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

, an industrious grammarian, was born at llabasteins in the 16th century. His Greek grammar went through several editions, and he afterwards published an universal grammar, which proved less useful from the confused arrangement. We have likewise by him an edition of Terence, which proves him to have been a writer of a very laborious turn. He published the comedies of this poet in three different methods: first, with short notes, and the arguments of every scene, and he marked the accents upon every word which had more than two syllables, and likewise at the side of every verse the manner of scanning it. In the second place, he published them with the entire notes of almost all the authors who had written upon Terence: and lastly, he published them with new marginal notes, and a French translation and paraphrase of the three first comedies. He puts between crotchets whatever is in the translation, and not expressed in the original: and marks with letters all the references from the translation to the paraphrase. The various readings have likewise each their parentheses, and their notes of reference. This edition, which is not noticed by Dr. Harwood, appears to have been printed at Lyons, by Matthew Bon-homme, about the year 1556.

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

, the institutor of monastic life, was torn in Egypt, in the year 251. Having understood some passages in our Saviour’s precepts in their literal sense, he disposed of a large property which he inherited, divided the produce among the poor, and retired from the world, to a solitude where he is said to have been tempted by the devil in a great variety of shapes, stories which are too absurd to be now revived. It is added, however, that for twenty years resistance, Anthony received the gift of miracles; a vast number of disciples began now to crowd about him, and he was obliged to erect many monasteries in the desert to which he had retired. Here his followers passed their time in prayer, and other acts of devotion, and in manual labour, and were encouraged and supported by the example and precepts he gave of mortification and humility. He is said to have quitted this retreat only twice; once during the persecution under Maximinus in the year 312, when he endeavoured to assist the Christians who were then suffering martyrdom for the gospel: and a second time, in the year 335, at the request of St. Athanasius, when his object was to defend the faith against the Arians, who had accused him of being of their opinion. When at Alexandria, all the city came out to see him; even the Pagans crowded to touch him, and he converted many of them to Christianity. Constantine and his family wrote to him as to a father, and expressed their fervent desire to be favoured with his correspondence, which he complied with. He was frequently visited by the Pagan philosophers, some of whom endeavoured to perplex him by arguments against Christianity, but he constantly re-f futed them, and maintained the superiority of that religion over Paganism. His death is fixed on the 17th of January, in the year 356, in the 105th year of his age. Much superstitious regard was paid tq his body, which is said to have been transported into Vienne, in Dauphiny, in the eleventh century. There are seven letters of his extant in the tybl. Patrum, His life was written by St. Atha11 as ins,

Tradition has connected the name of St. Anthony with that of a very painful disorder, the erysipelas. Hence he is sometimes represented with a fire by his side, signifying that he relieves persons from the inflammation called by his name; but he is always accompanied by a hog, on account of his having cured the disorders of that animal. To do him the greater honour, the Romanists in several places keep at common charges a hog denominated St. Anthony’s hog (whence qur vulgarism of Tantony pig) for which they have great veneration. Some have St. Anthony’s picture on the walls of their houses, hoping by that to be preserved from the plague: and the Italians, who do not know the true signification of the fire painted at the side of them, conclude that he preserves houses from being burnt, and invoke him on such occasions. In 1095, an order of religious was founded in France, called the order of St. Anthony, the members of which were to take care of persons afflicted with St. Anthony’s fire.

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

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

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

, one of four poets of the same name mentioned by Suidas, was a native of Ciaros, according to Ovid, and of Colophon, according to others. The anonymous author of the description of the olympiads makes him contemporary with Lysander, and even with Plato, who, when a youth, is said to have been present when Antimachus’s poem the “Thebaid” was read. The learned author of the travels of Anacharsis places him in the fifth century B. C. Whenever he lived, we must regret that scarcely any of his writings have descended to posterity, as he had such reputation as to be accounted next to Homer, and it is said that the emperor Adrian preferred him to that illustrious poet. Besides the “Thebaid,” he wrote the “Lydian.” Being violently enamoured of Chryseis, he followed her into Lydia, her native country, where she died in his arms. On his return home, he perpetuated his affliction in a poem to her memory, and called from her name, which is praised by Ovid. We find a fragment of Antimachus in the Analects of Brunck, and Schellenberg published what else remains, in 1786, under the title “Antimachi Colophonii lleliquias nunc primum conquirere et explicare instituit C. A. G. Schellenberg, Accessit Epistola Frid. Aug. Wolfi.”

, a Roman historian, lived in the time of Gracchus, and wrote a history of the second Punic war, of which Brutus made an abridgment^ according to Cicero, who frequently mentions Antipater. The emperor Adrian, of whose taste we have just given a sample (in art. Antimachus), preferred Antipater to Sallust, as he did Ennius to Virgil. Riccoboni, in 1568, published the fragments of Antipater, which have been reprinted by Ant. Augustine, 1595, and by Ausonius Papona, and they are likewise added to Havercamp’s edition of Sallust, 1742, and to other editions of the same author.

, of Sidon, a Stoic philosopher, who wrote poems that were much praised by Cicero, according to whose account he appears to have possessed the talents of the impromsatori. Valerius Maximus and Pliny record of him that he had every year a return of fever on the day which was that of his birth, and happened to be that of his death. He flourished about one hundred and forty years. B. C. Some of his epigrams are in the Anthology.

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

, an Athenian orator, called the Rhamnusian from the place of his birth, Rhamnus in Attica, is said to have been the first who reduced eloquence to an art, and who taught and harangued for hire. Thucydides was one of his disciples. He wrote several works. Sixteen of his orations were printed in the collection of the ancient Greek orators by Stephens in 1.575, fol. and before that by Aid us in 1513, fol. His death is said to have taken place in the year 411 B. C. He was condemned to die for favouring the party of the four hundred tyrants at Athens, and on this occasion made an able but unsuccessful defence of his conduct.

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

, count of Pergola, who rose through various ecclesiastical promotions to that of cardinal, was born in 1697, and died Sept. 24, 1767, esteemed for his learning, modesty, and other virtues. He published, J. “De titulis quos S. Evaristus Romania presbyteris distribuit,” Rome, 1725, 8vo. 2. “Ragioni della Sede apostolica sopra il Ducato di Parma e Piacenza esposte a‘ sovrani e principi Catholici dell’ Europa,” Rome, 1742, 4 vols. 4to. 3. “S. Athanasii interpretatio psalmorum,” Rome, 1746, folio, which he printed, for the first time, from a manuscript in the Barberini library, with a Latin translation and notes. 4. “Vetus Missale Romanum, proefationibus et notis illustratum,” Rome, 1756, 4to. He also cultivated Italian poetry, and there are several of his pieces in the tenth volume of the poems “Degli Arcadidilloma,” 1747, 8vo. Other works by him, separately printed, were collected and published in a folio vol. Rome, 1756.

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

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

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

, brother to Joseph Antonini, who wrote the history of Lucania, was born at Salernum, in 1702. He studied first at Naples, under the direction of his brother, and afterwards at Rome. He then travelled in England, Holland, and Germany, and at last settled at Paris, where he taught Italian for many years. He died, however, in his own country, in August 1755. During his residence at Paris he published an Italian, French, and Latin, and Latin, French, and Italian dictionary, 2 vols. 4to, 1735, often reprinted, and esteemed the best until that of Alberti appeared; an Italian grammar; a treatise on French pronunciation; some good editions of Ariosto, Tasso, and other Italian authors; and an excellent collection of Italian poetry, 1729, 2 vols. 12mo.

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

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

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

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

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

, so called because he was of that city, was also named Antonello. He was born in 1426, and died in 1475. He was the first of the Italians who painted in oil. Having seen at Naples a picture which king Alfonso had just received from Flanders, he was so struck with the liveliness, force, and softness of the colours, that he quitted his business to go and find out John Van Eyck, who he had been told was the painter of it. The consequences of this journey were, that Van Eyck communicated to him his secret; and on. the return of Antonio to Venice, Bellin artfully inveigled it out of him, and published it abroad. In the mean time, Antonio had intrusted it to one of his scholars, named Dominico. This Dominico, being called to Florence, gratuitously imparted it to Andrew del Castagno, who, actuated by the basest ingratitude and the greediness of gain, assassinated his friend and benefactor. All these incidents happening in rapid succession, occasioned the mystery of painting in oil to be quickly spread over all Italy. The schools of Venice and Florence were the foremost to adopt it; but that of Rome did not hesitate long to follow their example. Although we have given 1426 and 1475 as the dates of his birth and death, they are not absolutely settled by any of his biographers. Gallo is of opinion that he was born in 1447, and died in 1496. Vasari leaves the matter in doubt.

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

, a Roman orator, highly celebrated by Cicero, after rising successively through the several preparatory offices in the commonwealth, was made consul in the year of Rome 653; and then governor of Cilicia, in quality of proconsul, where he performed so many great exploits in the army that he obtained the honour of a triumph. In order to improve his talent for eloquence, he became a scholar to the greatest men at Rhodes and Athens, in his way to Cilicia and on h/s return to Rome. Afterwards he was appointed censor, and discharged the office with great reputation; he carried his cause before the people against Marcus Duronius, who had preferred an accusation of bribery against him, in revenge for Antonius’s having erased his name out of the list of senators; which this wise censor had done, because Duronius, when tribune of the people, had abrogated a law, which restrained immoderate expence in feasts. He was one of the greatest orators ever known at Rome; and it was owing to him, according to Cicero, that Rome might be considered as a rival even to Greece itself in the art of eloquence. He defended, amongst many others, Marcus Aquilius; and moved the judges in so sensible a manner, by the tears he shed, and the scars he shewed upon the breast of his client, that he carried his cause. Cicero has given us the character of his eloquence and of his action. He never would publish any of his pleadings, that he might not, as he said, be proved to say in one cause, what might be contrary to what he should advance in another. He affected to be a man of no learning, which Bayle supposes he did not so much out of modesty as policy; finding himself established in the reputation of a great orator, he thought the world would admire him more, if they supposed this eloquence owing entirely to the strength of his natural genius, rather than the fruit of a long application to the study of Greek authors. And with regard to the judges, he thought nothing more proper to produce a good effect, than to make them believe that he pleaded without any preparation, and to conceal from them all the artifice of rhetoric. But yet he was learned, and not unacquainted with the best Grecian authors, of which there are proofs in several passages of Cicero. This appearance, however, of modesty and his many other qualifications, rendered him no less dear to persons of distinction, than his eloquence made him universally admired. He was unfortunately killed during the disturbances raised at Rome by Marius and Cinna; and his head was exposed before the rostrum, a place which he had adorned with his triumphal spoils. This happened in the year of Rome 667.

He left two sons, Marcus and Caius, of whom Bayle says, that they “were more worthy to be the father and uncle of Antonius the triumvir, than sons of the great man who gave them life.” The elder Marcus, surnamed Creticus, never raised himself beyond the prsetorship, but executed that office with a prodigious extent of authority, having the same commission which Pompey had afterwards, for importing corn and exterminating the pirates, which gave him the whole command of the seas. He committed great extortions in the provinces, particularly in Sicily. He invaded Crete without any declaration of war, on purpose to enslave it; and with such an assurance of victory, that he carried with him more fetters than arms. But he met with the fate that he deserved: for the Cretans totally routed him in a naval engagement, and returned triumphant into their ports, with the bodies of their enemies hanging on their masts. He died soon after this disgrace, infamous in his character, “nor in any respect a better man,” says Asconius, “than his son.”

, the triumvir, was son of Antonius Creticus, by Julia, a noble lady of such merit, that Plutarch affirms her to have been " comparable to the wisest and most virtuous ladies of that age; but she was by no means happy in her husbands; for, after the death of Antonins, she married P. Cornelius Lentulus, an accomplice in Catiline’s conspiracy, and punished with death for that crime. She was also as little fortunate in her sons, who were three; for Caius and Lucius seem to have had (Lucius especially) all the vices of their brother Marcus, without any of his virtues.

Anthony, losing his father when young, launched at once into all the excess of riot and debauchery, and wasted his whole patrimony before he had put on the manly gown. His comely person, lively wit, insinuating address, made young Curio fond of him, who involved himself on his account in a debt of 50,000l. which greatly afflicting old Curio, Cicero was called in to heal the distress of the family; who advised the father to discharge the debt of the son, but to insist upon it as a condition, that he should have no farther commerce with Anthony. Afterwards Anthony went abroad to learn the art of war under Gabinius, who gave him the command of his horse in Syria; where he signalized his courage in the restoration of Ptolemy king of Egypt. Anthony shewed, on this occasion, that he had a tender and compassionate disposition; for Ptolemy was so enraged at the inhabitants of Pelusium for their revolt, that they had all been put to death by his order, if Anthony’s intercession had not saved them. He performed afterwards some noble exploits, which gained him high reputation as a commander.

This was what Anthony continually aimed at; and, as the event shewed, he pursued his measures with the greatest address. He artfully proposed a decree for the confirmation of Caesar’s acts; and getting Caesar’s register into his power, proposed as Caesar’s acts whatever suited his purpose. He procured a public funeral for Coesar, and took that opportunity of haranguing the soldiers and populace in his favour, and inflamed them so against the conspirators, that Brutus and Cassius were forced to leave the city. He made a progress through Italy, to solicit the veteran soldiers, having first secured Lepidus, who had the army, to his interests; he seized the public treasure; and he treated Octavius, upon his arrival, with superciliousness and contempt, though the adopted son and heir of Julius Caesar. The patriots, however, with Cicero at their head, espousing Octavius, in order to destroy Anthony, the latter was forced to change his measures, and he endeavoured to extort the provinces of Macedonia and Syria from Brutus and Cassius; but not succeeding, resolved to possess himself of Cisalpine Gaul, and besieged Decimus Brutus in Mutina. This siege is one of the most memorable evejnts of the kind in history, and in conducting which Anthony, though defeated, gained great reputation; the consuls Hirtius and Pansa were both slain; and nothing but superior force could have left Octavius master of the field.

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

Upon the defeat of Brutus and Cassius by Octavius and Anthony at Philippi, which was owing chiefly to the military skill and bravery of the latter, Anthony obtained the sovereign dominion; and here he presents us with a most uncommon picture of human nature, when we consider how he was roused at once by Caesar’s death from the midst of pleasure and debauch, formed the true plan of his interest, and pursued it with a most surprising vigour and address, till, after many and almost insuperable difficulties, he accomplished at length what he all along aimed at. After the battle at Philippi, Anthony went into Asia, where he had the most splendid court that ever was seen. The kings and princes of Asia came to his levee, and acknowledged no other sovereign in the east but him. Queens and princesses, knowing him doubtless to be a man of gallantry, strove who should win his heart; and the famous Cleopatra of Egypt succeeded. The rest of Anthony’s history, his most luxurious and effeminate manner of living with this princess, and his ignominious death (for such it may be justly called), are all minutely and copiously reluted in the article of Cleopatra, to which we refer the reader. We shall only add a short account of Marcus Ju-' nius Antonius, his son by Fulvia.

