we may observe the course of them. 7. “Le dernier triomphe de Frederic Guillaume le Grand, electeur de Brandebourg, ou discours sur la Statue Equestre érigée sur le Pont Neuf du Berlin,” Berlin, 1703. Mr. Beauval says that this piece is an oration and a dissertation united together, and that the style is a little too turgid. 8. “Histoire de la vie de Soliman II. empereur des Turcs,” Rotterdam, 1706, 8vo; a work not very correct, but the preliminary matter is valuable, and contains, among other particulars, some curious information respecting Thuanus, taken from the “Bibliotheque Politique Heraldique Choisie,” 1705, 8vo. 9. “Traité des Eunuques, par C. Dollincan,” 1707, 12mo, Dollincan is an assumed name, and the work unworthy of our author’s abilities. 10. “Memoires concernant les vies et les ouvrages de plusieurs modernes celebres dans la Republique des Lettres,” Amst. 1709, 12mo. This piece, which he was induced to undertake by the persuasion of a bookseller of Rotterdam, as a supplement to Bayle’s dictionary, contains the lives, somewhat diffusely written, of Valentine Conrart, whose article contains 133 pages; Bartholomew d'Herbelot, Urban Chevreau, Henry Justel, Adrian Baillet, James Aubery, Benjamin Aubery Sieur du Maurier, Lewis Aubery, John Aubery, Claudius Aubery, John Baptist Cotelier, and Laurence Beger. 11. “Histoire de la vie de M. Ltscheid,” Berlin, 1713.

, an eminent French actor and dramatic writer, was born at Fontainbleau, Nov. 1, 1661. He studied in the Jesuits’ college at Paris, under father de la Rue; who, discovering in him a remarkable quickness and capacity for learning, was extremely desirous of engaging him in their order, but d'Ancourt’s aversion to a religious life rendered all his efforts ineffectual. After he had gone through a course of philosophy, he applied himself to the civil law, and was admitted advocate at seventeen years of age, but falling in love with an actress, he went upon the stage; and, in 1680, married this woman. As he had all the qualifications necessary for the theatre, he soon greatly distinguished himself, and began to write pieces for the stage, many of which had such success, that most of the players grew rich from the profits of them. His merit in this way procured him a very favourable reception at court, where Lewis XIV. shewed him many marks of his favour. Ais sprightly conversation and polite behaviour made his company agreeable to all the men of figure both at court and in the city, and the most considerable persons were extremely pleased to have him at their houses. Having taken a journey to Dunkirk, to see his eldest daughter who lived there, he took the opportunity of paying his compliments to the elector of Bavaria, who was then at Brussels. This prince received him with the utmost civility; and, having retained him a considerable time, dismissed him, with a present of a diamond valued at a thousand pistoles; he likewise rewarded him in a very generous manner, when, upon his coming to Paris, d'Ancourt composed an entertainment for his diversion. At length grown weary of the theatre, which he quitted in Lent, 1718, he retired to his estate of Courcelles le Roy, in Berry; where he applied himself wholly to devotion, and composed a translation of David’s psalms in verse, and a sacred tragedy, which were never printed. He died the 16th of December, 1726, 65 years of age. His plays consist of fifty-two, of which twentyfive are said to keep their reputation on the stage. They were published in 1710 and 1750, in 9 vols. 12mo, and the best of them in 3 vols. 12mo, under the title of “Chefsd‘œuvre de d’Ancourt.”

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

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

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

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

In the proceedings against those who endeavoured to set up the Geneva discipline, Anderson shewed much zeal: but in the case of Udal, a puritan minister, who was confined in 1589, and tried and condemned the year following, we find him unjustly censured by Mr. Pierce in his “Indication of the Dissenters,” and yet more unjustly by Neal, in his History of the Puritans, who asserts that Anderson tried and condemned Udal, which is a direct falsehood. Still it cannot be denied that he was severe in suoh cases, although from his conduct in other matters, it is evident that he acted conscientiously. In 1596 we have an account of his going the northern circuit, where he behaved with the same rigour; declaring in his charges, that such persons as opposed the established church, opposed her majesty’s authority, and were in that light enemies to the state and disturbers of the public peace, and he directed the grand juries to inquire, that they might be punished. He was indeed a very strict lawyer, who governed himself entirely by statutes: this he shewed on many occasions, particularly at the trial of Henry Cuffe, secretary to the earl of Essex, where the attorney-general charging the prisoner syllogistically, and Cuffe answering him in the same style, lord chief justice Anderson said, “I sit here to judge of law, and not of logic:” and directed Mr. attorney to press the statute of Edward III. on which Mr. Cuffe was indicted. He was reputed severe, and strict in the observation of what was taught in courts, and laid down as law by reports; but this is another unfounded report to his discredit, for we have his express declaration to the contrary, and that he neither expected precedents in all cases, nor would be bound by them where he saw they were not founded upon justice, but would act as if there were no such precedents. Of this we have a proof from the reports in his time, published by Mr. Goldesborough: “The case of Resceit was moved again; and Shuttleworth said, that he cannot be received, because he is named in the writ; and added, that he had searched all the books, and there is not one case where he who is named in the writ may be received. What of that? said Anderson; shall we not give judgment, because it is not adjudged in the books before? we, will give judgment according to reason; and if there be no reason in the books, I will not regard them.” His steadiness was so great, that he would not be driven from what he thought right, by any authority whatever. This appeared in the case of davendish, a creature of the earl of Leicester; who had procured, by his interest, the queen’s letters patent for making out writs of supersedeas upon exigents in the court of common pleas, aiyd a message was sent to the judges to admit him to that office: with which, as they conceived the queen had no right to grant any such patent, they did not comply. Upon this, Mr. Cavendish, by the assistance of his patron, obtained a letter from the queen to quicken them, but which did not produce what was ex pected from it. The courtier again pursued his point, and obtained another letter under the queen’s signet and sign manual; which letter was delivered in presence of the lord chancellor and the earl of Leicester, in the beginning of Easter term. The judges desired time to consider it, and then answered, that they could not comply with the letter, because it was inconsistent with their duty and their oaths of office. The queen upon this appointed the chancellor, the lord chief justice of the queen’s bench, and the master of the rolls, to hear this matter; and the queen’s serjeant having set forth her prerogative, it was shewn by the judges, that they could not grant offices by virtue of the queen’s letters, where it did not appear to them that she had a power to grant; that as the judges were bound by their oaths of office, so her majesty was restrained by her coronation-oath from such arbitrary interpositions: and with this her majesty was satisfied. He concurred also with his brethren in remonstrating boldly against several acts of power practised in Elizabeth’s reign. On the accession of king James he was continued in his office, and held it to the time of his death, which happened August 1, 1605. He was interred at Eyworth in Bedfordshire. The printed works of this great lawyer, besides his “Readings,” which are still in manuscript, are, 1. “Reports of many principal Cases argued and adjudged in the time of queen Elizabeth, in the Common Bench,” London, 1664, folio. 2. “Resolutions a-nd Judgements on, the Cases and Matters agitated in all the courts of Westminster, in the latter end of the reign of queen Elizabeth,” published by John Goldesborough, esq. prothonotary of the common pleas, London, 1653, 4to.