This Antonius, after the death of his father, and the conquest of Egypt, was so favoured t by Octavius, now Augustus, that from one office to another he was raised to the consulship in the year of Rome 744. He married Marcella, daughter of Octavia, the sister of Augustus, by which he became next in his favour to Agrippa; but proving ungrateful to the emperor, for he was one of the first who debauched his daughter Julia, and being also suspected of a conspiracy against him, he killed himself, as is said, to prevent the infamy of being condemned. It is to him that Horace addresses the second ode of the fourth book; and the ancient scholiast upon this ode relates, that Antonius wrote a poem of twelve books in heroic verse, entitled “Diomedea.” He left one son very young, named Julius Antonius, in whom seems to have ended this ancient family; an illustrious one, says Tacitus, but unfortunate: “Multa claritudine generis, sed improspera.”

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

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

M. d‘Anville had made an immense collection of maps, which he had an opportunity to increase by the reputation he enjoyed in foreign countries, and his correspondence with men of learning, navigators, and statesmen of liberal and enlightened minds; every one, indeed, who cultivated the study of geography, was desirous to obtain his opinion, and happy to add to his collection, as to a general fund for the benefit of mankind. This collection was purchased by the late king of France in reversion, and the last employment of M. d’Anville’s life was to arrange and methodize the various articles, that they might be consulted with ease as well as advantage: he had no sooner finished this labour than his faculties rapidly decayed, and he died of age and infirmity on the 28th of January 1782. His countrymen have spoken in high terms of his character and accomplishments. He appears to have been an ardent enthusiast in his favourite study, and to have relished no branches of science that had not some distant connection with it. In conversation he maintained the opinions he had formed with resoluteness, and did not bear tamely to be contradicted by those who, he knew, had not taken equal pains to attain knowledge: on other occasions he was mild and unassuming.

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

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

One of Apelles’s chief excellences was the making his pictures so exactly resemble the persons represented, that the physiognomists were able to form a judgment as readily from his portraits, as if they had seen the originals. His readiness and dexterity at taking a likeness was of singular service in extricating him from a difficulty in which he was involved at the court of Egypt. He had not the good fortune to be in favour with Ptolemy, but a storm forced him to take shelter at Alexandria, during the reign of this prince; where a mischievous fellow went to him, and in the king’s name invited him to dinner. Apelles went; and seeing the king in a violent passion, told him, by way of excuse, that he should not have come to Ins table but by his order. He was commanded to shew the man who had invited him; which was impossible, the person who had put the trick upon him not being present; Apelles, however, drew a sketch of his image upon the wall with a coal, the first lines of which discovered him immediately to Ptolemy.

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

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

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

, of Antioch, a celebrated rhetorician and sophist, who lived in the third century, wrote in Greek a treatise on rhetoric which has descended to us, and some other works. His rhetoric has been translated into Latin. The best edition was printed by the Elzivirs at Amsterdam, 1645, 12mo, under the title “Aphthonii Progymnasmata, partim a Rodolpho Agricola, partim a Joanne-Maria Catanaeo latinitate donata, cum scholiis R. Lorichii.”

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

, a famous grammarian, born at Oasis in Egypt, was a professor at Rome in Tiberius’ s reign. He was undeniably a man of learning, had made the most diligent inquiries into the abstrusest subjects of antiquity, and was master of all those points which give to erudition the character of accuracy and variety. But he appears to have often been an arrogant boaster, and most importantly busied in difficult and insignificant inquiries. Bayle quotes Julius Africanus, as calling him “the most minutely curious of all grammarians;” and he might have applied tohim, what Strabo has to a pedant, “who vainly trifles’ about the reading of a passage,” though the sense was exactly the same, as-far as they were concerned with it, whichever way it was read. An idea may be formed of this writer from his imagining that he had performed something extraordinary, when he discovered that the two first letters of the Iliad, taken numerically, made up 48; and that Homer chose to begin his Iliad with a word, the two first letters of which would shew, that his two poems would contain 48 books.

Apion used to boast, with the greatest confidence, that he gave immortality to those to whom he dedicated his works, but none of these works remain; and his name and person had long ago been buried in oblivion, if other writers had not made mention of them. One of his chief works was “The Antiquities of Egypt,” in which he takes occasion to abuse the Jews; and not content with this, he composed a work expressly against them. He had before shewn his malice against this people: for, being at the head of an embasssy, which the Alexandrians had sent to Caligula, to complain of the Jews in their city, he accused them of several crimes; and insisted principally upon a point, the most likely to provoke the emperor, which was, that, while all the other people of the empire dedicated temples and altars to him, the Jews refused. With regard to his writings against them, Josephus thought himself obliged to confute the calumnies contained in them. He did not however write, on purpose to confute Apion, but several critics having attacked his Jewish Antiquities, he defends himself against them, and against Apion among the rest. Apion was not living when this confutation was published, for it relates the manner of his death, which was singular enough, at least in regard to Apion, who, having greatly ridiculed Jewish ceremonies, and circumcision in particular, was seized at length with a disease, which required an operation of that nature; and which, though submitted to, could not prevent him from dying under the most agonizing tortures. He boasted, that he had roused the soul of Homer from the dead, to inquire concerning his country and family; and we learn from Seneca, that he imposed very much upon Greece, since he was received in every city as a second Homer: which shews, as Bayle observes, that “a man, with some learning, and a good share of impudence and vanity, may easily deceive the mass of the people.”

, an eminent grammarian, was born (as is said) at Carthage, and lived under the Antonines. Helvius Pertinax, who had been his scholar, was his successor in the profession of grammar, and at length became emperor. He is the supposed author of the verses prefixed to the comedies of Terence, and containing the argument of them. The lines by him written upon the order Virgil gave to burn his Æeid:

make us regret the loss of his other verses. Aulus Gellius, who studied under him, gives the highest idea of his learning: and adds, that he had nothing, of that pedantic arrogance, nothing of that magisterial air, which but too often makes learning so very disagreeable, and raises emotions of contempt and anger towards men, even when aiming at our instruction.

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

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

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

, a Greek writer, born in Alexandria, under the reign of Ptolemy Euergetes king of Egypt, was a scholar of Callimachus, whom he is accused of having treated with ingratitude; by which he drew upon himself the indignation of this poet, who gave him the name of Ibis, from a bird of Egypt, which used to purge itself with its bill. Apollonius wrote a poem upon the expedition of the Golden Fleece; the work is styled “Argonautica,” and consists of four books, Quintilian, in his “Institutiones Oratoriic,” says that this performance is written “aequali quadam mediocritate;” that the author observed an exact medium between the sublime and low style in writing. Longinns says also that Apollonius never sinks in his poem, but has kept it up in an uniform and equal manner: yet that be falls infinitely short of Homer, notwithstanding the faults of the latter; because the sublime, though subject to irregularities, is always preferable to every other kind of writing. Gyraldus, speaking of this poem, commends it as a work of great variety and labour: the passion of Medea is so finely described, that Virgil himself is supposed to have copied it almost entirely, and to have interwoven it with the story of Dido.

, of Perga, a city in Pamphilia, was a celebrated geometrician who flourished in the reign of Ptolemy Euergetes, about 240 years before Christ; being about 60 years after Euclid, and 30 years later than Archimedes. He studied a long time in Alexandria under the disciples of Euclid; and afterwards he composed several curious and ingenious geometrical works, of which only his books of Conic Sections are now extant, and even these not perfect. For it appears from the author’s dedicatory epistle to Eudemus, a geometrician in Pergamus, that this work consisted of eight books; only seven of which however have come down to us.

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

The first four books were badly translated by Joan. Baptista Memmius. But a better translation of these in Latin was made by Commandine, and published at Bononia in 1566. Vossius mentions an edition of the Conies in 1650; the fifth, sixth, and seventh books being recovered by Golius. Claude Richard, professor of mathematics in the imperial college of his order at Madrid, in the year 1632, explained, in his public lectures, the first four books of Apollonius, which were printed at Antwerp in 1655, in folio. And the grand duke Ferdinand the second, and his brother prince Leopold de Medicis, employed a professor of the Oriental languages at Rome to translate the fifth, sixth, and seventh books into Latin. These were published at Florence in 1661, by Borelli, with his own notes, who also maintains that these books are the genuine production of Apollonius, by many strong authorities, against Mydorgius and others, who suspected that these three books were not the real production of Apollonius.

As to the eighth book, some mention is made of it in a book of Golius’s, where he had written that it had not been translated into Arabic, because it was wanting in the Greek copies, from whence the Arabians translated the others. But the learned Mersenne, in the preface to Apollonius’s Conies, printed in his Synopsis of the mathematics, quotes the Arabic philosopher Aben Nedin for a work of his about the year 400 of Mahomet, in which is part of that eio-hth book, and who asserts that all the books of Apollonius are extant in his language, and even more than are enumerated by Pappus; and Vossius says he has read the same; De Scientiis Mathematicis, p. 55. A neat edition of the first four books in Latin was published by Dr. Barrow, at London 1675, in 4to. A magnificent edition of all the eight books, was published in folio, by Dr. Halley, at Oxford in 1710; together with the lemmas of Pappus, and the commentaries of Eutocius. The first four int Greek and Latin, but the latter four in Latin only, the eighth book being restored by himself.

, was a native of Alexandria, and flourished about the year 138 B.C. He passed his life at Bruchium, a quarter of the city where several men of learning were lodged and maintained at the expence of the kings of Kgypt, but some accounts say that he lived in great poverty. He was the first who reduced grammar to a system, and wrote many works on the subject, which are not now extant, but of which Priscian availed himself in writing his Latin grammar. We have, however, a treatise on “Syntax,” by Apollonius, which has been often printed. The best edition is that of Frederic Sylburgius, with the Latin translation and notes of Portus, Franc fort, 1590, 4to. Jn Ileitzius’s edition of Mattaire’s Greek Dialects, 1738, and in SturtrAus’s edition, 1807, are several extracts from Apollonius’s grammar, which Vossius copied from a ms. in the royal library of Paris, but this manu script is more full, and deserves printing at large. Another work, entirled “Historian Mirabiles,” Gr. and Lat. of which Meursius published the best edition, Leyden, 1620, 4to, is attributed to Apollonius, but upon doubtful authority. Apollonius was the father of Heroaian, the grammarian.

, a noted impostor, was a native of Tyana, in Cappadocia, and born some years before the Christian sera. He studied the philosophy of Pythagoras in his infancy, and professed it during his whole life. He practised every rigid precept of abstinence, gave his property to the poor, lived in the temples, quelled seditions, and instructed the people with persuasive force and suavity. He affected a preciseness and mystery when he spoke, which made a wonderful impression on the vulgar; all the world, we are told, followed him: artizans quitted their employments; cities sent deputations to him, and even the oracles chaunted his praises. He made disciples even-where: he conversed with the brachmans of India, the magi of Persia, and the gymnosophists of Egypt, compelling all to admire him. At Nineveh, at Ephesus, at Smyrna, at Athens, at Corinth, and other cities of Greece, he preached his doctrines, condemning amusements, visiting the temples, correcting the public morals, and recommending the reformation of all abuses. At Rome, wfcere he said he came to see what sort of an animal a tyrant was, he inveighed against the bagnios with great severity. Having accidentally met the funeral of a young lady of consular family, he approached the bier, and after speaking some words in a low voice, the dead arose and went back to her father’s house. Her parents offered him a large sum, which he refused. Here also he pretended to utter prophecies. The emperor Vespasian was so much his dupe, as to ask his advice, which he gave in his usual imposing manner. This he had done at. other courts, and most absurd stones are told of his wisdom, and prophetic gifts. Domitian, however, confined him for some time in prison, and after his release he died, about the end of the first century. Statues were erected, and divine honours paid to him. One Datnis, the partner in his impositions, wrote his life, but it was more fully written by Philostratus, who lived 200 years after. It is among Philostratns’s works, with some letters attributed to Apollonius. The heathens were fond of opposing the pretended miracles of this man to those of our Saviour: and by a treatise which Eusebius wrote against one Hierocles, we find that the drift of the latter, in the treatise which Eusebius refutes, had been to draw a parallel betwixt Jesus Christ and Apollonius, in which he gives the preference to this philosopher.

Apollonius is said to have written four books on judicial astrology, and a treatise upon sacrifices, which are now lost. His general character seems to have been that he added the arts of an impostor to the learning of a philosopher. Those who are curious, however, in his history, may meet with copious information in his Life by Philostratus, in Bayle, Brucker, Lardner, and Du Pin. A new edition of his life was recently published by the rev. Dr Edward Berwick of Ireland, 1810, 8vo.

His works shew that he had read every thing which appeared before his time, on the subject of medicine, but unfortunately he mixes, with a great deal of real knowledge, all the reveries of judicial astrology, and caused the dome of the public school at Padua to be painted with above four hundred astrological figures, and when destroyed by a fire in 1420, they were replaced by the celebrated Giotto. His attachment to astrological pursuits, and a superior acquaintance with natural philosophy and mathematics, procured him the character of a magician, and he was accused of heresy. This accusation, of which he had cleared himself at Paris, was twice renewed at Padua, by the faculty and others who were jealous of his reputation, and it was said he owed his extraordinary skill to seven familiar spirits whom he kept inclosed in a bottle. By means of some powerful friends, he escaped the inquisition on one occasion, and was about to have been tried a second time, but died before the process was finished, in 1316. In spite of the profession, which he made before witnesses, when dying, of his adherence to the catholic faith, and which he likewise solemnly expressed in his will, the inquisition found him guilty of heresy, and ordered the magistrates of Padua to take his body up, and burn it. A female servant, however, on hearing this order, contrived, in the night, to have the body removed to another church. The inquisitors would have proceeded against the persons concerned in this affair, but were at length satisfied with burning the deceased in effigy. A century afterwards, his fellow-citizens placed a bust to his memory in the public palace. His principal works were, 1. “Conciliator dirTerentiarum philosophorum etpnecipue niedicorum,” Venice, 14-71, a work often reprinted, and which procured him the title of Conciliator. He often quotes Averroes, and was the first Italian who studied his works. 2. “De Venenis, eorumque remediis,” also often reprinted, but now very scarce. 3. “Expositio problematum Aristotelis,” Mantua, 1475, 4to, of which there have been many editions. 4. “La Fisionomie du conciliator Pierre de Apono,” Padua, 1474, 8vo, and in Latin, “Decisiones physionomicae,” 1548, 8vo. In the imperial library of Paris, is a manuscript on the same subject, which he wrote during his residence in that city. 5. “Hippocratis de rnedicorum astrologia libellus,” from the Greek into Latin, Venice, 1485, 4to. G. “Qucestiones de febribus,” Padua, 1482, a manuscript in the imperial library. 7. “Textus Mesues noviter emendatus, &c.” Venice, 1505, 8vo. 8, “Astrolabium plenum in tabulis ascendeus, continens qualibet hora atque minuta aequationes domorum cceli,” Venice, 1502, 4to. 9. “Geomantia,” Venice, 1549, 8vo. 10. “Dionocides digestus alphabetico ordine,” Lyons, 1512, 4to. 11. “Galeni tractatus varii a Petro Paduano latinitate donati,” a manuscript in the library of St. Mark, Venice. 12. A Latin translation of seven astrological treatises written by the celebrated Spanish rabbi A ben-Ezra, and usually printed with his treatise on critical days.