Chief justice Anderson married Magdalen, daughter of Nicholas Smith of Aunables in Hertfordshire, by whom he had three sons, Edward, Francis, William, and six daughters, two of which died young. Of those that survived, Elizabeth married Sir Hatton Farmer, knt. ancestor to the earl of Pontefract; Griselda espoused sir John Shefeld, knt. from whom descended the late duke of Buckinghamshire. Catherine became the wife of sir George Booth, bart. ancestor to the earls of Warrington; and Margaret, by sir Thomas Monson, bart. established the family of the lords Monson. As for the sons, Edward the eldest died without issue. Francis the second son was knighted by queen Elizabeth, and his youngest son by his second wife, sir John Anderson, of St. Ives, in the county of Huntingdon, was created baronet in 1628. William, the chief justice’s youngest son, left one son Edmond, who was created baronet by king Charles H. and his family still flourishes at Kilnwick Piercy, in the east-riding of Yorkshire. Stephen Anderson, esq. eldest son and heir of Stephen Anderson, esq. son and heir of sir Francis Anderson before mentioned, was likewise raised to the dignity of a baronet, in the sixteenth of Charles II. and his honour was lately possessed by his direct descendant, sir Stephen Anderson, of Broughton in Lincolnshire, and Eyworth in Bedfordshire, but the title is now extinct.

, a traveller, was born at Tundern, in the duchy of Sleswick, about the beginning of the seventeenth century. It does not appear that he had enjoyed a regular education, but by strong sense, and powers of memory, he acquired a great stock of knowledge. He travelled in the east from the year 1644 to 1650, through Arabia, Persia, India, China, and Japan, and returned by Tartary, northern Persia, Mesopotamia, Syria, and Palestine. When he came home, he entered into the service of the duke of Holstein-Gottorp, who, not being able to obtain from him a written account of his travels, invited him every day to his house, and drew from him in conversation the particulars of it, which were taken down in writing by Adam Olearius, who was concealed for the purpose behind the tapestry. The duke afterwards prevailed on him to revise the manuscript, and it was published at Sleswick, by Olearius, 1669, in German, fol.

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

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

, a Scotch antiquary, was the son of the rev. Pat. Anderson, of Edinburgh, where he was born Aug. 5, 1662. He had a liberal education at the university of that city, which was much improved by genius and application. When he had finished his studies, he was placed under the care of sir Hugh Paterson, of Bannockburn, an eminent writer to the signet, and made such progress, that in 1690 he was admitted a member of that society, and during his practice discovered so much knowledge joined with integrity, that he probably would have made a very distinguished figure had he remained longer in this branch of the law profession. The acquaintance with ancient writings, however, which he had been obliged to cultivate in the course of his practice, gratified a taste for general antiquities and antiquarian research, which he seems to have determined to pursue, and he happened to have an early opportunity to prove himself well qualified for the pursuit. In 1704, a book was published by Mr. William Atwood, a lawyer, entitled “The superiority and direct dominion of tl?e Imperial Crown and Kingdom of England over the Crown and Kingdom, of Scotland.” In this, Mr. Anderson, although altogether unknown to Mr. Atwood, was brought in by him as an evidence and eyewitness to vouch some of the most important original chai% ters and grants by the kings of Scotland, which AtwoocJ maintained were in proof of the point he laboured to establish. Mr. Anderson, in consequence of such an appeal, thought himself bound in duty to his country to publish what he knew of the matter, and to vindicate the memory of some of the best of the Scottish kings, who were accused by Atwood of a base and voluntary surrender of their sovereignty. Accordingly, in 1705, he published “An Essay, shewing that the Crown of Scotland is imperial and independent,” Edinburgh, 8vo, which was so acceptable to his country that the parliament ordered him a reward, ind thanks to be delivered by the lord chancellor in presence of her majesty’s high commissioner and the estates, which was done, and at the same time they ordered Atwood’s hook to he burnt at Edinburgh by the hands of the hangman.

In a few years, he left Hermiston, and took a long lease of a large farm of 1300 acres, in Aberdeenshire, which was almost in a state of nature. While endeavouring to cultivate this unpromising soil, be began his literary career by publishing, in 1777, “Essays on Planting,” which he had written in 1771, in the Edinburgh Weekly Magazine, under the signature of Agricola. All his early works were composed during a residence of more than 20 years at Monkshill, the name of this farm. The fame of these works procured him a very extensive acquaintance and correspondence with persons of eminence, who wished to profit by the knowledge of so able a practical farmer. In 1780, the degree of LL/-D. was conferred upon him by the University of Aberdeen, in a manner highly honourable to him, and without the least solicitation on his part.

Among other papers in the Bee was a series of Essays on the Political Progress of Great Britain. These having been published during the democratic rage which prevailed at Edinburgh, soon after the breaking out of the French revolution, the sheriff sent for Dr. Anderson, and demanded the name of the author. This he refused to give up, and desired to be considered as the author; a circumstance the more singular, as his sentiments were well known to be directly opposite: but his conduct in this case proceeded from his peculiar notions on the subject of literary secrecy; and as he had admitted those letters, he thought himself bound to take the blame upon himself. After a second and third application, he still refused; and when the printers were sent for, he charged them, in the face of the magistrates, not to give up the name of the author. Respect for his talents and character induced the magistrates to let the matter drop. The real author was a Mr. Callender, who died afterwards in America.

He was twice married. First, in 1768, to Miss Seton of Mounie, an amiable and accomplished woman, by whom he had 13 children. She died in 1788. Secondly, to a 4ady of Wiltshire, in 1801, who survived him. Of his numerous family only five sons and a daughter, Mrs. Outram, the widow of Mr. Benjamin Outram, are alive.

In his younger days, Dr. Anderson was remarkably handsome in his person, of middle stature, and robust make. Extremely moderate in his living, the country exercise animated his cheek with the glow of health; but the overstrained exertion of his mental powers afterwards shook his constitution, ultimately wasted his faculties, and hurried him into old age. He was a man of an independent mind; and in the relative duties of husband and father, exhibited a prudential care, mixed with affection, from which he had every reason to have expected the happiest results, had Providence spared the whole of his family. In those who remain, it is not too much to say, that his integrity and talents have been acknowledged by all who know them. One of his sons, who lately died, is remembered by the connoisseurs, as having brought the beautiful art of wood-engraving to great perfection.

In his style, Dr. Anderson was abundantly copious, and sometimes, perhaps, inclined to the prolix; but, on perusing his longest works, it would be found difficult to omit any thing, without a visible injury to his train of reasoning, which was always perspicuous and guarded. In conversation, as well as in writing, he had the happy faculty of not only entering with spirit and zeal on anyfavourite subject, but of rendering it so intelligible, as to command attention in those to whom it might be of less importance, and convey instruction to those who sought it. His manners were gentleman-like, free, and unconstrained, and, in the social circle, had a dash of pleasantry, from the many anecdotes he had stored up in his travels and long experience; and with respect to the principal object of his attention, he had the happiness to see agriculture, in all its branches, become the favourite study of his country.