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

He tells usj this empire was bounded on the east by the river Euphrates, mount Caucasus, the Greater Armenia, and Colchis, and on the north by the Danube; beyond which, however, the Romans possessed Dacia, as well as several other nations beyond the Rhine. They were masters of above half of Britain; but neglected the rest, as he informs us, because it was of no use to them, and they received but little advantage from what they possessed. There were several other countries, which cost more than they gained by them, but they thought it dishonourable to abandon them. This occasioned them to neglect the opportunities of making themselves masters of many other nations, and to satisfy themselves with giving them kings, as they did to the Greater Armenia. He assures us likewise, that he saw at Rome, ambassadors from several countries of the barbarians, who desired to submit to the Roman empire, but were rejected by the emperor because they were poor, and no advantages could be expected from them.

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

Aprosio’s life is written in the book above mentioned, La Bibliotheca Aprosiana. Several authors have bestowed upon him very great encomiums, some of whom have been perhaps rather too extravagant. He was admitted as a member into various academies, particularly that of Gli Incogniti of Venice, as appears by the book entitled “Le glorie cle gli Incogniti, overo gli Hnomini Iliustri della academia de' i signori Incogniti di Venetia,” 1647, 4to, where there is a very high eulogium on him. The Bibliotheca Aprosiana is a very scarce book, and contains, besides many particulars of the author’s life, a list of persons who presented him with books, and the titles and some curious notices respecting those books, in an alphabetical order, which however reaches no farther than letter C. There is a posthumous work of his, full of anecdotes of the pseudonymous writers of his time, which is not less rare. it is entitled “La Visiera aizata he*, atoste di scrittori.” Aprosio died in 1681.

, a Platonic philosopher, who lived in the second century, under the Antonines, was born at Madaura, a Roman colony in Africa. With ability he united indefatigable industry, whence he became acquainted with almost the whole circle of sciences and literature. His own account of himself is, that he not only tasted of the cup of literature under grammarians and rhetoricians at Carthage, but at Athens drank freely of the sacred fountain of poesy, the clear stream of geometry, the sweet waters of music, the rough current of dialectics, and the nectarious but unfathomable deep of philosophy; and in short, that, with more good will indeed than genius, he paid equal homage to every muse. He was certainly a man of a curious and inquisitive disposition, especially in religious matters, which prompted him to take several journies, and to enter into several societies of religion. |ie had a strong desire to be acquainted with their pretended mysteries, and for this reason got himself initiated into them. He spent almost his whole fortune, in travelling; so that, at his return to Rome, when he was about to dedicate himself to the service of Osiris, he had not money enough to defray the expence attending the ceremonies of his reception, and was obliged to pawn his clothes to raise the necessary sum. He supported himself afterwards by pleading causes, and, as he was both eloquent and acute, many considerable causes were trusted to him. But he benefited himself more by a good marriage, than by his pleadings: a widow, named Pudentilla, who was neither young nor handsome, but very rich, accepted his hand. This marriage drew upon him a troublesome law-suit; the relations of the lady pretended he made use of sorcery to gain her heart and money, and accordingly accused him of being a magician, before Claudius Maximus, proconsul of Africa. Apuleius was under no great difficulty in making his defence; for as Pudentilla was determined, from considerations of health, to enter upon a second marriage, even before she had seen this pretended magician, the youth, d portment, pleasing conversation, vivacity, and othrr agreeable qualities of Apuleius, were charms sufficient to engage her heart. He had the most favourable opportunities too of gaining her friendship, for he lodged some time at her house, and was greatly beloved by Pudentilla’s eldest son, who was very desirous of the match, and solicited him in favour of his mother. Apuleius also offered to prove, by his marriage-contract, that he would gain but a moderate sum by it. His apology is siill extant; it is reckoned a performance of considerable merit, and contains examples of the shameless artifices which the falshood of an impudent calumniator is capable of practising. There were many persons who took for a true history all that he relates in his famous work, the “Golden Ass.” St. Augustin was even doubtful upon this head, nor did he certainly know that Apuleius had only given this book as a romance. Some of the ancients have spoken of this performance with great contempt. In the letter which the emperor Severus wrote to the senate, wherein he complains of the honours that had been paid to Claudius Albinus, amongst which they had given him the title of Learned, he expresses great indignation, that it should be bestowed on a man, who had only stuffed his head with idle tales and rhapsodies taken from Apuleius. Macrobius has allotted the “Golden Ass,” and all such romances, to the perusal of nurses. Bishop Warburton, in the second edition of his “Divine Legation,” supposes that the “Golden Ass” is an allegory, intended not only as a satire upon the vices of the times, but as a laboured attempt to recommend the mysteries of the Pagan religion, in opposition to Christianity, to which he represents him as an inveterate enemy. In confirmation of this opinion, he points out the resemblance between the several parts of the story and the rites of initiation, both in the greater and lesser mysteries; and explains the allegory of Cupid and Psyche, which makes a long episode in Apuleius, upon the same principles. This opinion, however, has been contested by Dr. Lardner (Works, vol. VII. p. 462.)

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

, a celebrated French musician, was born at Paris, July 4, 1694, where he died June 15, 1772. He was so remarkable for early genius, that at the age of six he performed on the harpsichord before Louis XIV; at eight years old the celebrated Bernier declared he could teach him nothing more; and at twelve he was made organist at the church of Petit St. Antoine. Sometime after, he obtained a triumph highly flattering to a person of his profession, by successfully contending for the place of organist at the church of St. Paul, against Rameau, who at that time wished to be established in Paris. Wonders are told of the powers of execution and taste which Aquino displayed, and it is said that Handel visited France on purpose to hear him. He is celebrated also for his simple and amiable manners, and his attachment to religion. Two only of his works have been engraved, the one a collection of pieces for the harpsichord, and the other some carrols with variations; but he left to his son a considerable number of manuscript performances.

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

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

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

With this immense stock of learning, acquired without the assistance of a master, and the most extraordinary talents, which might have made him shine in any station of life, it is to be lamented that he was guilty of an action inconsistent with every principle of humanity; for, in 1758, he was taken up at Lynn, in Norfolk, for the murder of Daniel Clark, a shoe-maker of Knaresborough, who hau been missing upwards of 13 years, and removed to York castle, where being brought to his trial, on the third of August 1759, he read a most admirable defence, in which he displayed equal modesty, good sense, and learning; but was found guilty, and the next morning confessed the justness of his sentence, acknowledging to a clergyman, that his motive for committing the murder was his suspecting Clark of having unlawful commerce with his Wife. When he was called from bed to have his irons taken off, he refused to rise, alleging that he was very weak. On examination it was found that he had attempted to take away his own life, by cutting his arm in two places with a razor. Though weak, he was conducted to the gallows of York, and there executed, and hung in chains in Knaresborough forest.

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

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

His modern editors are Henry Stephens, who published his poem at Paris in 1566, in his collection of the poets, in folio, and Grotius, who published an edition of the Phenomena at Leyden in 4to, 1600, in Greek and Latin, with the fragments of Cicero’s version, and the translations of Germanicus and Avienus; all which the editor has illustrated with curious notes. The edition of Aratus published at Oxford by Fell, 1672, 8vo, with the scholia, is much esteemed; but the best is that recently published by J. Th. Buhle, at Leipsic, 1793 1801, 2 vols. 8vo, which is enriched by additions from manuscripts.

, Sieur de Porcheres, one of the first members of the French academy in the seventeenth century, was born in Provence, and was descended from the ancient family of Porcheres. He was the scholar and follower of Malherbe, and imitated him in the turn of his verse, and was also tutor to the son of Mr. de Chenoise, and afterwards to the son of the count Saint-Herau. The abbtj Bois-Robert, who was particularly eminent for the generous use which he made of his interest with cardinal Richelieu, procured him a pension of six hundred livres from that great man. On March 10, 1636, he spoke an oration in the French academy upon the “Love of the Sciences.” He retired at last into Burgundy, where he married, and died in 1640. He wrote a great number of verses, which were never printed. But there are others, which were published, as particularly his “Paraphrase upon the Psalms” of Degrees,“to which are added his” Poems upon divers subjects," Paris, 1633, 8vo. He had a brother, John, who had likewise a talent for poetry, and translated several of the Psalms into French verse, two editions of which have been published, the former at Grenoble in 1651, and the latter more complete at Marseilles in 1654.

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

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

, priest of the oratory, born at Marseilles, in 1693, died Feb. 7, 1782, at an advanced age, is less known by his having borne away the prizes for poetry, at Toulouse, at Marseilles,' and at Pau, than by his “History of the town of Rochelle, and the country of Aunis,” 1756, 2 vols. 4to, and in 6 vols. 12mo. This work had been long expected, and evidently cost the author much attention and labour. It is a full and complete history of one of the smallest provinces of France (according to the ancient division), by one who had spent many years in collecting and digesting his materials. The natural and civil history are treated with great ability and; precision. He may, however, he blamed, in common with many topographers, for a certain Degree of prolixity which general readers seldom can relish. His other works are “'Eloge de P. Jaillot,” 1750, 4to; “Journal Historique de la tentative* de la flotte Angloisc sur la cote d'Aunisj” 1757, 4to. This alludes to a well-known expedition, which few Englishmen have much pleasure in remembering. “Memoire sur la necessite de diminuer le nombre des fetes,” 1763, 12mo; “De Fetat de l‘agriculture chez les Romains depuis le commencement de la Republique jusqu’au siecle de Jules Caesar relativement au gouvernment, aux mceurs, et au commerce,” 1777, 8vo. This work, which discovers much research, and profound reflexion, was an answer to the prize questions on the subjects handled, proposed by the Academy of Inscriptions and Belles Lettres, and obtained the acccssit of that learned body. To his learning, M. Arcere is said to have joined great probity, and suavity of manners.

, a Greek philosopher, the disciple of Anaxagoras, flourished ahout 440 years before the Christian icra. He read lectures at Athens, not dissimilar from, those of his master. He taught that there was a double principle of all things, namely, the expansion and condensation of the air, which he regarded as infinite. Heat, according to him, was in continual motion; but cold was ever at rest. The earth, which was placed in the midst of the universe, had no motion. It originally resembled a wet marsh, but was afterwards dried up; and its figure, he said, resembled that of an egg. Animals, including man, were produced from the heat of the earth; he held also, that all animals have a soul, which was born with them; -but the capacities of which vary according to the structure of the organs of the body in which it resides. His principles of morals were very pernicious, but gave way to the purer opinions of Socrates, who was the most illustrious of his disciples, and his successor.

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

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

Archilochus was so much addicted to raillery and abuse, that he did not even spare himself. He excelled chiefly in iambic verses, and was the inventor of them, as appears from a passage in Horace: Epist. xix. lib. i. ver. 23. He is one of the three poets whom Aristarchus approved in this kind of poetry. Quintilian puts him, in some respects, below the other two. Aristophanes the grammanan thought, that the longer his iambic poems were, the finer they were, as Cicero thus informs us: “The longest of your epistles,” says he to Atticus, “seem to me the best, as the iambics of Archilochus did to Aristophanes.” The hymn which he wrote to Hercules and lolaus was so much esteemed, that it used to be sung three times to the honour of those who had gained the victory at the Olympic games. There are few of his works extant; and this, says Mr. Bayle, is rather a gain than a loss, with regard to morality. Heraclides composed a dialogue upon the life of this poet; which, if it had remained, would in all probability have furnished us with many particulars concerning Archilochus.

, one of the most celebrated mathematicians among the ancients, flourished about 250 years before Christ, being about 50 years later than Euclid. He was born at Syracuse in Sicily, and was related to Hiero, who was then king of that city. The mathematical genius of Archimedes placed him with such distinguished excellence in the view of the world, as rendered him both the honour of his own age, and the admiration of posterity. He was indeed the prince of the ancient mathematicians, being to them what Newton is to the moderns, to whom in his genius and character he bears a very near resemblance. He was frequently lost in a kind of reverie, so as to appear hardly sensible; he would study for days and nights together, neglecting his food; and Plutarch tells us that he used to be carried to the baths by force. Many particulars of his lire, and works, mathematical and mechanical, are recorded by several of the ancients, as Polybius, Livy, Plutarch, Pappus, &c. He was equally skilled in all the sciences, astronomy, geometry, mechanics, hydrostatics, optics, &c. in all of which he excelled, and made many and great inventions. Among others, he made a sphere of glass, of a most surprizing contrivance and workmanship, exhibiting the motions of the heavenly bodies. Claudian wrote an epigram on this invention.

He fell upon a curious method of discovering the deceit, which had been practised by a workman, employed by king Hiero to make him a golden crown. Hiero, having a mind to make an oilering to the gods of a golden crown, agreed for one of great value, and weighed out the gold to the maker, who brought one home the full weight; but it was afterwards discovered, that a quantity of the gold was embezzled, and supplied with a like weight of silver. Hiero, being angry at this imposition, desired Archimedes to take it into consideration, by what method such a fraud might be discovered for the future. Whilst he was engaged in the solution of this difficulty, he happened to go into the bath; where observing, that a quantity of water overflowed, equal to the bulk of his body, it immediately occurred to him, that Hiero’s question might be answered by a like method, on which he leaped out, and ran homeward, crying, εὕρηκα! εὕρηκα! He then made two masses, each of equal weight with the crown, one of gold and the other of silver: when he had done this, he filled a large vessel to the brim with water, and put the silver mass into it, upon which a quantity of water overflowed equal to the bulk of the mass; then taking the mass out, he filled up the vessel again, measuring the water exactly, which he put in: this shewed him what measure of water answered to a certain quantity of silver. Then he tried the gold in like manner, and found that it caused a less quantity of water to overflow, the gold being less in bulk than the silver, though of the same weight. Then he filled the vessel a third time, and putting in the crown itself, he found that it caused more water to overflow than the golden mass of the same weight; whence he computed the mixture of silver with the gold, and so manifestly discovered the fraud.

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

A whole volume might be written upon the curious methods and inventions of Archimedes, that appear in his mathematical writings now extant only. He was the first who squared a curvilineal space; unless Hypocrates must be excepted on account of his lunes. In his time the conic sections were admitted into geometry, and he applied himself closely to the measuring of them as well as other figures. Accordingly he determined the relations of spheres, spheroids, and conoids, to cylinders and cones; and the relations of parabolas to rectilineal planes, whose quadratures had long before been determined by Euclid. He has also left us his attempts upon the circle; he proved that a circle is equal to a right-angled triangle, whose base is equal. to the circumference, and its altitude equal to the radius; and consequently, that its area is equal to the rectangle of half the diameter and half the circumference; thus reducing the quadrature of the circle to the determination of the ratio between the diameter and circumference; which determination, however, has not yet been, done. But we must refer to Dr. Hutton for the farther improvements of this wonderful man.