, a learned German, and a member of the Imperial Academy, was born at Hamburgh, March 14, 1674. His father was a rich merchant, who spared no expence in cultivating his talents, which were particularly directed to the study of the canon law, languages, and natural history, which he studied at Halle, Leipsic, and Leyden. Soon after his father’s death, in 1708, he was appointed syndic of the republic of Hamburgh, was employed in various negociations with the princ-ipal courts of Europe, and was always eager to make himself acquainted with whatever was interesting in the countries he visited. On his return in 1725 he was made burgomaster, and chief of the city and territory of Hamburgh; a situation which, however, did not interrupt his studies, nor his correspondence with the learned of Germany and France. He studied especially the history of the northern nations, not contenting himself with what had been published, but visited them; and not only acquired more knowledge than books contained, but was enabled to separate fabulous reports and traditions from genuine authorities. His principal publication was printed in 1746, and translated into French at Paris, in 1753, 2 vols. “Histoire naturelle de Islamic du Groenland, du detroit de Devis, et d‘autres pays situe’s sous le nord, tracluit de l’Amemand de M. Anderson.” He wrote also, “Glossarium Teutonicum et Alemanicum” “Observations philological and physical on the Bible,” in German and “Observationes juris Germanici,” which last remains in manuscript. He died May 3, 1743.

, an Athenian orator, the son of Leogoras, was born at Athens in the year 468 B. C. He was early employed in public affairs, and was one of those who in 445 B. C. negociated the peace of thirty years with the Lacedæmonians, which preceded the Peloponuesian war. Some time after he had the joint command with Glaucou of a fleet which the Athenians sent to the assistance of the Corey rians against the Corinthians. His connexion with Alcibiades, and other young men, gave occasion to a suspicion that he had profaned the Eleusinian mysteries, and from this he escaped by accusing certain persons. He was afterwards banished and recalled, and twice in danger of his life from popular commotions. Four of his orations, in a simple 1 unornamented style, have descended to us, although not without some suspicion of their authenticity. They are published in the “Oratores Græci veteres,” of H. Stephens, 1575, fol.; and in those of Reiske.

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

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

, another brother to Diego, styled in his order Thomas of Jesus, who began the reform of the barefoot Augustines, and followed the king don Sebastian in his unfortunate expedition in Africa. The infidels shut him up in a cave, where he composed in Portuguese his famous book, entitled “The Sufferings of Jesus;” translated into French jn 2 vols. 12mo. His sister, Yolande d'Andrada, countess of Lignerez, sent him money to purchase his liberty; but he chose rather to employ himself in his captivity, in consoling the Christians that suffered with him. He died in 1582.

, a German apothecary of considerable learning and excellent character, was born at Hanover in 1724; studied first at Berlin, and afterwards passed a few years in the principal German and Dutch universities. He resided likewise some time in England, and formed an acquaintance, in the course of his various travels, with the most eminent physicians and chemists of the age. On his return to Hanover, he succeeded to his father’s business, who was an apothecary; and published from time to time, in the Hanoverian Magazine, many learned and useful dissertations on medical and chemical subjects, and formed a very fine museum of natural history; of which, at his death, he left a catalogue raisonne. In 1765, by desire of his Britannic majesty, he undertook an examination of the different kinds of earth in the electorate of Hanover, and published the result in 1769, under the title of “Dissertation on the earths which compose the soil, &c. and their uses in agriculture.” He died in 1793, particularly regretted by the poor, to whom he always tendered his services gratuitously. Zimmerman speaks in the highest terms of his learning and virtues.

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

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

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

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

, was born a Mahometan, at Xativa, in the kingdom of Valencia, and succeeded his father in the dignity of alfaqui of that city. He embraced Christianity on being present at a sermon in the great church of Valencia the day of the assumption of the blessed Virgin, in 1487. Upon this he desired to be baptised, and in memory of the calling of St. John and St. Andrew, he took the name of John Andreas. “Having received holy orders,” says he, “and from an alfaqui and a slave of Lucifer become a priest and minister of Christ, I began, like St. Paul, to preach and publish the contrary of what I had erroneously believed and asserted; and, with the assistance of almighty God, I converted at first a great many souls of the Moors, who were in danger of hell, and under the dominion of Lucifer, and conducted them into the way of salvation. After this, I was sent for by the most catholic princes king Fex-dinand and queen Isabella, in order to preach in Grenada to the Moors of that kingdom, which their majesties had conquered; and by God’s blessing on my preaching, an infinite number of Moors were brought to abjure Mahommed, and to turn to Christ. A little after this, I was made a canon by their graces; and sent for again by the most Christian queen Isabella to Arragon, that I might be employed in the conversion of the Moors of those kingdoms, who still persisted in their errors, to the great contempt and dishonour of our crucified Saviour, and the prodigious loss and danger of all Christian princes. But this excellent and pious design of her majesty was rendered ineffectual by her death.” At the desire of Martin Garcia, bishop of Barcelona, he undertook to translate from the Arabic, into the language of Arragon, the whole law of the Moors; and after having finished this undertaking, he composed his famous work of “The Confusion of the Sect of Mahommed;” it contains twelve chapters, wherein he has collected the fabulous stories, impostures, forgeries, brutalities, follies, absurdities, and contradictions, which Mahommed, in order to deceive the simple people, has dispersed in the writings of that sect, and especially in the Koran. Andreas tells us, he wrote this work, that not only the learned among Christians, but even the common people, might know the different belief and doctrine of the Moors; and on the one hand might laugh at and ridicule such insolent and brutal notions, and on the other might lament their blindness and dangerous condition. This book, which was published at first in Spanish at Seville, 1537, 4to, has been translated into several languages, and is frequently quoted as authority in writings against the Mahometan religion.

, a biographer, to whom works of this description are highly indebted, was born Nov. 25, 15.88, at Desschel, a small town in Brabant, from which he has been sometimes called Desselius. He studied polite literature, first in his own country, under Valerius Hontius, a very able teacher, and afterwards for three years at Antwerp, under Andreas Schottus, a learned Jesuit, who taught him Greek; and he was taught Hebrew at the same time by John Hay, a native of Scotland, and likewise one of the society of Jesuits. After having attended a course of philosophy at Douay, he was appointed Hebrew professor at Louvain in 1612. In 1621 he was created LL. D. In 1628 he was appointed regius professor of civil law, and, in 1638, keeper of the newly-founded university library. His life appears to have been principally devoted to the composition of his numerous works, and the care of the press in publishing other works of celebrity. He died at Louvain, 1656, leaving behind him the character of a man of amiable manners and extensive learning.

His principal works are, 1. “Orthographiae ratio, et de ratione interpungendi ac distinctionum notis,” Douay, 1610, 12mo. 2. “Clarorum Catalogus Hispaniae Scriptorum,” Mentz, 1607, 4to. 3. “Imagines doctorum virorum e variis gentibus, elogiis brevibus illustratae,” Antwerp, 1611, 12mo. These two last he appears to have undervalued, as he did not insert them in the list of his writings in the Bibl. Belgica. 4. “De initiis ac progressu Collegii Trilinguis Buslidiani, deque vita et scriptis professorum ejusdem collegii,” 1614, 4to. 5. “De Linguae Hebraicae laudibus, antiquitate, &c.” ibid. 6. “Dissertatic de Toga et Sago, sive de litterata armataque militia,” Cologn, 1618, 8vo. 7. “Topographia Belgica.” 8. “Fasti Academici Studii Generalis Lovaniehsis,” 1635, 4to, am in 1648, an improved edition; but afterwards a much more correct edition was published under the title of “Historia Universitatis Lovaniensis.” 9. “Bibliothecae Lovaniensis primordia,” 1636, and in 1638, with a catalogue of the library. His other works were on the subject of the canon law, and some editions of the canonists with improvements; but that which entitles him chiefly to a place here is his “Bibliotheca Belgica,” containing the lives of the eminent men of the Netherlands, and lists of their works. This was first published in 1623, 8vo. This edition excited a literary war between the author and Francis Swertz, who in 1628 published his “Athenae Belgicae, sive Nomenclator Scriptorum inferioris Germanic,” fol. In this he accuses Andreas of having interfered with his design, and violated the rules of friendship, &c. Andreas, who had continued to improve his work, and published it a second time at Lovain in 1643, 4to, answered these accusations very modestly in his preface, and asserted the priority of his design. This last edition is preceded by the “Topographia Belgica” above-mentioned. The best edition of the Bibliotheca, however, is that published by Foppen in 1739, 2 vols. 4to, elegantly printed, and illustrated by a series of engravings, which, owing to the robberies of portrait-dealers and collectors, is now seldom found complete. It has been objected that Foppen omitted many particulars recorded by Andreas, but after a careful inspection, we have been able to discover very little omitted that is of importance.

, 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.

, professor of history and Greek at Groningen, was born at Braunfels, in the county of Solras, August 10th, 1604. His father was minister to count de Solms-Braunfels, and Inspector of the churches which belong to that county, and his mother, daughter to John Piscator, a famous professor of divinity at Herborn, in the county of Nassau. He performed his humanity-studies at Herborn, and then studied philosophy at the same place, under Alstedius and Piscator, after which he went to Bremen, where he lived seven years. He was one of the most constant auditors of Gerard de Neuville, a physician and a philosopher; and, as he had a desire to attain a public professorship, he prepared himself for it by several lectures which he read in philosophy. He returned to his own country in 1628, where he did not continue long, but went to Groningen, on the invitation of his kind patron, Henry Alting. He read there, for some time, lectures upon all parts of philosophy, after which Alting made him tutor to his sons, and wheo they had no longer occasion for his instruction, he procured him the same employment with a prince Palatine, which lasted for three years; part of which he spent at Leyden, and part at the Hague, at the court of the prince of Orange. He was called to Groningen in 1634, to succeed Janus Gebhardus, who had been professor of history and Greek. He filled that chair with great assiduity and reputation till his death, which happened October 17, 1676. He was library -keeper to the university, and a great frierAi to Mr. Des Cartes, which he shewed both during the life and after the death of that illustrious philosopher. He married the daughter of a Swede, famous, among other things, for charity towards those who suffered for the sake of religion.

His friendship for Des Cartes was occasioned by the law-suit against Martin Schoockius, professor of philosophy at Groningen. This professor was prosecuted by Mr. Des Cartes, for having accused him publicly of Atheism. Though Mr. Des Cartes had never seen our Andreas but once in his life, yet he recommended this affair to him, from the attachment which he professed. Mr. De la Thuillerie, ambassador of France, and the friends of Mr. Des Cartes, exerted themselves on one side, and the enemies of Voetius at Groningen on the other; and by this 'means Mr. Des Cartes obtained justice. His accuser acknowledged him to be innocent of his charge, but was allowed to escape without punishment. He also wrote in defence of him against a professor of Leyden, whose name was Revius, and published a vigorous answer to him in 1653, entitled “Methodi Cartesianae Assertio, opposita Jacobi Revii, Pracf. Methodi Cartesianse considerationi Theologicae.” The second part of this answer appeared the year following. He wrote, likewise, in 1653, in defence of the remarks of Mr. Des Cartes upon a Programma, which contained an explication of the human mind. He taught the Cartesian philosophy in his own house, though his professorship did not oblige him to that, and even whe his age had quite weakened him. Such were the prejudices of that age, that Des Marets, who acquaints us with these particulars, mentions a Swiss student, who dared not venture to attend upon the philosophical lectures of Tobias Andreas, for fear it should be known in his own country, and be an obstacle to his promotion to the ministry.

Since writing the above, we learn from Mr. Lysons’s Supplement to his “Environs,” that Mr. Andrews’s first publication was a humane pamphlet in behalf of the chimney-sweepers’ apprentices, in 1788, which led to the act of parliament, passed not long afterwards,-for the purpose of meliorating their condition. Mr. Andrews had a large circle of literary acquaintance, who frequently met at his hospitable table, at Brompton-row, in the parish of Kensington, where he resided many years; and he had the happiness of being able to enjoy his friends and his library, which contained a very valuable and entertaining collection of books, almost to the last moment of his existence.

, 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?”

, a native of the island of Crete, and physician to the emperor Nero, A. D. 65, has been handed down to posterity, as the inventor of a medicine named theriaca, which is now deemed of little use. It however set aside the mithridate, which till then had been held in great esteem. Andromachus wrote the description of his antidote in elegiac verse, which he dedicated to Nero. His son, of the same name, wrote this description in prose. Damocrates turned it into Iambic verse in a poem, which he wrote upon Antidotes. Galen informs us that Andromachus the father wrote a treatise “De Medicamentis compositis ad affectus externos,” and that he was a man of great learning and eloquence. Erotion dedicated his Lexicon to him, and some writers say he was a good astrologer. He was the first who bore the tide of archiater.

, of Rhodes, a peripatetic philosopher, lived at Rome in the time of Cicero, 69 years before the Christian aera. He was the first who made the works of Aristotle known at Rome, which Sylla had brought thither. He had formerly been a professor of philosophy at Athens, but quitted it when the taste for philosophy departed from that city. There is a workj of doubtful authority, ascribed to him, entitled “Andronici Rhodii et Ethicorum Nichomacheorum Paraphrasis,” Greek and Latin, Cambridge, 1679, 8vo, a very scarce book, and one of the authors “cum notis variorum.” There is, however, a Leyden edition of 1617, which is reckoned more correct. St. Croix, in his “Examen des Historiens d'Alexandre,” says that there is a manuscript in the imperial library of Paris, which ascribes this work to Heliodorus of Pruza.

, of Thessalonica, was one of the Greek refugees who brought learning into the West in the fifteenth century. He was considered as the ablest professor next to Theodorus Gaza, and, perhaps, he exceeded him in the knowledge of the Greek tongue, for he had read all the authors in that language, and was well skilled in Aristotle’s philosophy. He taught at Rome, and lived with cardinal Bessarion. The stipend which was given him was so small, that he was obliged by poverty to depart from Rome; upon this he went to Florence, where he was a professor a long time, and had a vast number of auditors, but upon the expectation of meeting with more generous encouragement in France, he took a journey thither, where he died in 1478, in a very advanced age.

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.