There have been various editions of the existing writings of Archimedes. The whole of these works, together with the commentary of Eutocius, were found in their original Greek language, on the taking of Constantinople, from whence they were brought into Italy; and here they were foundry that excellent mathematician John Muller, otherwise called Regiomontanus, who brought them into Germany; where they were, with that commentary, published long after, viz. in 1544, at Basil, most beautifully printed in folio, Gr. & Lat. by Hervagius, under the care of Thomas Gechauff Venatorius. A Latin translation was published at Paris, 1557, by Pascalius Hamellius. Another edition of the whole, in Greek and Latin, was published at Paris, 1615, fol. by David Rivaltus, illustrated with new demonstrations and commentaries; a life of the author is prefixed: and at the end of the volume is added some account, by way of restoration, of the author’s other works, which have been lost. In 1675, Dr. Isaac Barrow published a neat edition of the works, in Latin, at London, 4to; illustrated, and succinctly demonstrated in a new method. But the most complete of any, is the magnificent edition, in folio, printed at the Clarendon press, in Oxford, in 1792. This edition was prepared ready for the press by the learned Joseph Torelli, of Verona, who was discouraged by the prospect of the expence that was likely to attend the publication. He had finished it some time before his death; and, while he was demurring in regard to the mode of publishing it, he was induced by the advice and recommendation of the late earl Stanhope, whose zeal in the cause of science reflects distinguished honour on his name and memory, to commence a treaty with the curators of the Clarendon press at Oxford. Torelli, unwilling to give up the charge of superintending the publication, still hesitated, and died before the transaction was completed. The treaty was again renewed by Alberto Albertini, the executor of the learned editor’s will, who entrusted the work to the university of Oxford. Ah th papers which Torelli had prepared with a view to. this edition, Alhertini presented to the university, and transmitted, at the original cost, all the engravings of figures that were necessary for the completion of it. John Strange, esq. the British resident at Venice, was very active in conducting and terminating the business. The arrangement of the papers, the correction of the press, and the whole superintewdance of the edition, were committed by the university to Mr. (now Dr.) Abraham Robertson, of Christ church, a gentleman in every respect qualified for the trust reposed in him. The Latin translation of this edition is a new one. Torelli also wrote a preface, a commentary on some of the pieces, and notes on the whole. An account of the life and writings of Torelli is prefixed by Clement Sibiliati; of this a sketch will be given in its proper place. At the end a large appendix is added, in two parts: the first being a commentary on Archimedes’s paper upon “Bodies that flow on fluids,” by Dr. Robertson; and the latter is a large collection of various readings in the ms works of Archimedes, found in the library of the last king of France, and of another at Florence, as collated with the Basil edition above mentioned.

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

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

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

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

, an early medical writer of the English nation, whose works come within the notice of Dr. Freind. It appears that he was a surgeon of great experience, and the first who is recorded as having become eminent in that branch in this nation. He was many years settled in the town of Newark, from 1348 to 1370, when he removed to London; but the exact time of his death is not known. Although much empiricism and superstition appear in his practice, yet many useful observations are to be found in his writings, and he may be classed among those who have really improved their profession. A treatise of his on the “Fistula in Ano” was translated and published by John Read in 1588, and he left a manuscript which is in the Sloanean library, entitled “De re Herbaria, Physica, et Chirurgica.”

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

Struck with the discovery, he retired to his study; and having perfected his system, began to introduce it into practice: the persons to whom he communicated it were brethren of his own monastery, from whom it met with but a cold reception, which, in the epistle to his friend, he ascribes probably to its true cause, envy: however, his interest with the abbot, and his employment in the chapel, gave him an opportunity of trying the efficacy of his method on the boys who were in training for the choral service, and it exceeded the most sanguine expectations. “To the admiration of all,” says cardinal Baronius, “a boy learnt thereby, in a few months, what no man, though of great ingenuity, could before that attain in several years.”

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

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

, an author who once raised considerable fame by invective and indecency, was born in 1492, at Arezzo in Tuscany, the natural son of Lewis Bacci by a woman whose name was Tita. In his early years he was employed to bind books, and from looking occasionally into their contents acquired some little learning. He was driven from his native city, for what was perhaps the most harmless of his works, a satire on indulgences, and went to Perugia, where he gave the first specimen of his abominable taste, by altering a picture on a sacred subject. He then walked to Rome, with no effects but his apparel, and there he lost his first situation, in the service of a merchant, by being detected in a theft. He next became a domestic of the cardinal Giovanni, on whose death he obtained an employment in the Vatican under Julius II. and by his orders he was soon after expelled the court, but he contrived to return to Rome and ingratiate himself with Leo X. who bestowed presents on him, and he likewise enjoyed the favour of Clement VII. the successor of Adrian VI. Six infamous sonnets which were written on as many indecent paintings by Julio Romano, and engraved by M. A. Raimondi, occasioned his being again sent out of Rome, It is painful to connect the names of these eminent artists with the productions of Aretino, but there is less cause to wonder at this insult to public decency, when we find that notwithstanding Aretino’s expulsion and character, John de Medici patronised him, and invited him to Milan, where he rendered himself agreeable to Francis I.; and the credit which he had acquired by the friendship of John Medici recommended him to the notice of many of the most celebrated men of the times. From this period he fixed his residence at Venice, and resolved not to attach himself to any patron, but to enjoy his freedom, and to procure his own subsistence by the labours of his pen.

His death is said to have been hastened by a violent burst of laughter on hearing of an indecent story, respecting his two sisters, who were prostitutes at Venice. This happened in 1557. In his latter days he composed some works of the pious kind, but never appears to have quitted his vices. His pious works were, a paraphrase on the penitential psalms, and another on Genesis, the life of the Virgin Mary, that of St. Catharine of Sienna, and of St. Thomas Aquinas.

, a Spanish monk of the order of St. Benedict, who lived in the seventeenth century, belongs to the class of literary impostors. In 1667, he published at Madrid an ecclesiastical history of Spain, which he pretended to have compiled from the writings of St. Gregory, bishop of Grenada, and from the Chronicle of Haubert. The title was “Poblacion ecclesiastica de Espana, y noticia de sus primeras honras, hallada en los ecritos de S. Gregorio, obispo de Grenada, y en el cronicon de Hauberto,” c. 2 vol. tbl. In order to obtain the more credit, he had the impudence to dedicate this work to the Supreme Being, but the imposture was soon detected by Garcia de Molina, who proved that Argaiz had forged the pretended manuscripts of St. Gregory and Haubert.

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

, one of those writers who contributed to the general desolation of government, religion, and morals, which was afterwards completed by the French encyclopedists, was born June 24, 1704, at Aix in Provence, where his father was procurator-general to the parliament of that city. His father intended him for the magistracy, but he embraced the profession of arms in his fifteenth year, and appears to have led a wandering and profligate life, until, on his return from Constantinople, he was induced by his father to study law, He entered, however, again into the army in 1733, and was at the siege of Kell, where he was slightly wounded, in 1734. After the siege of Philipsbourg, he met with an accident by a fall from his horse, which disabled him for the military service. Being disinherited by his father, he went to Holland, and maintained himself by his pen, and when Frederick, king of Prussia, came to the throne, he made d'Argens his chamberlain. After passing twenty-five years in Berlin, where he married, he returned to his native country, Aix, where, in the late French cant, he lived a philosophic life, and died at the castle of the baroness de Garde, his sister, near Toulon, Jan. 11, 1771. It is said that in his last illness, he requested the sacrament might be administered to him; read often in the Gospel, and procured admission into a fraternity of penitents. His conversation has been praised for the candour and goodnature of his manner, as well as for its wit and pleasantry. He had a tendency towards melancholy, but was a good husband, friend and master. With respect to his writings, he confesses that he travelled into other countries where he might take liberties which would not be permitted at home. He professed that Bayle was his model, but he is far behind that author in genius and learning. He had, however, a thirst for knowledge, and besides his acquaintance with several languages, he studied chemistry and anatomy, and had some talent for painting.

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

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

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

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

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

, one of the most eminent Italian poets, was born Sept. 8, 1474. His father, while he was in the government of Rheggio, in Lombardy, espoused Daria de Malaguzzi, a lady of wealth and family, descended from one of the first houses in llneggio, and by her had five aons, Ludovico, Gabriele, Carlo, Galasso, and Alessandro; and the same number of daughters. These sons were all well accomplished, and, for their many excellent qualities, patronised by several princes. Gabriele gave himself up to literary pursuits, and is, said to have arrived at great excellence in Latin poetry, but to have been too close an imitator of Statius: he died at Ferrara. Carlo, who was of a disposition more inclined to dissipation and gaiety, led the life of a courtier, and. died at the court of Naples. Galasso embraced the profession of the church, was employed in several important offices, and, at last, ended his days, ambassador from the duke of fc'crrara, at the court of Charles V. Alessandro, who was of an inquisitive and enterprising genius, having spent great part of his time in visiting foreign countries, at last finished his life in Ferrara.

Ludovico, being now left at liberty, put himself, at the age of twenty, under the tuition of Gregorio de Spqleti, a person of admirable taste, and well versed in the Latin and Greek tongues, who then resided in the family of Rinaldo of Este, at Ferrara. Gregorio, observing the avidity with which Ariosto applied himself to study, took every possible care to cultivate his genius; and, by his instructions, his pupil soon made himself master of the most excellent Latin authors, particularly the poets, among whom Horace appears to have been his favourite. He explained many difficult and obscure parts in that author, which were never before understood. His intention was, to have also gone through a course of Greek literature; but he suddenly lost his preceptor Gregorio, who was constrained to take a journey into France, where he soon after died, to the inexpressible grief of Ariosto. About the same time died Nicolo Ariosto, the father of Ludovico, leaving behind him a numerous offspring. Ariosto, then only twenty-four years of age, found himself at once involved in the cares of a family, and obliged to take upon himself the management of domestic concerns, to introduce his brothers into the world, provide fortunes for his sisters, and, in every respect, supply to them the place of a father, who had left them but a very slender patrimony.

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

Some time after, the cardinal having a design to go into Hungary, was desirous of being accompanied by the ingenious men who lived under his patronage; but Ariosto openly declared his inclination to be left behind; for, being now afflicted with a catarrh, he was fearful of the consequences from the fatigues and inconveniences of so long a journey. Besides, the service of the cardinal began to grow very irksome to him; those who were about him being frequently obliged to watch the greatest part of the night. It appears, likewise, that Ariosto was in his nature averse to travelling, and had visited few countries.

The refusal of Ariosto to accompany the cardinal so exasperated him, that he partly withdrew his protection from him; which circumstance gave our poet great uneasiness, though it is thought that Hippolito might have taken him again into favour, but for the ill offices of some malicious persons, who had the address to keep them at a distance from each other. On this difference between the cardinal and him, Ariosto strongly Dwells in his satires. The only consolation Luclovico had, was the leading a retired life, which suited his disposition far more than the bustle of a court, and he now applied himself, without interruption, to give every improvement to his Orlando; and in 1521 published another edition of it, with corrections.

In the meantime, cardinal Hippolito died; and Ariosto, who for fifteen years lived in a state of uneasy dependence, and had now reached the forty-fourth year of his age, was determined never more to be connected with a coart; but being persuaded by his intimate friend Buonaveritura Pistofolo, secretary to Alphonso, he engaged in the service of that prince, from whom he met with a most gracious and affectionate reception. Not long after, when Adrian II. succeeded to the papal chair, Grafagnana, a province on the Appennine, being torn to pieces by factions, it was necessary to appoint a person, whose prudence and authority might reduce them to a due subjection, and Ariosto was chosen, who, though very averse to the journey, would not again hazard incurring the displeasure of his patron. Here he continued three years, and not only brought the people to a proper sense of their duty to their sovereign, but entirely gained their affections to himself, and was highly applauded by the duke for his good services. An extraordinary instance of the veneration paid to his character by all ranks and degrees of men, is thus given by Baretti.

“Ariosto, while governor, took his residence in a fortified castle, from which it was imprudent to step out without guards, as the whole neighbourhood was swarming with outlaws, smugglers, and banditti, who, after committing the most enormous excesses all around, retired, for shelter against justice, amidst the rocks and cliffs. Ariosto, one morning, happened to take a walk without the castle, in his night-gown, and, in a fit of thought, forgot himself so much, that, step after step, he found himself very far from his habitation, and surrounded, on a sudden, by a troop of these desperadoes, who certainly would have ill-used, and perhaps murdered him, had not his face been known by one of the gang, who informing his comrades that this was signor Ariosto, the chief of the banditti addressed him with intrepid gallantry, and told him, that since he was the author of the Orlando Furioso, he might be sure none of the company would injure him, but would see him, on the contrary, safe back to the castle; and so they did, entertaining him all along the way with the various excellencies they had discovered in his poem, and bestowing upon it the most rapturous praises. A very rare proof of the irresistible powers of poetry, and a noble comment on the fables of Orpheus and Amphion, who drew wild beasts, and raised walls, with the enchanting sound of their lyres.”

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

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

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

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

Concerning the person of Ariosto, he was rather above the common size, of a countenance generally grave and contemplative, as appears from the admirable picture painted by Titian: his head was partly bald; his hair black and curling; his forehead high; his eye-brows raised; his eyes black and sparkling; his nose large and aquiline; his lips well formed; his teeth even and white; his cheeks rather thin, and his complexion inclining to the olive; he was well made, except that his shoulders were somewhat large, which made him appear to stoop a little; his walk was slow and deliberate, as indeed were his actions in general. Ariosto left behind him two sons by Alexandra, who were always considered illegitimate; Virginio before named, and J. Baptista; the first of whom being brought up under his father, who took great pains to instruct him, was made a canon of the house of Ferrara, and Ariosto resigned a great part of his benefices to him; the latter went very young into the army, and, having acquired considerable reputation as a soldier, returned to Ferrara a little while before Ariosto’s death, and died himself an officer in the duke’s service.

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

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

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

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

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

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

, surnamed The Just, one of the most virtuous characters in ancient history, was the son of Lysimachus, and a native of Athens. He was educated in the principles of Lycurgus, the Lacedemonian legislator, and had Themistocles for his rival. These two celebrated men, although brought up from their infancy together, discovered very different qualities as they advanced in life. Aristides was all candour and concern for the public good: Themistocles was artful, deceitful, and ambitious. Aristides wished to remove such a character from any share in the government, but the intrigues of his enemy prevailed so far as to procure the banishment of Aristides about the year 483 B. C. The practice of ostracism was employed on this occasion, and it is said that a citizen who did not know Aristides came to him, and asked him to write the name of Aristides on his shell. Surprised at this, he asked the man, if Aristides had ever injured him, “Not at all,” replied the other, “but I am weary of hearing him perpetually called The Just” Aristides immediately wrote his name on the shell, and gave it to the man; The Athenians, however, soon repented having banished such a patriot, and recalled him, upon which he went to Themistocles, to engage him to act in concert for the welfare of the state, and his old enemy received this offer with a better grace than his character promised. Aristides persuaded the Greeks to unite against the Persians, and displayed his personal courage at the battles of Marathon, Salamis, and Platsea. He besides established a military chest for the support of the war, and the equity with which he levied taxes for this purpose made his administration be termed the golden age. He died so poor that the republic found it necessary to defray the expences of his funeral, and provide for his son and daughters. The time of his death is not known. Themistocles, Cimpn, and Pericles, filled Athens with superb buildings, vast porticoes, and rich statues, but Aristides adorned it by his virtues. Such is the testimony of Plato, and of impartial posterity. The name of Just was frequently confirmed to him during his life-time, and he appears by every testimony to have been a man of great and inflexible integrity. Plutarch hints at the only blemish in his character, when he informs us that the enmity between him and Themistocles began first in a love affair.