A number of boys used to assemble in the market-place to pick up such fruit as fell. Massaniello got among these, taught them some cries and clamours suited to his purpose, and enrolled such a number of them between 16 and 17 years of age, that they canoe to be 500, and at last 2000. Of this militia he made himself general, giving every one of them in their hands a little weak cane. The shopkeepers observing his instructions, there happened the next day a great tumult between them' and the fruiterers, which the regent of the city sent Anaclerio, the elect of the people, to quell. Among the fruiterers was a cousin of Massaniello’s, who, according to the instructions given him, began more than any to inflame the people. He saw that he could sell his fruit but at a low price, which, whan the tax was paid, would not quit cost. He pretended t fall into a great rage, threw two large baskets on the ground, and cried out, “God gives plenty, and the bad government a dearth: I care not a straw for this fruit, let every one take of it.” While the boys eagerly ran to gather and eat the fruit, Massaniello rushed in among them, crying, “No tax! no tax!” and when Anaclerio threatened him with whipping and the gallies, not only the fruiterers, but all the people, threw figs, apples, and other fruits with great fury in his face. Massaniello hit him on the breast with a stone, and encouraged his militia of boys to do the same, which obliged Anaclerio to save his life by flight.

Upon this success, the people flocked in great numbers to the market-place, exclaiming aloud against the intolerable grievances under which they groaned, and protesting their resolution to submit no longer to them. The fury still increasing, Massaniello leaped upon the highest table that was among the fruiterers, and harangued the crowd; comparing himself to Moses, who delivered the Egyptians from the rod of Pharaoh; to Peter, who was a fisherman as well as himself, yet rescued Rome and the world from the slavery of Satan; promising them a like deliverance from their oppressions by his means, and protesting his readiness to lay down his life in such a glorious cause. Massaniello repeated these and such like words until he had inflamed the minds of the people, who were soon disposed to co-operate with him to this purpose.

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.

, an eminent Italian musician, wa born about the year 1736, and studied his art at Naples under the greatest masters. In 1771, Piccini, who had a friendship for him, procured him an engagement as composer for the theatre della Dame, at Rome. Here his first attempts were not very successful; yet he persisted, and in 1775, established his reputation completely by his “Inconnue persecutee;” “La Finta Giardiniera;” and “II Geloso in cimento;” the merit of all which operas was amply acknowledged. The failure, however, of his “Olympiade,” and some other unpleasant circumstances, determined him to travel. Accordingly, he visited the principal cities of Italy, and came to Paris, with the title of master of the conservatory at Venice. He presented to the royal academy of music his “Inconnue persecutee,” adapted to French words, but it had not the same success as in Italy. In 1782 he came to London, to take the direction of the opera: but, as Dr. Burney observes, he arrived at an unfavourable time; for as Sacchini had preceded him, and as the winter folio wing was only rendered memorable at the opera-house by misfortunes, disgrace, and bankruptcy, his reputation was rather diminished than increased in this kingdom. In 1787, he finally settled at Rome, where his reputation was at its height, and continued unabated to the day of his death in 1795. Besides his operas, he composed some oratorios from words selected by Metastasio.

, 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.

, an English clergyman and nonconformist, was born about the latter end of the sixteenth century, in Gloucestershire, and admitted of Magdalen hall, Oxford, in 1610. After taking his degrees in arts, he went into the church, and became a frequent and popular preacher. In 1630 he preached a lecture at Leicester; but, in 1634, was suspended by the dean of the arches for preaching without a licence. In 1650, the Independents, who then were predominant, obliged him to leave Leicester, because he refused to subscribe to their engagement. On this the Mercers’ company chose him lecturer of Grantham in Lincolnshire, where he remained until his death in 1655, an event which was deeply lamented by his flock. He wrote “The right government of the Thoughts,” London, 1659, 8vo, and “Four Sermons,” ibid. 8vo.

, an eminent Italian scholar and Latin poet, was born in 1517, at Barga in Tuscany, and thence surnamed, in Italian, Bargeo, and in Latin, Bargæus. He received his early education under an uncle, an able linguist, and was made acquainted with Greek and Latin when only ten years old. It was at first intended that he should study law at Bologna, but his taste for literature was decided, and when he found that his uncles would not maintain him there, if he continued to study the belles lettres, he sold his law books, and subsisted on what they produced, until a rich Bolognese, of the family of Pepoli, offered to defray the expence of his education. His poetical turn soon appeared, and while at the university, he formed the plan of his celebrated poem on the chase, but having written som satirical verses at the request of a noble lady, with whom he was in lov, he dreaded the consequences of being known as the author, and quitted Bologna. At Venice, whither he now repaired., he found an asylum with the French ambassador, who entertained him in his house for three years, and employed him to correct the Greek manuscripts, which Francis I. had ordered to be copied for the royal library at Paris. He afterwards accompanied another French ambassador to Constantinople, and with him made the tour of all the places in Asia Minor and Greece that are noticed in the works of the classics. In 1543 he was on board the fleet sent by the grand seignior to the environs of Nice, against the emperor, and commanded by the famous Barbarossa; and he was with the above ambassador at the siege of Nice by the French. After encountering other hardships of war, and fighting a duel, for which he was obliged to fly, he found means to return to Tuscany. At Florence he was attacked with a tertian ague, and thinking he could enjoy health and repose at Milan, to which place Aiphonso Davalos had invited him, he was preparing to set out, when he received news of the death of that illustrious Maecenas.

He now endeavoured to console himself by cultivating his poetical talent, an employment which had been long interrupted, and resumed his poem on the chase, for which he had collected a great many notes and observations in the East and in France. In 1546, the inhabitants of Reggio chosd‘ him public professor of Greek and Latm, with a handsome allowance, and the rights of citizenship. In this office he continued about three years, after which the grand duke, Cosmo I. invited him to be professor of the belles lettres at Pisa. After filling this chair for seventeen years, he exchanged it for that of moral and political science, and lectured on Aristotle’s two celebrated treatises on these subjects. Such was his attachment to that university, and to the grand duke, that during the war of Sienna, when Cosmo was obliged to suspend payment of the professors’ salaries, Angelio pawned his furniture and books, that he might be enabled to remain at his post, while his brethren fled. And when the Siennese army, commanded by Peter’ Strozzi, approached Pisa, which had no troops for its defence, our professor put arms into the hands of the students of the university, trained and disciplined them, and with their assistance defended the city until the grand dukewas able to send them assistance. in 1575, the cardinal Ferdinand de Medicis, who was afterwards grand duke, took Angelio to Rome with him, settled a large pension on him, and by other princely marks of favour, induced him to reside there, and encouraged him to complete a poem, which he had begun thirty years before, on the conquest of Syria and Palestine by the Christians. Angelio caused all his poems to be reprinted at Rome in 1585, and dedicated to this cardinal, who rewarded him by a present of two thousand florins of gold. When he became grand duke, Angelio followed him to Florence, and there at Jength published his “Syrias.” He was now enriched by other pensions, and was enabled to pass his declining years, mostly at Pisa, in opulence and ease. He died Feb. 29, 1596, in his seventy-ninth year, and was interred in the Campo Santo, with great pomp; and a funeral oration was read in the academy of Florence, and, what was still a higher honour, as he was not a member, in that of Delia Crusca.