, an Athenian philosopher, became a convert to Christianity in the second century, and wrote “An Apology for the Christian faith,” which, at the same time with Quadratus, he presented to the emperor Adrian. It is not now extant, but is mentioned by Jerom and by Eusebius who had probably seen it. Jerom adds, that after he was converted he continued to wear the habit of a philosopher. He speaks very highly of the learning displayed in the “Apology,” which Justin imitated in the book he presented to Antoninus Pius, and his sons, and the Roman senate.

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

, of Cyrene in Africa, disciple of Socrates, founder of the Cyrenaic sect, quitted Libya, the seat of his family, that he might go and hear Socrates at Athens; but he differed widely from the plan of wisdom laid down by that great man. The basis of his doctrine was, that pleasure is the sovereign good of man, and he made no distinction between the pleasures of the soul and those of the senses. He admitted of no certain knowledge, but that which we owe to the inward sentiment. “We have,” said he, “distinct ideas of pleasure and pain; but that which causes the sensations of it is unknown, because we are perpetually deceived by the outward senses. The same person judges differently of an outward object, according as he is differently affected. Of two persons who taste of the same dish, the one shall find it insipid, and the other agreeable. Consequently there is nothing certain in outward things, but only in what touches us internally. Of the different internal sentiments, some are agreeable, others disagreeable, while others again are indifferent. Nature abhors those which cause pain, and seeks the sovereign' good in those which occasion pleasure.” Aristippus, however, did not reject virtue; but regarded it only as a good, inasmuch as it produces pleasure. He held that it was not to be sought after for itself, but only upon account of the pleasures and advantages it may procure. In consonance with his principles, he denied himself nothing that could render life agreeable; and, as he was of a pliant and insinuating temper, and his philosophy easy and accommodating, he had a great number of followers. The nobles were fond of him; Dionysius the tyrant courted him, and at his court he covered the cloak of the philosopher with the mantle of the courtier. He danced and drank with him, regulated the banquets; and the cooks took his orders for the preparation and the delicacy of the viands. His conversation was rendered agreeable by continued flashes of wit. Dionysius the tyrant having asked him, how it happened that the philosophers were always besieging the doors of the great, whereas they never went to the philosophers?“It is,” replied Aristippus, “because the philosophers know their wants, and the great are ignorant of theirs.” According to others, his answer was more concise: “Because the pnysicians usually go to the sick.” One day that prince gave him the choice of three courtesans. The philosopher took them allthree, saying: “That Paris did not fare the better for having pronounced in favour of one goddess against two others.” He then conducted them to the door of his house, and there took leave of them. Being rallied one day on his intercourse with the wanton Lais: “It is true,” said he, “that I possess her, but she possesses not me.” On being reproached with living in too much splendour, he said, “If indulgence in good living were blameable, would such great feasts be made on the festivals of the gods?” “If Aristippus could be content to live upon vegetables (said Diogenes the cynic to him), he would not stoop so low as to pay his court to princes.” “If he who condemns me (replied Aristippus) was qualified to pay his court to princes, he would not be obliged to be content with vegetables.” On being asked, “What philosophy had taught him?” “To live well with all the world, and to fear nothing.” In what respect are philosophers superior to other men?“In this,” said he, “that though there were 110 laws, they would live as they do.” On being rallied, he used gently to withdraw. One day, however, he by whom he was attacked pursued him, and asked him why he went away?“Because, as you have a right to throw jests at me, I have also a right not to stay till they reach me.” It was one of his maxims, that it was better to be poor than ignorant, because the poor man Wants only to be assisted with a little money, whereas the ignorant man wants to be humanized. One bragging that he had read a great deal, Aristippus told him that it was no sign of good health to eat more than one can digest. It is said that he was the first who took payment of his disciples. Having asked 50 drachmas of a father for the instruction of his son: “How, fifty drachmas!” exclaimed the man, “I can buy a slave for that money.” “Well,” replied the philosopher, (who could assume the cynic as well as the courtier) “buy one, and then thou wilt have two.” Aristippus flourished about the year 400 B. C. He died at Gyrene, on his return from the court of Syracuse. He composed books of history and ethics, which have not reached our times. One on ancient luxury, mentioned by Diogenes Laertius, is certainly not his. He left a daughter named Arete, whom he carefully instructed in all the parts of philosophy, who was of extraordinary virtue as well as beauty, and obtained a place among the class of philosophers.

, an Alexandrian Jew, and peripatetic philosopher, who lived about 120 B. C. composed a commentary in Greek on the Pentateuch, which he dedicated to Ptolomy Philometor. His object in this voluminous work was to prove that the ancient Greek poets and philosophers had availed themselves of the books of Moses, and that the Jews and their history were not unknown to the ancient Greek historians. To prove this, he forged a number of quotations from these poets and historians, and that so artfully as not only to impose on the fathers of the church, but on many p-ofane writers. Brucker informs us that he was an admirer of the Greek philosophy, and united with the study of the Mosaic law, in the mystical and allegorical method introduced in his time, some knowledge of the Aristotelian philosophy.

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

Aristophanes was greatly admired among the ancients, especially for the true attic elegance of his style: “It is,” says madam Dacier, “as agreeable as his wit; for besides its purity, force, and sweetness, it has a certain harmony, which sounds extremely pleasant to the ear: when he has occasion to use the common ordinary style, he does it without using any expression that is base and vulgar; and when he has a mind to express himself loftily, in his highest flight he is never obscure.” “Let no man,” says Scaliger, “pretend to understand the Attic dialect, who has not read Aristophanes: in him are to be found all the Attic ornaments, which made St. Chrysostom so much admire him, that he always laid him under his pillow when he went to bed.” Mr. Frischlin observes, that Plautus has a great affinity to Aristophanes in his manner of writing, and has imitated him in many parts of his plays. Frischlin has written a vindication of our poet, in answer to the objections urged against him by Plutarch. How great an opinion Plato had of Aristophanes, is evident even from Plutarch’s acknowledgement, who tells us, that this poet’s Discoure upon Love was inserted by that philosopher in his Symposium: and Cicero, in his first book “De legibus,” styles him “the most witty poet of the old comedy.” The time of his death is unknown; but it is certain he was living after the expulsion of the tyrants by Thrasybulus, whom he mentions in his Plutus and other comedies.

The editions of Aristophanes are extremely numerous. The first was that of Aldus, Venice, 1498, fol. in Greek, with the Scholia. The best since are, 1. Gr. & Lat. Amsterdam, 1670, 12mo. 2. Gr. & Lat. with Kuster’s notes, Amst. 1710, fol. 3. With Bergler’s notes, ibid. 1760, 2 vols. 4to. 4. With Brunck’s notes, Strasburgh, 1783, 3 vols. 8vo. and some copies in 4 vols. 5. That of Invernizi, from a manuscript of the tenth century found at Kavenna, Leipsic, 1794, 2 vols. 8vo. Most of his plays have likewise been published separately, and the Plutus and the Clouds have been often translated into English; the Plutus by Randolphe, 1651; H. H. B. 1659; Theobald, 1715; Fielding and Young; and the Clouds by Stanley, White, and lastly by Mr. Cumberland in his Observer; who has given a masterly, although somewhat too favourable delineation of the personal history, connexions, and dramatic genius of Aristophanes.

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

Here he executed his trust with so much satisfaction to Philip, that he admitted him into his confidence and counsels, an advantage which Aristotle is said have employed for the benefit of his friends and of the public, without any selfish views. He gained likewise the entire affection of his royal pupil, whom he instructed in all the learning of the age; and whose studies he directed in conformity to the prospects of a young, spirited, and ambitious prince. Immediately after the death of Philip, in the year 336 B. C. when Alexander formed the design of his Asiatic expedition, Aristotle returned to Athens, but not before he had prevailed on Alexander to employ his increasing power and wealth in the service of philosophy, by furnishing him, in his retirement, with the means of enlarging his acquaintance with nature. Alexander accordingly employed several thousand persons in different parts of Europe and Asia to collect animals of various kinds, and send them to Aristotle, who, from the information which this collection afforded him, wrote fifty volumes on the history of animated nature, ten of which are still extant. But a dispute which took place between Callisthenes, Aristotle’s nephew, who had accompanied Alexander, and that monarch, eventually produced a coolness, if not a total alienation, between Aristotle and his royal pupil.

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

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

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

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

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

After the death of Arius, his party found a protector in Constantius, who succeeded his father in the empire of the east. They underwent various revolutions and persecutions under succeeding emperors; till, at length, Theojdosius the Great exerted every effort to suppress them. Their doctrine was carried, in the fifth century, into Africa, under the Vandals; and into Asia, under the Goths: Italy, France, and Spain were deeply infected with it; and towards the commencement of the sixth century, it was triumphant in many parts of Asia, Africa, and Europe: but it sunk, almost at once, when the Vandals were driven out of Africa, and the Goths out of Italy, by the arms of Justinian. It revived again in Italy, under the protection of the Lombards, in the seventh century, and was not extinguished till about the end of the eighth. Arianism was again revived in the west, by Servetus, in 1531, for which he suffered death. After which the doctrine became established in some degree in Geneva and Poland, but at length degenerated into Socinianism. Erasmus, it is thought, aimed at reviving it, in his commentaries on the New Testament; and Grotius seems to incline the same way. Mr. Whiston was one of the first divines who revived this controversy in the eighteenth century, and he was followed by Dr. Clarke, who was opposed by Dr. Waterland, his principal adversary, and by Gastrell, Wells, Nelson, Mayo, Knight, and others. Dr. Sykes afterwards seems to have coincided with Dr. Clarke; and of later days, Mr. Taylor, author of the “Apology of Ben Mordecai to his friend for embracing Christianity,” Dr. Harwood, in his “Five Dissertations,” and Dr. Price in his “Sermons on the Christian doctrine,” are the principal writers in favour of the Arian doctrine. In some other hands it seems to have passed, by a very easy transition, into the extreme of Socinianism.

, a celebrated painter, was born at Geneva, May 18, 1668. He was originally educated for the church, but his inclination soon led him to painting, in which he made a rapid progress. He painted miniature with success, and when he came to Paris in 1688, he obtained the favour of the duke of Orleans, who chose him for an instructor in the art, and gave him an apartment at St. Cloud, that he might be with him more frequently. He was likewise highly favoured by the princess Palatine, the duke’s mother, who presented him with her own picture set with diamonds; and also gave him recommendatory letters to the court of Great Britain, particularly to the princess of Wales, afterwards queen Caroline. Her portrait was universally admired, and celebrated by several of the poets; and, at his return to Paris, he was loaded with presents, among which were many medals of gold. Having copied a Leda, perhaps the famous Leda of Corregio, destroyed by the bigotry of the regent’s son, all Paris was struck with the performance. The due de la Force gave 12,000 livres for it, but being a sufferer, by the Missisippi (probably before the picture was paid for) restored it to the artist with 4,000 livres for the use of it. In 1721, Arlaud brought this masterpiece to London, and sold a copy of it for 600l. sterling, but would not part with the original. While in England he received many medals as presents, which are still in the library of Geneva. But Leda was again condemned to be the victim of devotion.

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

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

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

His celebrated poem, “The Art of preserving Health,” appeared in 1744, and contributed highly to his fame as a poet. Dr. Warton, in his Reflections on didactic poetry, annexed to his edition of Virgil, observed that “To describe so difficult a thing, gracefully and poetically, as the effects of distemper on the human body, was reserved for Dr. Armstrong, who accordingly hath nobly executed it at the end of the third book of his Art of preserving Health, where he hath given us that pathetic account of the sweating sickness. There is a classical correctness and closeness of style in this poem that are truly admirable, and the subject is raised and adorned by numberless poetical images.” Dr. Mackenzie, in his History of Health, bestowed similar praises on this poem, which was indeed every where read and admired.

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

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

In 1771 he published another extraordinary effusion of spleen, under the title of “A short Ramble through some parts of France and Italy,” under his assumed name of Lancelot Temple. This ramble he took in company with Mr. Fuseli, the celebrated painter, who speaks highly in favour of the general benevolence of his character. In 1773, under his own name, and unfortunately for his reputation, appeared a quarto pamphlet of “Medical Essays,” in which, while he condemns theory, he plunges into all the uncertainties of theoretical conjecture. He complains, likewise, in a very coarse style, of the neglect he met with as a physician, and the severity with which he was treated as an author, and appears to write with a temper soured by disappointment in all his pursuits.

He died at his house in Russel-street, Covent-garden, on Sept. 7, 1779. His death was attributed to an accidental contusion in his thigh while getting into the carriage which brought him to town from a visit in Lincolnshire. To the surprize of his friends, who thought that poverty was the foundation of his frequent complaints, he left behind him more than three thousand pounds, saved out of a very moderate income arising principally from his half-pay.

Dr. Armstrong’s fame as a poet must depend entirely on his “Art of preserving Health,” which, although liable to some of the objections usually offered against didactic poetry, is yet free from the weightiest; and in this respect he may be deemed more fortunate, as he certainly is superior to Phillips, Dyer, and Grainger. The art of preserving health is so different from those arts which are mechanical, that his muse is seldom invited to an employment beneath her dignity; the means of preserving health are so intimately connected with mind, and depend so much on philosophy, reflection, and observation, that the author has full scope for the powers of fancy, and for many of those ornamental flights which are not only pleasing, but constitute genuine poetry. In considering the varieties of air and exercise, he has seized many happy occasions for picturesque description, and when treating on the passions, he has many striking passages of moral sentiment, which are vigorous, just, and impressive. In Book II. on diet, we discover more judgment than poetical inspiration, and he seems to he aware that the subject had a natural tendency to lower his tone. He seems, therefore, intent in this book principally to render useful precepts familiar, and, if possible, to make them take hold of the imagination. There are, however, descriptive passages even here that are very grand. It would, perhaps, be difficult to select an image more finely conceived and uniformly preserved, than where he inculcates the simple precept that persons who have been exhausted for want of food ought not to indulge when plenty presents itself.

Dr. Kurd (late bishop of Worcester) patronized his son (Dr. William Arnald), a fellow of St. John’s college, who, by his favour and recommendation, became sub-preceptor to the prince of Wales and duke of York in 1776, and afterwards canon of Windsor, and prsecentor of Lichfield. He died in 1802, after having been for twenty years confined through insanity. He was much respected by his friends before this awful visitation, and they paid him every affectionate attention which his situation could admit.

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

, a French miscellaneous writer of considerable note, was born at Aubignan, near Carpentras, July 27, 1721, and afterwards became an ecclesiastic. In 1752 he came to Paris, and in 1762 was admitted into the Academy of Inscriptions and Belles Lettres. He was for some time attached to prince Louis of Wirtemberg, afterwards sovereign of that duchy, but then in the service of France. The advocate Gerbier, his friend, having in 1765, gained an important cause for the clergy of France against the Benedictines, he demanded, as his reward, that Arnaud should be placed at the head of the abbey of Grandchamp. In 1771 he was elected a member of the French academy, and became librarian to Monsieur, with the reversion of the place of historiographer of the order of St. Lazarus. He died at Paris Dec. 2, 1784. The abbé Arnaud was a man of learning, much information, and taste, but too much a man of the world, and too indolent, to give his talents fair play. His “Lettre sur la Musique, au Comte de Caylus,” 1754, 8 vo, which made him first known to the learned world, and has been generally praised, was little more than the prospectus of a far larger work on the music of the ancients, but he never could bring himself to execute his plan, and for the rest of his life employed his pen only on occasional papers and essays. Being a warm admirer of Giuck, when the disputes took place in 1777 respecting music, he wrote in the Journal de Paris a considerable number of articles in favour of German music, and against Marmontel, who patronized Piccini; and in, concert with his friend M. Suard, edited “L‘Histoire ancienne des peuples de l’Europe par de Buat,” 1772, 12 vols. 12mo. He assisted also in the following works: 1. “Journal Etranger,” with M. Suard, from Jan. 1760 to March 1762. The complete work consists of 54 vols. 12mo, beginning 1754. Suard and he afterwards quitted it to translate the Gazette de France. 2. “Gazette litteraire de l'Europe,” also with M. Suard, 1764 1766, 8 vols. 8vo. 3. “Varietes litteraires, ou Ilecueil des pieces tant originales que traduites, concernant la philosophic, la litterature, et les arts,” 1768 1769, 4 vols. 12mo. This consists of the best pieces from the two first mentioned journals; and M. Suard' s “Melanges de litterature,” 1803 4, 5 vols. 8vo, may be considered as a new edition, but with many additions and omissions. It is in the “Varietes” only, that we find Bissy’s translation of Young’s Night Thoughts. 4. “Description des principales pierres gravees du cabinet du due d'Orleans,” 1730, 2 vols. fol. Arnaud compiled the articles in the first volume of this magnificent work: the second bears the names of the abbés de la Chau and le Blond. 5. Various dissertations in the “Memoires de l'Academie des inscriptions,” collected and published under the title of “Œuvres completes de l'abbé Arnaud,” 3 vols. 8vo, but incorrectly printed. The “Memoires pour servir a l'histoire de la revolution opere dans la Musique par le chevalier Gluck,” 1781, 8vo, attributed to our author, was written by the abbé le Blond. Arnaud was well acquainted with ancient literature, and improved his style, which, however, is not quite pure, by the study of the best ancient writers. Although at first an enemy to the new philosophy introduced in France, he was afterwards ranked among its supporters, but did not live to witness its consequences.

, a miscellaneous French writer, was born at Paris, Sept. 15, 1716, of a noble family originally from the comtat Venaissin. He had his education among the Jesuits at Paris, and discovered early symptoms of genius, having written some tolerable verses at the age of nine. He composed also in his youth three tragedies, none of which were acted; but one, on the subject of admiral Coligni’s murder on St. Bartholomew’s day, was printed in 1740. These works recommended him to Voltaire, who gave him advice and pecuniary assistance in his studies. Some of his early productions were also favourably noticed by Frederick, king of Prussia, who invited him to Berlin, and in some verses, called him his Ovid. This compliment, however, excited only the ridicule of the wits; and after residing about a year at Berlin, he went to Dresden, where he was appointed counsellor of legation. A wish to revisit his country, and an invitation from the nephew of marshal Saxe, determined him to return to Paris, where he lived many years, enjoying a large circle of acquaintance, from whom he retired by degrees to have leisure for the composition of his numerous works. During the reign of terror he was sent to prison, and on his liberation was exposed to great distresses from want of oecouomy, although not illiberally supplied by government, and by the profits of his works. He died Nov. 8, 1805. His writings, which are very numerous, consist of novels, poems, and plays, of which there are two editions, one in 24 vols. 12 mo, and one in 1-2 vols. 8vo, 1803, neither very complete, nor do his countrymen seem to consider this writer as likely to enjoy a permanent reputation.

, a learned critic, was born at Franeker, Sept. 16, 1711, of a family who were French refugees. His father, Honort; d'Arnaud, was chosen, in 1728, pastor of the French church at Franeker, and was living in 1763. His son, the subject of this article, published, at the age of twelve, some very elegant and harmonious Greek and Latin poems, and went afterwards to study at the university of Franeker, under the celebrated Wesseling and Hemsterhuis. Encouraged by the latter, he publisaed in 1728, “Specimen Animad. criticarum ad aliquot scriptores Greecos, &c.” 8vo. Harling. The authors are, Anacreon, Callimachus, Æschylus, Herodotus, Xenophon, and the grammarian Hephestion. Two years after he produced another volume of criticisms, under the title of “Lectionum Grsecarum libriduo, &c.” 8vo, Hague, 1730, treating principally of Hesychius, Aratus, Theon, Appian, and Apollonius Rhodius. In 1732, appeared his learned dissertation, “De Diis adsessoribus et conjunctis,” 8vo, Hague. About the same time he went to Leyden to examine the library there for materials towards an edition of Sophocles, which he was preparing, but never completed. On his return to Franeker, his friend Hemsterhuis advised him to study law; his own inclination was to divinity, but a disorder in his chest rendered it improbable that he could have sustained the exertion of preaching. Abraham Weiling was his tutor in law studies, and under him he defended a thesis, Oct. 9, 1734, “De jure servorum apud Romanos,” and discovered so much talent and erudition, that in the month of June, next year, he was appointed law reader. In 1738, his “Variarum conjecturarum libri duo” were published at Franeker, 4to. They consist of disquisitions and questions on civil law. The second edition of 1744, Leu warden, contains his thesis above mentioned, and a second on a curious subject, “De iis qui prætii pariicipandi caussa semet venundari patiuntur.” In 1739, on Weiling’s leaving the university of Franeker for that of Leyden, d'Arnaud was appointed professor in his room, but died before he could take possession, June 1, 1740, scarcely twenty-nine years of age. Besides the works already enumerated, from the pen of this extraordinary young man, there are several lesser pieces by him in the 4th, 5th, and 6th vols. of the “Miscellaneæ Observat.” of Amsterdam; and he left in manuscript a dissertation on the family of Scievola, “Vitæ Scævolarum,” which was published by H. J. Arntzenius, at Utrecht, 1767, 8vo. His funeral eulogium was pronounced by Hemsterhuis, and is in the collection entitled, “T. Hemsterhusii et Valckenarii Orationes,” Leyden, 1784, 8vo.

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

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

, brother of Robert and Anthony, was born at Paris in 1597. After the death of Gournay, bishop of Toul, the chapter of that city tin; mously elected the abbé Arnauld, then dean of that cathedral, his successor. The kinsr confirmed his nomination, at the entreaty of the famous capuchin, pere Joseph; but a dispute about the right of election prevented him from accepting it. In 1645, he was sent on an extraordinary embassy from France to Rome, for quieting the disputes that had arisen between the Barbarini and Innocent X. On his return to France he was made bishop of Angers in 1649. He never quitted his diocese but once, and that vas to give advice to the prince of Tarento, in order to a reconciliation with the duke de la Tremouille his father. The city of Angers having revolted in 1652, this prelate appeased the queen-mother, who was advancing with an army to take vengeance on it, by saying to her, as he administered the sacrament: “Take, madam, the body of him who forgave his enemies, as he was dying on the cross.” This sentiment was as much in his heart as it was on his lips. He was the father of the poor, and the comforter of the afflicted. His time was divided between prayer, reading, and the duties of his episcopal function. One of his intimates telling him that he ought to take one day in the week for some recreation from fatigue, “Yes,” said he, “that I will do with all my heart, if you will point me out one day in which I am not a bishop.” He died at Angers, June 8, 1692, at the age of 95. His negotiations at the court of Rome, and in various courts of Italy, were published at Paris in 5 vols, 12 mo. a long time after his death (in 1748). They are interspersed with, a great number of curious anecdotes and interesting particulars related in the style peculiar to all the Arnaulds.

, a celebrated Protestant divine of Germany, was born at Ballenstadt, in theduchyof Anhalt, 1555. At first he applied himself to physic; but falling into a dangerous sickness, he made a vow to change that for divinity, if he should be restored to health. He was minister first at Quedlinburg, and then at Brunswick. He met with great opposition in this last city, his success as a preacher having raised the enmity of his brethren, who, in order to ruin his character, ascribed a variety of errors to him, and persecuted him to such a degree that he was obliged to leave Brunswick, and retire to Isleb, where he was minister for three years. In 1611 George duke of Lunenburg gave him the church of Zell, and appointed him superintendant of all the churches in the duchy of Lunenburg, which office he discharged for eleven years, and died in 1621. On returning from preaching on Psal. cxxvi. 5, he said to his wife, “I have been preaching my funeral sermon;” and died a few hours after.

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

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

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

, a German medical and political writer, was born in the environs of Halberstadt, in Lower Saxony. He studied medicine, and travelled into France and England in pursuit of information in that science. He afterwards taught it with much reputation at Francfort on the Oder, and at Helmstadt, in the duchy of Brunswick. At this last-mentioned university he built, at his own expence, a chemical laboratory, and laid out a botanical garden; and, as subjects for dissection were not easily found, he made many drawings of the muscles, &c. coloured after nature, for the use of his pupils. In 1630 he left Helmstadt, on being appointed first physician to the king of Denmark, Christiern IV. and died in his majesty’s service in 1636. His works, which are very numerous, are on subjects of medicine, politics, and jurisprudence. The principal are, 1. “Observationes anatomica?,” Francfort, 1610, 4to; Helmstadt, 1618, 4to. This last edition contains his “Disquisitiones de partus termims,” which was also printed separately, Francfort, 1642, 12mo. 2. “Disputatio de lue venerea,” Oppenheim, 1610, 4to. 3. “De observationibus quibusdam anatomicis epistola,” printed with Gregory Horstius’s Medical Observations, 1628, 4to. 4. “De Auctoritate Principum in Populum semper inviolabili,” Francfort, 1612, 4to. 5. “De jure Majestatis,” 1635, 4to. 6. “De subjectione et exemptione Clericorum,” 1612, 4to. 7. “Lectiones politicac,” Francfort, 1615, 4to. These political writings seem to have been published with a view to counteract the opinions of Althusius (See Althusius), who wrote in favour of the sovereignty of the people. Arnisoeus contended for their allegiance. Boeclerus and Grotius speak with respect of his political sentiments.

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

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

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

, a very ingenious mechanic of London, who introduced several improvements in the mechanism of time-keepers, for which he received premiums from the Board of Longitude. He was the inventor of the expansion balance, and of the present detached escapement, and the first artist who ever applied the gold cylindrical spring to the balance of a time-piece. He died in the fifty-fifth year of his age, at Well-hall, near Eltham in Kent, August 25, 1799. The following publications may be consulted for an account of his improvements: “An account kept during thirteen months in the Royal Observatory at Greenwich, of the going of a Pocket Chronometer, made on a new construction by John Arnold, having his new-invented balance spring, and a compensation for the effects of heat and cold in the balance. Published by permission of the Board of Longitude,” 4to, 1780. lf A Letter from Mr. Christian Meyer, astronomer to the elector Palatine, to Mr. N. N. on the going of a new Pendulum Clock, made by Mr. John Arnold, and set up in the elector’s observatory at Manheim, translated from the German,“4to, 1781.” On the Longitude; in a letter to the Commissioners of that Board; containing remarks on the accounts given of a Clock at Manheim, and tlaat of a Pocket Chronometer at Greenwich; both made by Mr. John Arnold,“4to, 1781.” An Answer from John Arnold to an anonymous letter on the Longitude, 4to, 1782.

, an English musician and composer of considerable eminence, was born in London about 1739, and received his musical education at the chapel royal, St. James’s, under Mr. Gates and Dr. Nares, who discovered in him the most promising talents, which ho afterwards cultivated and strengthened by constant study. In 1760 he became composer to Covent-garden theatre, of which the celebrated Mr. Beard was then one of the managers, and had the advantage of having his compositions introduced to the public through the medium of the vocal abilities of that popular singer and h'is associates. For them he composed the “Maid of the Mill,” which has ever been a favourite with the public. But in 1767 he tried his skill in a higher species of composition, the oratorio, setting to music Dr. Brown’s “Cure of Saul,” in which it was universally confessed, that he was eminently successful. This encouraged him to proceed in the same style; and he produced “Abimelech,” “The Resurrection,” and “The Prodigal Son,” the various merits of which have been justly applauded by the best musical critics. The latter became so much'a favourite, that when, in 1773, it was in contemplation to instal the late lord North chancellor of the university of Oxford, the stewards appointed to conduct the musical department of the ceremony, applied to Mr. Arnold for leave to perform the Prodigal Son. His ready compliance with this request, which, however, it would have been very imprudent to refuse, procured him the offer of an honorary degree, and his refusal of this did him real honour. He was not insensible of the value of a degree, but determined to earn it in the usual academical mode; and conformably to the statutes of the university, received it in the school-room, where he performed, as an exercise, Hughes’ s Poem on the Power of Music. On such occasions, it is usual for the musical professor of the university to examine the exercise of the candidate, but Dr. Wiiliam Hayes, then the professor at Oxford, returned Mr. Arnold his score unopened, saying, “Sir, it is quite unnecessary to scrutinize the exercise of the author of the Prodigal Son.”

, one of our ancient English chroniclers, is a writer concerning whom very little information can now be recovered. Stowe says, “Arnolde was a citizen of London, who, being inflamed with the fervente love of good learninge, travailed very studiously therein, and principally in observing matters worthy to be remembred of the posteritye: he noted the charters, liberties, lawes, eonstitucioris and customes of the citie of London. He lived in the year 1519.” Holinshed, in his enumeration of writers, at the end of the reign of Henry VIII. mentions him. as “Arnolde of London,” who “wrote certayne collections touchyng historical! matters.” From his own work, it appears that he was a merchant of London, trading to Flanders. He is sometimes called a haberdasher, probably from being a member of that ancient company. He resided in the parish of St. Magnus, Lon. don -bridge,, but at one time, from pecuniary embarrassments, was compelled to take shtlter in the sanctuary at Westminster. In the year 1488, he appears to have been confined in the castle of Sluys, in Flanders, on suspicion of being a spy, but was soon liberated; and among the forms and precedents in his work, there is a charter of pardon granted him for treasonable practices at home, but of what description, cannot now be ascertained. It is conjectured that he died about the year 1521, at least seventy years old.