, in Latin Angelutius, an Italian poet and physician, who flourished about the end of the sixteenth century, was born at Belforte, a castle near Tolentino, in the march of Ancona. He was a physician by profession, and, on account of his successful practice, was chosen a citizen of Trevisa, and some other towns. He acquired also considerable reputation by a literary controversy with Francis Patrizi, respecting Aristotle. Some writers inform us that he had been one of the professors of Padua, but Riccoboni, Tomasini, and Papadopoli, the historians of that university, make no mention of him. We learn from himself, in one of his dedications, that he resided for some time at Rome, and that in 1593 he was at Venice, an exile from his country, and in great distress, but he says nothing of a residence in France, where, if according to some, he had been educated, we cannot suppose he would have omitted so remarkable a circumstance in his history. He was a member of the academy of Venice, and died in 1600, at Montagnana, where he was the principal physician, and from which his corpse was brought for interment at Trevisa. He is the author of, 1. “Sententia quod Metaphygica sit eadem que Physica,” Venice, 1584, 4to. This is a defence of Aristotle against Patrizi, who preferred Plato. Patrizi answered it, and Angelucci followed with, 2. “Exercitationum cum Patricio liber,” Ve nice, 1585, 4to. 3. “Ars Medica, ex Hippocratis et Galeni thesauris potissimum deprompta,” Venice, 1593, 4to. 4. “De natura et curatione malignae Febris,” Venice, 1593, 4to. This was severely attacked by Donatelli de Castiglione, to whom Angelucci replied, in the same year in a tract entitled “Bactria, quibus rudens quidam ac falsus criminator valide repercutitur.” 5. “Deus, canzone spirituale di Celio magno, &c. con due Lezioni di T. Angelucci,” Venice, 1597, 4to. 6. “Capitolo in lode clella pazzia,” inserted by Garzoni, to whom it was addressed in his hospital of fools, “Ospitale de pazzi,” Venice, 1586 and 1601. 7. “Eneide di Virgilio, tradotto in verso sciolto,” Naples, 1649, 12mo. This, which is the only edition, is very scarce, and highly praised by the Italian critics, but some have attributed it to father Ignatio Angelucci, a Jesuit; others are of opinion that Ignatio left no work which an induce us to believe him capable of such a translation.

To this brief account from Wood’s Athenae, we are now enabled to add many particulars, gleaned from his works by a learned correspondent of the Gentleman’s Magazine. It appears that he was a Greek Christian, a native of Peloponnesus; that he travelled through Greece in quest of religious truth and instruction; and that when he came to Athens, the Turkish governor threw him into prison, and inflicted the severest cruelties upon him, because he would not abjure Christianity, and impeach the Athenian merchants, who then trafficked with Venice, of having sent him to betray Athene to the Spaniards; an impeachment solicited for the purpose of throwing odium on the Athenian Christians, and of enabling the governor to avenge himself for certain complaints they had preferred against him to the sublime Porte. These cruelties he survived; and having been released from prison on the intercession of some men of rank and influence, he escaped by the first conveyance to England. He landed at Yarmouth in 1608, and from the bishop (Dr. Jegon) and clergy of Norfolk, who contributed liberally to his relief, he received letters of recommendation to the heads of the university of Cambridge. After a year’s residence there, he removed for the sake of his health to Oxford, where, in 1617, he published the story of his persecution at Athens, and of his kind reception in England, to which country and its inhabitants he subjoined a short address of panegyric. ThU work, which is in Greek and English, is entitled “Of the many stripes and torments inflicted on him by the Turks, for the faith which he had in Jesus Christ.”

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

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

, 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.

, 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.

, the natural son of Charles IX. and Maria Touchet, was born April 28, 1575, and distinguished himself by his bravery during the reign of five kings. Being intended from his infancy for the order of Malta, he was, in 1587, presented to the abbey of Chaise-Dieu, and, in 1589, was made grand prior of France. Catherine de Medicis having bequeathed him the estates of Auvergne and Lauraguais, he quitted the order of Malta, with a dispensation to marry; and accordingly in 1591, married Charlotte, daughter of the constable Henry of Montmorenci. In 1606, Margaret de Valois applied to parliament, and set aside the will of Catherine of Medicis, and the estates were given to the dauphin, afterwards Louis XIII. Charles, however, continued to take the title of count d' Auvergne, until 1619, when the king bestowed on him the duchy of Angouleme. He was one of the first to acknowledge Henry IV. at St. Cloud, and obtained great reputation for his services in the battles of Arques, Ivry, &c. In 1602, being implicated in Biron’s conspiracy, he was sent to the Bastille, but obtained his pardon. Being, however, afterwards convicted of a treasonable attempt in concert with the marchioness de Verneuil, his uterine sister, he was arrested a second time in 1604, and next year condemned to lose his head, which Henry IV. commuted for perpetual imprisonment; but in 1616, we find him again at large, and, in 1617, at the siege of Soissons. Being appointed colonel of the light cavalry of France, and created a knight by order of the king, he was, in 1620, sent as the principal of an embassy to the emperor Ferdinand II. the result of which was printed in 1667, under the title of “Ambassade de M. le due d‘Angouleme, &c.” fol. The narrative is somewhat dry, but it contains many particulars of considerable interest in the history of that time. In 1628, the duke opened the famous and cruel siege of Rochelle, where he had the chief command until the arrival of the king. He also bore a part in the war of Languedoc, Germany, and Flanders. He died at Paris, Sept 24, 1650. Francoise de Nargonne, whom he married for his second wife, in 1644, died one hundred and forty-one years after her father-in-law Charles IX. on the 10th of August 1715, aged ninety-two. The duke d’Angouleme wrote, 1. “Memoires tres-particuliers du duc d‘Angouleme, pour servir à l’histoire des regnes de Henri III. et Henri IV.” 1662, 12mo. Bineau, the editor of this work, has added to it a journal of the negoeiations for the peace of Vervins, in 1598. The duke’s memoirs also form the first volume of the “Memoires particuliers pour servir a. l'Histoire de France,” 1756, 4 vols. 12mo, and the third volume of “Pieces fugitives pour servir, &c.” published by the marquis d'Aubais et Menard, 1759, 3 vols. 4to. 2. “Les harangues prononcees en l‘assemblie da M. M. les princes Protestants d’Allemagne,” 1620, 8vo. 3. “Le generale et fidele relation de tout ce qui s’est passé en l'Isle de Re, &c.” 1627, 8vo. 4. A translation of Diego de Torres’ history of the kingdoms of Morocco, Fee, &c. Besides these, Bouthillier, bishop of Troyes in the beginning of the eighteenth century, had a folio volume of manuscript letters, written by the duke d‘Angouleme, from 1633 to 1643, and another collection by his son, Louis Emmanuel de Valois, count d’Alais, and, after his father’s death, duke d'Angouleme, who died in 1653.