, a learned philologist, was born at Wesel, in 1702, the son of Henry Arntzenius, who had been successively director of the schools of Wesel, Arnheim, and Utrecht, and died in 1728. Our author studied law, but devoted himself more to classical literature. At Utrecht he was the pupil of Drakenborch and Duker, and at Leyden, of Burmann and Havercamp, and he had scarcely completed the ordinary course of education, when the reputation he had acquired procured him the offer of director of the lesser schools of Nimeguen; but before accepting this, he took the degree of doctor of laws at Utrecht, and published his thesis, on that occasion, July 1726, “De nuptiis inter fratrem et sororem,” Nimeguen. In 1728, he was appointed professor of history and rhetoric in the Atheneum of Nimeguen: and in 1742, he succeeded Burmann in his professor’s chair at Franeker. He died in 1759. His works are, 1. “Dissertationes de colore et tinclura comarum et de civitate Romana Apostoli Pauli,” Utrecht, 1725, 8vo. 2. “Oratio de delectu scriptorum qui juventuti in scholis prcelegendi sunt,” Nimeguen, 1726, 4to. 3. “Oratio de causis corrupts Eloquentise,” ibid. 1728, 4to. 4. An edition of “Aurelius Victor,” 1733, 4to, with the entire notes of Domim'cus Machaneus, Elias Vinctus, Andreas Scottus, and Janus Gruterus, and the excerpta of Sylburgius, and of Anna, daughter of Tanaquil Faber. 5. An edition of “Plinii Panegyricus,” enriched by excerpta from many manuscripts, and the learned conjectures of Heinsius and Perizonius. Its only fault, Ernesti says, is in defending too pertinaciously the common readings. 6. An edition of the “Panegyricus of Pacatus,” Amst. 1753, 4to. His Latin poems and orations were published after his death by his son John Henry, 1762, 8vo.

, or Earnulph, or Ernulph, bishop of Rochester in the reign of king Henry I, was a Frenchman by birth, and for some time a monk of St. Lucian de Beauvais. Observing some irregularities among his brethren, which he could neither remedy nor endure, he resolved to quit the monastery but first he took the advice of Lanfranc archbishop of Canterbury, under whom he had studied in the abbey of Bee. That prelate, who was well acquainted with his merit, invited him over into England, and placed him in the monastery of Canterbury, where he lived till Lanfranc’s death. Afterwards, when Anselm came into that see, Arnulph was made prior of the monastery of Canterbury, and afterwards abbot of Peterborough, and to both places he was a considerable benefactor, having rebuilt part of the church of Canterbury, which had fallen down, and also that of Peterborough, but this latter was destroyed by an accidental fire, and our prelate removed to Rochester before he could repair the loss. In 1115, he was consecrated bishop of that see, in the room of Radulphus or Ralph, removed to the see of Canterbury. He sat nine years and a few days, and died in March 1124, aged eighty-four. He is best known by his work concerning the foundation, endowment, charters, laws, and other things relating to the church of Rochester. It generally passes by the name of Textus Roffensis, and is preserved in. the archives of the cathedral church of Rochester. Mr. Wharton, in his Anglia Sacra, has published an extract of this history, under the title of “Ernulphi Episcopi Roffensis Collectanea de rebus Ecclesise Roffensis, a prima sedis fundatione ad sua tempora. Ex Textu Roffensi, quern composuit Ernulphus.” This extract consists of the names of the bishops of Rochester, from Justus, who was translated to Canterbury in the year 624, to Ernulfus inclusive benefactions to the church of Rochester; of the agreement made between archbishop Lanfranc, and Odo bishop of Bayeux how Lanfranc restored to the monks the lands of the church of St. Andrew, and others, which had been alienated from them how king William the son of king William did, at the request of archbishop Lanfranc, grant unto the church of St. Andrew the apostle, at Rochester, the manor called Hedenham, for the maintenance of the monks and why bishop Gundulfus built for the king the stone castle of Rochester at his own expence a grant of the great king William Of the dispute between Gundulfus and Pichot benefactions to the church of Rochester. Oudm is of opinion, our Arnulph had no hand in this collection; but the whole was printed, in 1769, bj the late Mr. Thorpe, in his “Registrum Roffense.”

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

, descended of a good family in the county of Salop, from which he inherited a considerable estate, was born in 1601, educated in grammatical learning in his own country, and in 1618 became a commoner of St. Edmund’s hall, in Oxford, where he remained till he had taken his degrees in arts, and had also received holy orders. He then went down again into Shropshire, where, in process of time, he obtained the rectories of Hodnet and Ightfield, which he enjoyed to the breaking out of the civil war. He was a man of much learning and very extensive chanty, so that though his income was considerable, yet he laid up very little. It was his custom to clothe annually twelve poor people according to their station, and every Sunday he entertained as many at bistable, not only plentifully, tyut with delicate respect. His loyalty to his prince being as warm as his charity towards his neighbours, he raised and clothed eight troopers for his service, and always preached warmly against rebellion. The parliament having a garrison in the tuwn of Wem, a detachment was sent from thence who plundered him of every thing, besides terrifying him with the cruellest insults. In 1640 he repaired to Oxford, to serve the king in person, and there was created doctor in divinity, and had also the archdeaconry of Coventry given him, on the promotion of Dr. Brownrig to the bishopric of Exeter. His former misfortunes did not hinder Dr. Arnway from being as active afterwards in the king’s service, which subjected him to a new train of hardships, his estate being sequestered, and himself imprisoned. At length, after the king’s murder, he obtained his liberty, and, like many other loyalists, was compelled by the laws then in being to retire to Holland. While at the Hague, in 1650, he published two little pieces; the first entitled “The Tablet; or, the Moderation of Charles I. the Martyr.” In this he endeavours to wipe off all the aspersions that were thrown on that prince’s memory by Milton and his associates. The second is called “An Alarm to the Subjects of England,” in which he certainly did his utmost to picture the oppressions of the new government in the strongest colours and in this work he gives some very remarkable anecdotes of himself. His supplies from England failing, and his hopes in that country being also frustrated, he was compelled to accept an offer that was made him of going to Virginia, where, oppressed with grief and cares, he died, in 1653, leaving behind him the character of a pious, upright, and consistent loyalist. Tbe tracts above mentioned were reprinted in England, 1661, by the care of Mr. William Rider, of Merton College, who married a relation of the author, but this volume is very scarce.

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

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

, a Spanish Jesuit, was born at Logrona, in Castille, Jan. 17, 1592. He entered into the society Sept. 17, 1606, and taught philosophy with great applause at Valladolid, and divinity at Salamanca. Afterwards, at the instigation of the society, he went to Prague, in 1624, where he taught scholastic divinity three years, was prefect general of the studies twenty years, and chancellor of the university for twelve years. He took the degree of doctor in divinity in a very public manner, and gained great reputation. The province of Bohemia deputed him thrice to Rome, to assist there at general congregations of the order, and it appears that he afterwards refused every solicitation to return to Spain. He was highly esteemed by Urban VIII. Innocent X. and the emperor Ferdinand III. He died at Prague, June 17, 1667. His works are, “A course of Philosophy,” fol. Antwerp, 1632, and at Lyons, 1669, much enlarged; “A course of -Divinity,” 8 vols. fol. printed at different periods from 1645 to 1655, at Antwerp. Other works have been attributed to him, but without much authority. By these, however, he appears to have been a man of great learning, with some turn for boldness of inquiry; but, in general, his reasoning is perplexed and obscure, and perhaps the abbé l'Avocat is right in characterising him as one of the most subtle, and most obscure of the scholastic divines. Bayle says he resembles those authors who admirably discover the weakness of any doctrine, but never discover the strong side of it: they are, he adds, like warriors, who bring fire and sword into the enemies’ country, but are not able to put their own frontiers into a state of resistance.

, a celebrated historian and philosopher, lived under the emperor Adrian and the two Antonines, in the second century. He was born at Nicomedia in Bithynia, was styled the second Xenophorj, and raised to the most considerable dignities of Rome. Tillemont takes him to be the same person with that Flaccus Arrianus, who, being governor of Cappadocia, stopped the incursions of the Alani, and sent an account of his voyage round the Euxine to Adrian. He is also said to have been preceptor to the philosopher and emperor Marcus Antoninus. There are extant four books of his Diatribas, or Dissertations upon Epictetus, whose disciple he had been; and Photius tells us that he composed likewise twelve books of that philosopher’s discourses. We are told by another author, that he wrote the Life and death of Epictetus. The most celebrated of his works is his History, in Greek, of Alexander the Great, in seven books, a performance much esteemed for more aocuracy and fidelity than that of Q,uintus Curtius. Photius mentions also his History of Bithynia, another of the Alani, and a third of the Parthians, in seventeen books, which he brought down to the war carried on by Trajan against them. He gives us likewise an abridgement of Arrian’s ten books of the History of the successors of Alexander the Great and adds, that he wrote an account of the Indies in one book, which is still extant. The work which he first entered upon was his History of Bithynia; but wanting the proper ipemoirs and materials for it, he suspended the execution of this design till he had published some other things. This history consisted of eight books, and was carried down till the time when Nicomedes resigned Bithynia to the Romans; but there is nothing of it remaining except what is quoted in Photius and Stephanus Byzantmus. Arrian is said to have written several other works: Lucian tells us, that he wrote the Ijfe of a robber, whose name was Tiliborus, and when Lucian endeavours to excuse himself for writing the life of Alexander the impostor, he adds, “Let no person accuse me of having employed my labour upon too low and mean a subject, since Arrian, the worthy disciple of Epictetus, who is one of the greatest men amongst the Romans, and who has passed his whole life amongst the muses, condescended to write the Life of Tiliborus.” There is likewise, under the name of Arrian, a Periplus of the Red- sea, that is, of the eastern coasts of Africa and Asia,as far as the Indies; but Dr. Vincent thinks it was not his. There is likewise a book of Tactics under his name, the beginning of which is lost; to these is added the order which he gave for the marching of the Roman army against the Alani, and giving them battle, which may very properly be ascribed to our author, who was engaged in a war against that people.

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

, of the same family as the preceding, became bishop of Urbino, where he died in 1504, in the sixty- third year of his age. He had been the scholar of Philelphus, under whom he studied the Greek language with great diligence. He wrote, 1. “Gonzagidos,” a Latin poem, in honour of Ludovico, marquis of Mantua, a celebrated general, who died in 1478. 2. “Latin epistles,” with those of James Piccolomini, called the cardinal of Pavia, printed at Milan in 1506. From his Gonzagidos, first printed by Meuschenius in his collection entitled “Vitae summorum dignitate et eruditione virorum,” vol. III. Cobourg, 1738, it appears that the author had been present at many of the victories and transactions which he there relates.

, a descendant of the same family, who died March 23, 173.9, practised with great reputation as a physician at Rome. He printed his “Poems” at Modena in 1717, and an academical dissertation, the title of which is, “La vera idea della Medicina,” Reggio, 1730, 4to.

, an English divine and writer, was born at or near Newcastle- upon Tyne, March 29, 1602. He was admitted of St. John’s college, in Cambridge, in 1616, and took his first two degrees from thence in 1619 and 1623. In this last year he was chosen fellow of Katherine hall, where he is supposed to have resided some years, probably engaged in the tuition of youth; but in 1631 he married, and removed to Lynn in Norfolk. He continued in this town, very much esteemed, for about ten or twelve years, being first assistant or curate, and afterwards minister in his own right, of St. Nicholas chapel there. He was afterwards called up to assist in the assembly of divines had a parish in London, and is named with Tuckney, Hill, and others, in the list of Triers, as they were called i. e. persons appointed to examine and report the integrity and abilities of candidates for the eldership in London, and ministry at large. When Dr. Beale, master of St. John’s college, was turned out by the earl of Manchester, Mr. Arrowsmith, who had taken the degree of B. D. from Katherine hall eleven years before, was put into his place; and also into the royal divinity chair, from which the old professor Collins was removed and after about nine years possession of these honours, to which he added that of a doctor’s degree in divinity, in 1649, he was farther promoted, on Dr. Hill’s death, to the mastership of Trinity college, with which he kept his professor’s place only two years his health being considerably impaired. He died in Feb. 1658-9.

, bishop of Constantinople, was called to the metropolitan see, from a private monastic life, in 1255, by the emperor Theodore Lascaris who, a little before his death, constituted him one of the guardians of his son John, an infant in the sixth year of his age. Arsenius was renowned for piety and simplicity but these afforded no security against the ambition and perfidy of the age. Michael Palseologus usurped the sovereignty and Arsenius at length, with reluctance, overpowered by the influence of the nobility, consented to place the diadem on his head, with this express condition, that he should resign the empire to the royal infant when he came to maturity. But after he had made this concession, he found his pupil treated with great disregard, and, probably repenting of what he had done, he retired from his see to a monastery. Sometime after, by a sudden revolution, Palaeologus recovered Constantinople from the Latins and amidst his successes, found it necessary to his reputation to recall the bishop, and he accordingly fixed him in the metropolitan see such was the ascendancy of Arsenius’s character. Palaeologus, however, still dreaded the youth, whom he had so deeply injured and, to prevent him from recovering his throne, he had recourse to the barbarous policy of putting out his eyes. Arsenius hearing this, excommunicated the emperor, who then exhibited some appearance of repentance. But the bishop refused to admit him into the church, and Palaeologus meanly accused him of certain crimes before an assembly, over which he had absolute sway. Arsenius was accordingly condemned, and banished to a small island of the Propontis. Conscious of his integrity, he bore his sufferings with serenity and requesting that an account might be taken of the treasures of the church, he shewed that three pieces of gold, which he had earned by transcribing psalms, were the whole of his property. The emperor, after all this, solicited him to repeal his ecclesiastical censures, but he persisted in his refusal and, it is supposed, died in his obscure retreat. Gibbon, with his usual suspicions respecting the piety and virtue of an ecclesiastic, endeavours to lessen the character of this patriarch.

, a celebrated poet and physician, flourished in the beginning of the sixteenth century, under the pontificates of Leo X. and Clement VII. He was a native of Sinigaglia, and after having studied at Padua, practised medicine at Rome but, according to the eloge of his friend Paul Jovius, seldom passed a day without producing some poetical composition. He either possessed, or affected that independence of mind which does not accord with the pliant manners of a court; and avoided the patronage of the great, while he complains of their neglect. He died in the 66th year of his age, at Sinigaglia, 1540. He wrote a poem in Latin verse, “De poetis Urbanis,” addressed to Paul Jovius; in which he celebrates the names, and characterises the works, of a great number of Latin poets resident at Rome in the time of Leo X. It was first printed in the Coryciana, Rome, 1524, 4to and reprinted by Tiraboschi, who obtained a more complete copy in the hand-writing of the author, with the addition of many other names. It has also been reprinted by Mr. Roscoe, in his life of Leo, who is of opinion that his complaint of the neglect of poets in the time of that pontiff was unjust.

, a learned writer on music and poetry, was a Spanish Jesuit, and very young when that order was suppressed in Spain. He then went to Italy, and lived a considerable time at Bologna, in the house of cardinal Albergati. He afterwards accompanied his friend the chevalier Azara, the Spanish ambassador, to Paris and died in his house Oct. 30, 1799. His first publication was a treatise on “Ideal Beauty,” in Spanish but that which has contributed most to his fame, was his “Revoluzioni del teatro musicale Italiano, dalla sua origine, fino al presente,” Venice, 1785, 3 vols. 8vo. This is the second edition, but the only complete one the first consisting of only one volume, printed at Bologna, 1783;, and now entirely changed and augmented. An excellent analysis and criticism on this work, from the pen of a veteran scholar in the musical art, appeared in the Monthly Review, vols. LXXVII. and LXXIX. He left also some learned dissertations on Greek and Latin poetry, and an elaborate work on rhythm, which he intended to have printed at Parma, at the Bodoni press; these manuscripts appear to have been confided to Grainville, who died soon after.

, a Swedish physician and naturalist, the friend and contemporary of Linnoeus, was born in 1705, in the province of Angermania, of poor parents, who intended him at first for the church but inclination led him to the pursuit of natural history. He began his studies at Upsal, where, in 1728, he first became acquainted with Linnæus, who informs us that at that time the name of Artedi was heard everywhere and that the remarks Artedi made, and the knowledge he displayed, struck him with astonishment. A higher character cannot well be supposed and here their friendship and amicable rivalship commenced. Even the dissimilitude of their tempers turned out to advantage. Artedi excelled Linnaeus in chemistry, and Linnæus out-did him in the knowledge of birds and insects, and in botany. Artedi finally restricted his botanical 'studies to the umbelliferous plants, in which he pointed out a new method of classification, which was afterwards published by Linnæus. But the chief object of his pursuits, and which transmitted his fame to posterity, was Ichthyology and Linnæus found himself so far excelled in point of abilities, that he relinquished to him this province, on which Artedi afterwards bestowed all his juvenile labours. In the course of his investigations, he projected a new classification in Ichthyology, which encouraged Linnoeus in his similar design in botany. In 1734 Artedi left Sweden, and went to England for the purpose of making greater improvements in the knowledge of fishes and from England he proceeded to Holland, where he wished to have taken his doctor’s degree but was prevented by the want of money. On this occasion Linnæus recommended him to the celebrated apothecary Seba, of Amsterdam, a lover of natural history, and who had formed a very extensive museum. Seba received Artedi as his assistant, and the latter would probably have been enabled to pursue his studies with advantage, had he not lost his life by falling into one of the canals in a dark night, Sept. 25, 1735. “No sooner,” says Linnæus, “had I finished my * Fundamenta Botanica,‘ than I hastened to communicate them to Artedi he shewed me on his part the work which had been the result of several years study, his ’ Philosophia Ichthyologia,' and other manuscripts. I was delighted with his familiar conversation but, being overwhelmed with business, I grew iuipatient at his detaining me so long. Alas had I known that this was the last visit, the last words of my friend, how fain would I have tarried to prolong his existence”

, celebrated for a superstitious treatise upon Dreams, was born at Ephesus, but took the surname of Daldianus in this book, out of respect to the country of his mother, and he styled himself the Ephesian in his other performances. He lived under the emperor Antoninus Pius, as himself informs us, when he tells us that he knew a wrestler, who, having dreamed he had lost his sight, carried the prize in the games celebrated by command of that emperor. He not only bought up all that had been written concerning the explication of dreams, which amounted to many volumes, but likewise spent many years in travelling, in order to contract an acquaintance with the tribe of fortune-tellers he also carried on an extensive correspondence with all persons of this description in Greece, Italy, and the most populous islands, collecting at the same time all reports of dreams, and the events which are said to have followed them. He despised the reproaches of those supercilious persons, wlho treat the foretellers of events as cheats, impostors, and jugglers, and frequented much the company of those diviners for several years. He was the more assiduous in his study and search after the interpretation of dreams, being moved thereto, as he fancied, by the advice, or, in some measure, by the command of Apollo. The work which he wrote on dreams consists of five books the three first were dedicated to one Cassius Maximus, and the two last to his son, whom he took a good deal of pains to instruct in the nature and interpretation of dreams. The work was first printed in Greek, at Venice, 1518, 8vo; and Regaltius published an edition at Paris, Greek and Latin, in 1603, 4to, and added some notes. Artemidorus wrote also a treatise upon Auguries, and another upon Chiromancy, but they are not extant. Contemptible as his work is, it contains some curious particulars respecting ancient rites and customs. Bayle remarks, what may indeed be said of all works of the kind, that there is not one dream which Artemidorus has explained in a particular manner, but what will admit of a very different explication, and this with the same degree of probability, and founded upon as reasonable principles as those upon which Artemidorus proceeds.

, an ancient geographer, who lived about 100 years B.C. wrote a “Description of the Earth,” which is often mentioned by Strabo and Pliny and the only fragments remaining are inserted in the first vol. of Hudson’s Minor Greek Geographers, Qxford, 1703.

, professor of moral philosophy in the university of Glasgow, the eldest son of Andrew Arthur, a farmer, was born at Abbots- Inch, in the shire of Renfrew, Sept. 6, 1744. After being educated in the elements of knowledge and piety by his parents, he was, at the age of eight, placed at the grammar-school of Paisley, where he was taught Latin. In his thirteenth or fourteenth year, he was removed to the university of Glasgow, where his uncommon proficiency was soon noticed and encouraged by his teachers, who discerned a brilliancy of genius and strength of understanding which were concealed from more superficial observers by an almost invincible bashful ness, and hesitation in his speech, from which he never was altogether free. After having gone through the usual course of classical studies with increasing reputation, he determined on the clerical profession, and with that view attended the philosophical and theological lectures. Such was the intenseness of his application, and the vigour of his intellect, that, we are told, long before his nomination to an academical chair, there were few or no departments, whether literary, philosophical, or theological, with the exception of the medical school only, in which he could not have been an eminent teacher. On one occasion, during the necessaryabsence of the professor of Church History, he lectured for a whole session of college in that department, highly to the satisfaction and improvement of his hearers, which many of them acknowledged at a distant period when their own researches rendered such an opinion valuable. He was also, during the period of his academical studies, employed as private tutor in some families “of rank. In October 1767, after the usual trials, according to the forms of the church of Scotland, he was licensed to be a preacher, although not without some opposition, owing to his reluctance to embrace the creed of that church in its full extent.Soon after he was appointed chaplain to the university of Glasgow, and assistant to the rev. Dr. Craig, one of the clergy of Glasgow. About the same time he was appointed librarian to the university, in which office he compiled the catalogue of that library on the model of that of the Advocates’ library in Edinburgh. In 1780 he was appointed assistant and successor to the learned and venerable Dr. Reid, professor of moral philospphy, and delivered a course of lectures, of the merit of Which a judgment may be formed from the parts now published. In sentiments he nearly coincided with his colleague and predecessor. He taught this class for fifteen years, as assistant to Dr. Reid, who died in 1796, when he Succeeded as professor, but held this situation for only one session. A dropsical disorder appeared in his habit soon after the commencement of 1797, and proved fatal, June 14 of that year. In 1803, professor Richardson, of the same university, published some part of Mr. Arthur’s lectures, under the title of” Discourses on Theological and Literary Subjects," 8vo, with an elegant sketch of his life and character, from which the above particulars have been borrowed. These discourses amply justify the eulogium Mr. Richardson has pronounced on him, as a man of just taste, and correct in his moral and religious principles, nor were his talents and temper less admired in private life.

, a musical critic, who flourished in the sixteenth century, was a native of Bologna, and a canon-regular of the congregation del Salvatore. Though he is ranked only among the minor writers on music, yet if his merit and importance are estimated by the celebrity and size of his volumes, he certainly deserves the attention of students and collectors of musical tracts. In his “Arte del Contrappunto ridotta in tavole,” published at Venice, in 1586, he has admirably analyzed and compressed the voluminous and diffused works of Zarlino and other anterior writers on musical composition, into a compendium, in a manner almost as clear and geometrical as M. d'Alembert has abridged the theoretical works of Rameau. In 1589, he published a second part of his “Arte del Contrappunto,” which is a oseful and excellent supplement to his former compendium. And in 1600, and 1603, this intelligent writer published at Venice, the first and second part of another work, “Delle Imperfettioni della moderna musica,” in which he gives a curious account of the state of instrumental music in his time, and strongly inveighs against the innovations then attempted by Monteverde. The time of Artusi’s decease is not known.

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

, or Arumceus, a nobleman of Friesland, was born at Leuwarden in 1579, and studied law at Franeker, Oxford, and Rostock. In 1599 he went to Jena, where, in 1605, he was appointed professor of law, and where he died Feb. 24, 1637. He is esteemed one of the most able writers on the German law, and one of the first who reduced it to a regular system. His principal works are 1. “Discursus academic! de jure publico,” Jena, 1617 23, 5 vols. 4to. 2. “Discursus academici ad auream bullam Caroli IV.” ib. 1617, 4to. 3. “Commentaria de comitiis Roman. German, imp.” ib. 1630, 4to.

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

, or Eizarakel, a native of Toledo, in the twelfth century, was one of the most celebrated astronomers who appeared after the time of the Greeks, and before the revival of learning. He wrote a treatise on the “obliquity of the Zodiac,” which he fixed, for his time, at 23 34', and determined the apogee of the sun by four hundred and two observations. The famous Alphonsine Tables, published by order of Alphonsus, king of Castille, were partly taken from the works of Arzachel. Few particulars are known of the personal history of this astronomer, unless that he was of the Jewish persuasion. Montucla says that his tables are preserved in several libraries, in manuscript, with an introduction which explains their use.

, who gave his name to the episcopal see of St. Asaph in Wales, was descended of a good family in North Wales, and became a monk in the convent of Llanelvy, over which Kentigern the Scotch bishop of that place presided. That prelate, being recalled to his own country, resigned his convent and cathedral to Asaph, who demeaned himself with such sanctity, that after his death Llanelvy lost its name, and took that of the saint. St. Asaph flourished about the year 590, under Carentius, king of the Britons. He wrote the ordinances of his church, the life of his master Kentigern, and some other pieces. The time of his death is not certainly known. After his death the see of St. Asaph continued vacant 500 years.

, an illustrious English scholar, was born at Kirby-Wiske, near North-Allerton, in Yorkshire, about the year 1515. His father, John Ascham, was of moderate fortune, but a man of understanding and probity, and steward to the noble family of Scroop; his mother’s name was Margaret, descended of a genteel family, and allied to several persons of great distinction but her maiden name is not recorded. Besides this, they had two other sons, Thomas and Anthony, and several daughters; and it has been remarked as somewhat singular, that after living together forty-seven years in the greatest harmony, and with the most cordial affection, the father and mother died the same day, and almost in the same hour. Roger, some time before his father’s death, was adopted into the family of sir Anthony Wingneld, and studied with his two sons under the care of Mr. Bond. The brightness of his genius, and his great affection for learning, very early discovered themselves, by his eagerly reading all the English books which came to his hands. This propensity for study was encouraged by his generous benefactor, who, when he had attained the elements of the learned languages, sent him, about 1530, to St. John^ college in Cambridge, at that time one of the most flourishing in the university.

“Ascham entered Cambridge,” says Dr. Johnson, “at a time when the last great revolution of the intellectual world was filling every academical mind with ardour or anxiety. The destruction of the Constantinopolitan empire had driven the Greeks, with their language, into the interior parts of Europe, the art of printing had made the books easily attainable, and Greek now began to be taught in England. The doctrines of Luther had already filled all the nations of the Romish communion with controversy and dissention. New studies of literature, and new tenets of religion, found employment for all who were desirous of truth, or ambitious of fame. Learning was, at that time, prosecuted with that eagerness and perseverance, which, in this age of indifference and dissipation, it is not easy to conceive. To teach or t-o learn, was at once the business and the pleasure of academical life and an emulation of study was raised by Cheke and Smith, to which even the present age, perhaps, owes many advantages, without remembering or knowing its benefactors.”

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

“Whether,” says Dr. Johnson, “Ascham was poor by his own fault, or the fault of others, cannot now be decided but it is certain that many have been rich with less merit. His philological learning would have gained him honour in any country; and among us it may justly call for that reverence which all nations owe to those who first rouse them from ignorance, and kindle among- them the light of literature.” The only works he published were, 1. “Toxophilus the school of Shooting, in two books,” London, 4to, 1545, by Whitchurch; 1571, by Thomas Marshe and 1589, by JefFes. It has already been noticed, that he was fond of archery, and that he was censured for a practice unsuitable to a man professing learning, and perhaps of bad example in a place of education. This treatise was written as a defence, but his design was not only to recommend the art of shooting, but to give an example of diction more natural and more truly English, than was used by the common writers of that age, whom he blames for mingling exotic terms with their native language. 2. “A Report and Discourse, written by Roger Ascham, of the affairs and state of Germany, and the emperor Charles his court, duryng certain yeares, while the said Roger was there. At London, printed by John Daye, dwelling over Aldersgate. Cum gratia et privilegio regite majestatis per decennium” without a date. This treatise is written in the form of a letter, addressed to John Astley, in answer to one of his which is prefixed he was a domestic of the lady Elizabeth, and his letter bears date the 19th of. October 1552. The answer must have be^n written the same year, since there is no mention therein of king Edward’s death, which happened the year following. In this work he describes the dispositions and interests of the German princes, like a man inquisitive and judicious, and recounts many particularities which are lost in the mass of general history, in a style which, to the ears of that age, was undoubtedly mellifluous, and which is now a very valuable specimen of genuine English. After his death were printed, 3. “The Schoolmaster or, a plain and perfite way of teaching children to understand, write, and speak the Latin tongue; but especially purposed for the private bringing up of youth in gentlemen and noblemen’s houses; and commodious also for all such as have forgot the Latin tongue, and would by themselves, without a schole-master, in short time, and with. small paines, recover a sufficient habilitie to understand, write, and speake Latin, by Roger Ascham, aim. 1570. At London, printed by John Daye, dwelling over Aldersgate;” inscribed by Margaret his widow to sir William Cecil, principal secretary of state. The design originated, as we are informed in the preface, in a conversation on education, which took place at secretary Cecil’s apartments in Windsor castle, during the plague in 1563. This work. which contains the best advice ever given for the study of languages, was reprinted by Day, 1571 by Jeffes, 1589; and by Upton, 1711. 4. “Apologia doct. viri R. A. pro coena Dominica contra Missuin et ejus prestigias in academia olim Cantabrigiensi exercitationis gratia inchoata. Cui accesserunt themata quaedam Theologica, debita disputandi ratione in Collegio D. Joan, pronunciata. Expositionis item antiquoe in epistola Divi Pauli ad Titam et Philemonem, ex diversis sanctorum Patrum Grsece scriptis commentariis ab CEcumenio collectse, et a R. A. Latine versa?.” Lond. by Coldock, 1577, 8vo, pp. 296.

Ascham’s epistles were published by Mr. Grant, master of Westminster school, in 1576, 1577, 1578, and 1590, London; and there were two editions at Hanau, 1602, 1610; and one at Nuremberg, 1611. The last and best edition is that published by Mr. Elstob, Oxford, 1703, who has added many letters not in the former, but has omitted Ascham’s poems. The elegance of these letters has been universally acknowledged, and the life prefixed by Grant is the foundation of all we know of him. Many particulars, however, might yet be gleaned from his epistles. Ascham’s English works were published by the Rev. James Bennet, 1767, 4to, to which Dr. Johnson prefixed a life, written in his happiest manner, and since added to his works.

, or Achart, a Mussulman doctor, and chief of the Ascharians, who were the opponents of the Hanbalites the latter held the doctrine of particular providence, while the Ascharians maintained that the "supreme being acts by general laws. They also held absolute predestination. Aschari died at Bagdat, in the year 940, and was privately interred to prevent his body from being insulted by the Hanbalites.