, the sons of a mechanic in the town of Eu in Normandy, became very eminent for their skill in sculpture; and after pursuing their studies at Rome, embellished Paris with many of their best works. Of these, Francis executed the^ altar of Val de Grace, the fine marble crucifix of the high altar of the Sorbonne, the mausoleum of cardinal de Berulle in the church of St. Honorius; and especially that of the duke of Montmorenci at Moulins, and the four figures on the tomb of the duke de Longueville at Paris; the figure of Prudence is esteemed a chef-d'ouvre of graceful expression, This artist is said to have exercised his art in England, but we do not find him noticed by Walpole. He died at Paris in 1699, in the 95th year of his age. Michael, who was the younger brother, born in 1612, executed the tomb of the grand prior of Souvre, the ornaments on the gate of St. Dennis, the figures on the front gate of Val-de-grace, Amphitrite, &c. He assisted his brother likewise in some of his works, and died in 1686, aged 74. They were both buried at St. Koch, where they are honoured with an epitaph.

, astronomer, geometrician, and mechanic, was the son of a labourer employed in agriculture. He was born Feb. 22, 1723, at Oberperfuss, a village about 12 miles from Inspruck, and died Sept. 1, 1766. While engaged in the menial employments of labourer and shepherd, he felt an irresistible impulse towards astronomy and geometry. Pere Hill, a Jesuit, professor in the university of Inspruck, discovered his talents, and enabled him to cultivate them with such success, that in a short time he became an able astronomer, and one of the best mechanics in Europe. He made a pair of globes for the university of Inspruck, which are acknowledged to be masterpieces in their kind. He constructed and completed a great variety of mathematical instruments, and drew maps and charts of admirable accuracy and neatness. Snatched away in the flower of his age from the arts and sciences, he was deservedly lamented by person’s of real knowledge. The empress-queen, whose subject he was, and who had granted him a pension of 200 florins, which he enjoyed but two months, settled a pension of 50 florins on his sister, to testify her consideration for the deceased. The maps which he left were published at Vienna in 1774, “Tyrolis chorographia delineata e Petro An-ich et BlasioHueber, curante Ign. Weinhart.” His life was published in German, at Munich, 1767, with a portrait.

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

, 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.

, 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.

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.

, one of the early propagators. of Christianity, and the first who introduced it into Denmark and Sweden, and hence called the apostle of the north, was born at Picardy, Sept. 8, in the year 801. He was educated in a Benedictine convent at Corbie, from whence he went to Corvey, in Westphalia, where he made such progress in his studies, that, in the year 821, he was appointed rector of the school belonging to the convent. Harold, king of Denmark, who had been expelled from his dominions, and had found an asylum with Lewis, the son and successor of Charlemagne, who had induced him to receive Christian baptism, was about to return to his country, and Lewis enquired for some pious person, who might accompany him, and confirm both him and his attendants in the Christian religion. Vala, the abbot of Corbie, pointed out Anscarius, who readily undertook the perilous task, although against the remonstrances of his friends. Aubert, a monk of noble birth, offered to be his companion, and Harold accordingly set out with them, but neither he nor his attendants, who were rude and barbarous in their manners, were at all solicitous for the accommodation of the missionaries, who therefore suffered much in the beginning of their journey. When the company arrived at Cologne, Hadebald, the archbishop, commiserating the two strangers, gave them a bark, in which they might convey their effects; but, when they came to the frontiers of Denmark, Harold, finding access to his dominions impossible, because of the power of those who had usurped the sovereignty, remained in Friesland, where Anscarius and Aubert laboured with zeal and success, both among Christians and Pagans, for about two years, when Aubert died. In the year 829, many Swedes having expressed a desire to be instructed in Christianity, Anscarius received a commission from the emperor Lewis to visit Sweden. Another monk of Corbie, Vitmar, was assigned as his companion, and a pastor was left to attend on king Harold, in the room of Anscarius. In the passage, they fell in with pirates, who took the ship, and all its effects, On this occasion, Anscarius lost the emperor’s presents, and forty volumes, which he had collected for the use of the ministry. But his mind was determined, and he and his partner having reached land, they walked on foot a long way; now and then crossing some arms of the sea in boats. At length they arrived at Birca, from the ruins of which Stockholm took its rise, though built at some distance from it. The king of Sweden received them favourably, and his council unanimously agreed that they should remain in the country, and preach the gospel, which they did with very considerable success.

After six months, the two missionaries returned with letters written by the king’s hand, into France, and informed Lewis of their success. The consequence was, that Anscarius was appointed first archbishop of Hamburgh; and this city, being in the neighbourhood of Denmark, was henceforth considered as the metropolis -of all the countries north of the Elbe which should embrace Christianity. The mission into Denmark was at the same time attended to; and Gausbert, a relation of Ebbo, arch-? bishop of Rheims, who, as well as Anscarius, was concerned in these missions, was sent to reside as a bishop in Sweden; where the number of Christians increased. Anscarius, now, by order of the emperor Lewis, went to Rome, that he might receive confirmation in the new archbishopric of Hamburgh. On his return, he applied himself to the business of conversion, and was succeeding in his efforts, when, in the year 845, Hamburgh was taken and pillaged by the Normans, and he escaped with difficulty, and lost all his effects. About the same time, Gausbert, whom he had sent into Sweden, was banished through a popular insurrection, a circumstance which retarded the progress of religion for some years in that country.

Anscarius, however, although reduced to poverty, and deserted by many of his followers, persisted with uncommon patience in the exercise of his mission in the north of Europe, till the bishopric of Bremen was conferred upon him, and Hamburgh and Bremen were from that time considered as united in one diocese. But it was not without much pains taken to overcome his scruples, that he was induced to accept of this provision for his wants. Having still his eye on Denmark, which had been his first object, and having now gained the friendship of Eric, the king, he was enabled to plant Christianity with some success at Sleswick, a port then called Hadeby, and much frequented by merchants. Many persons who had been baptized at Hamburgh resided there, and a number of Pagans were induced to countenance Christianity in some degree. At length, through the friendship of Eric, he was enabled to visit Sweden once more, where he established the gospel at Birca, from whence it spread to other parts of the kingdom. After his return to Denmark, he died Feb. 3, in the year 864. Without being exempt from the superstitions of his age, Anscarius was one of the most pious, resolute, indefatigable, and disinterested propagators of Christianity in early times. The centuriators only bear hard on his character, but Mosheim more candidly allows that his labours deserve the highest commendation. His ablest defender, however, is the author of the work from which this account is abridged.

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

It yet remains to be noticed that Anselm was canonized in the reign of Henry VII. at the instance of cardinal Morton, then archbishop of Canterbury, a singular mark of veneration for one who had been dead so long. His life was written by Eadmer, the historian, his secretary, and by John of Salisbury, but the account given by the latter is deformed by many supposed miracles.

, commonly called father, of Paris, of the Augustine order, died at Paris, in the 69th year of his age, in 1691. He was the author of a very elaborate work, entitled “Histoire genealogique et chronologique de la maison de France, et des grands officiers de la couronne,” 1673, 2 vols. 4to. The second edition was published with considerable additions in 1712, by M. du Fourni, auditor of accounts, who did not, however, put his name to it. In 1725 father Ange, an Augustin monk, and Simplicien, of the same order, projected a continuation of this work which extended to nine vols. fol. and appeared in 1726 and the following years. It contains a vast stock of historical information, derived from sources not easily accessible, and much biographical matter. Bayle mentions that Anselme had made preparations for a general history of the sovereign house of Europe, part of which he left in manuscript.

, 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.

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.

, an ingenious poet of the eighteenth century, was born Oct. 31, 1724. He was the son of the Rev. Christopher Anstey, D. D. by Mary, daughter of Anthony Thompson, esq. of Trumpington, in Cambridgeshire. He was first educated at Bury St. Edmunds, under the Rev. Arthur Kinsman, and thence removed to Eton, where he was distinguished for industry and talents. In 1742 he succeeded to a scholarship of King’s College, Cambridge, and soon added to his fame as a classical scholar by the Tripos verses which he wrote for the Cambridge commencement, while an undergraduate in the year 174.5. In the same year he was admitted fellow of King’s College, and in 1746 took his bachelor’s degree. He was, however, interrupted in his progress towards his master’s degree by having engaged in an opposition to what he conceived to be an innovation in the constitution of his college. King’s college had immemorially exercised the right of qualifying its members for their degrees within the walls of their own society, as is the case in New college, Oxford, without that regular performance of acts and exercises generally in use in the university schools, and required of other colleges. It was, however, proposed as a salutary regulation, and a fit employment for the bachelor fellows of King’s, that they should occasionally compose Latin declamations, and pronounce them in the public schools, a regulation altogether new and unprecedented in the annals of King’s College. Mr. Anstey, who was at that time of six years standing in the university, and the senior bachelor of his year, finding himself suddenly called upon to make a Latin oration upon a given subject, attempted to resist it, but, finding that impossible, delivered a harangue composed of adverbs, so ingeniously disposed as to appear somewhat like sense, but was, in fact, a burlesque upon the whole proceeding. He was immediately ordered to descend from the rostrum, and another declamation prescribed, in which he gave so little satisfaction, that he was refused his master’s degree in 1749. He succeeded, however, so well in his opposition to this innovation, that no more Latin declamations were required of the bachelors of King’s college.

Mr. Anstey continued a fellow, and occasionally resided at college; until his mother’s death in 1754, when he succeeded to the family estates, and resigned his fellowship. In 1756 he married Ann, third daughter of Felix Calvert, esq. of Albury Hall in Hertfordshire, by whom he had thirteen children, eight of whom survived him. He now devoted himself to the life of a country gentleman, agreeably diversified by the pursuit of classical learning and polite literature. He had long cultivated his poetical talents, but some of his early compositions were Latin translations of popular poems, as Gray’s celebrated elegy, &c. His efforts in English were at first confined to small pieces addressed to his familiar friends; nor was it until the year 1766, that he published the “New Bath Guide,” which at once established his fame as a poet of very considerable talent, and a satirist of peculiar and original humour, and there are few poems that can be compared with it in point of popularity. Dodsley, who purchased the copy-right, after two editions, for 200/, acknowledged that the profits upon the sale were greater than he had ever made by any other book, during the same period; and for that reason he generously gave back the copy-right to the author in 1777.

His other publications vrere, “An Elegy on the death of the marquis of Tavistock,” 1767. “The Patriot,” 1763, a censure on die encouragement given -to prize-fighters: “An Election Ball,” 1776, at first written in the Somersetshire dialect. “A C. W. Bampfylde, arm. Epistola,” 1777. “Envy,” 1778. “Charity,'” 1779. In 1786 he was induced to revise and republish these and other smaller occasional pieces; but he afterwards wrote several pieces, which have been collected by his son, in a splendid edition of his entire works, published in 1808, and prefaced by an elegant memoir of his life, to which the present sketch is highly indebted. His last publication was in Latin, written at Cheltenham, in the summer of 1803, and in the 79th year of his age, an Alcaic ode, addressed to Dr. Jenner, in consequence of his very important discovery of the Vaccine inoculation. He died in 1805, in his eighty-first year, and was interred in Walcot church in the city of Bath, where he had resided for many years. His son has delineated his character with filial affection, but at the same time with an elegant discrimination, and, as his surviving friends acknowledge, with a steady adherence to truth. As a poet, if he does not rank with those who are distinguished by the highest efforts of the art, he may be allowed an enviable place among those who have devoted their talents to the delineation of manners, and who have ennobled the finer affections, and added strength to taste and morals.

In the picture gallery at Oxford is a portrait of him; there is another in the hall of the College at Arms. In the copy of his letters concerning the honour of the Earl Marshal, purchased by George Harrison, esq. Norroy, for 1l. 2s. at the sale of George Scott, of Woolston hall, esq. were many ms letters of Mr. Anstis to Dr. Derham. In Gutch’s Coll. Curiosa is a curious history of visitation books, under the title of “Nomenclator Fecialium qui Angliæ et Walliac Comitatus visitarunt, quo anno et ubi autographa, seu apographa reperiuntur, per Johannem Anstis, Garter, principal. Regem armorum Anglicanorum,” taken from a ms. in the library of All Souls’ college in Oxford. He married Elizabeth, daughter and heir of Mr. Richard Cudlipp, of Tavistock in Devonshire, by whom he had, 1. John Anstis, jun. esq. who succeeded him as garter; 2. the Rev. George Anstis, vicar of Coliton, in Devon, who became heir to his eldest brother; 3. the Rev. Philip Anstis, born in the college, and the same day, December 15, 1717, baptized and registered at St. Bennet’s Church, Paul’s Wharf; 4. Mary; 5. Catherine; and 6. Rachael, born in the college, May 17, and baptized June 11, 1721, at St. Bennet’s.

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.

Of Antelmi’s other works, the titles may suffice: 1. “De sanctse maxima: Virginis Callidiani in Forojuliensi dicecesi cultu et patria, Epistola ad V.*C1. Danielem Papebrochium.” This letter is published in the Antwerp edition of the Acta Sanctorum, 16th of May. 2. “De translatione corporis S. Auxilii, Epistola ad V. Cl. Ludovicum Thomassin um de Mazauge.” The bishop of Grassc, who mentions this letter, does not tell us when it was printed. 3. “De ^tate S. Martini Turonensis Episcopi, et quorundam ejusgestorum ordine, anno mortuali, nee non de S. Priccio successore, Epistola ad R. P. Ant. Pagium,” Paris, 1693, 8vo. Antelmi and father Pagi laboured in conjunction on this work; one of them engaged in the examination of Gregory Turonensis, and the other in that of Sulpicius Severus. “Assertio pro unico S. Eucherio Lugdunensi Episcopo. Opus posthumum. Accedit Concilium Regiense sub Rostagno Metrop. Aquensi anni 1285, nunc primo prodit integrum et notis illustratum opera Car. Antelmi designati Episc. Grassens. Praepos. Foroj.” Paris, 1726, 4 to. This work was the only one found entirely finished among our author’s Mss. to which the editor has added a Preface, and a short account of the life and writings of Antelmi’s brother, the author. Antelmi died at Frejus, June 21, 1697, leaving the character of a man of acuteness, learning, and integrity, but credulous, and too ready to deal in conjecture.