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

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

The last years of his life were embittered by domestic afflictions, and by bodily disease. The loss of an affectionate daughter, and afterwards of his wife, preyed upon a constitution that haa been shaken by the vicissitudes of his former life., and brought on a lethargic disorder, of which be died, Aug. 25, 1644, leaving behind him the character of a man of great piety and learning; and it appears that few men of his time were more highly honoured for their personal worth. He went yearly to wait upou the king of Bohemia, and to inspect the studies of the royal family. He contributed very much to the collections that were made throughout all the Protestant countries for the churches of Germany. He was also employed in two other important commissions: one was the revisal made at Leyden of the new Dutch translation of the Bible; and the other the visitation of the county of Steinfurt. In the first he had some colleagues, but in the second he was the only general inspector, the count of Bentheim having sent him to regulate the churches, and particularly to counteract the progress of Socinianism, which had crept in. Alting, by his temperate character and his abilities as a reasoner, taking all his arguments from scripture, appears to have been well qualified for these and other important trusts assigned to him. He married at Heidelberg in 1614, and had seven children, of whom a daughter and two sons survived him. The eldest son was professor of civil law at Daventer; the other is the subject of the next article.

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

, the father of Henry and grandfather of James Alting, was born at Fleda in West-Friesland in 1541, and died, first pastor and president of the consistory at Embden, in 1617. The study of St. Paul’s epistle to the Romans is said to have brought him from the opinions of Luther to those of Calvin, in whose defence he wrote against Ligorius and Hunnius. His life was written by Ubbo Emmius.

, probably of fche same family, was a learned burgomaster of Groningen, celebrated for his topographical skill and writings. He was born in 1636, and died in 1713. His principal works are, 1. “Notitia Germanise inferioris,” Amst. 1697, fol. 2. “Descriptio Frisiae inter Scaldis portum veterem et Amisiam,” ibid. 1701, fol.

, an Italian poet of the fifteenth century, whose writings do not justify that honourable name, was according to Crescimbini, a native of Florence, his name Christopher; but on account of his merit, he received a poetic crown, and the surname of Aitissimo. Le Quadrio, however, thinks that this was his family name, s that his Christian name was Angel, and that he was a priest. He was one of the most admired improvisatori of his time, and his verses are said to have been often collected and published. He was living in 1514. Of his poems we have only a translation of the first book of the famous romance, “I Riali di Francia,” Venice, 1534, 4to, enough to prove that he was a very indifferent poet.

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

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

, a very eminent artist, was born in 1488, at Altdorffin Bavaria, and rose to be a member of the senate of Ratisbon, and architect to the town, where he died in 1578. His merit as a painter appears to have been very considerable, but much more as a designer and engraver. His works in wood and metal are as numerous as, in general, remarkable for diminutive size, though neither his conceptions nor forms were puny. The cuts of “The Passion,” “Jael and Siserah,” “Pyramus and Thisbe,” “Judah and Thamar,” if we allow for the ignorance of costume in the three last, show a sensibility of mind, and a boldness of design, which perhaps none of his German contemporaries can boast. Holbein is said to have drawn great assistance from him, evident traces of the style of Altorfer appearing in the prints of that inimitable artist, although certainly much improved.

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

, a Spanish dominican, was born at Rio Seco in Old Castille. He was professor of theology in Spain and at Rome, and afterwards archbishop of Trani in the kingdom of Naples. In concert with Lemos, his brother in profession, he supported the cause of the Thomists against the Molinists, in the congregation De Auxiliis, held in 1596. He died in 1635, after publishing several treatises on the doctrines which he defended; among these are, “De auxiliis divinae gratioe,” Lyons, 1611, folio; “Concorclia liberi arbitrii cum predestinatione,” Lyons, 1622, 8vo; “A commentary on Isaiah,” 1615, fol. &c.

, a celebrated Portuguese grammarian, was born in the island of Madeira on the 4th of June 1526. Having entered into the society of the Jesuits, he distinguished himself by his probity and his prudence, and became rector of the colleges of Coimbra, Evora, and Lisbon. He was well acquainted with polite literature; and for many years applied himself to the instruction of youth in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, He died at the college of Evora on the 30th of December 1582. His Latin grammar is much esteemed; it is entitled, “De Institudone Grammatica,” and has had many editions; the first, Lisbon, 1572, 4to. Kess, Ricardi, and Tursellinus have published abridgments of it. His work “Demensuris, ponderibus ct numeris,” is in less esteem.

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

, one of the most esteemed Portuguese poets, was born at Goa in the Indies, in the fifteenth century, about the commencement of the reign of king Sebastian. We have few particulars of his life. It is said that he served in the royal navy, and was captain of one of the vessels belonging to the squadron which admiral Tellez commanded in India, during the viceroyalty of Moniz-Barreto. His principal work, “Lusitania Transformada,” is on the plan of the Diana of Monte.major. The language is pure and harmonious, and the descriptions striking and natural. It was printed, for the first time, at Lisbon, 1607, 8vo. A few years after, a more correct edition was published by father Foyos, of the oratory. Our poet also wrote an elegy, which has been highly praised, and the fifth and sixth parts of the romance of Palmerin of England.

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

a Prussian statesman, knight of the orders of the red and black eagle, lord of Hundisburgh, &c. was born Dec. 12, 1745, at Hanover, where his father was counsellor of war. During the seven years war he was brought up at Magdebourg with the prince, afterwards Frederic-William II. He then studied law at the university of Halle, and was appointed referendary in the court of accounts at Berlin, and in 1775, was sent as envoy extraordinary to the elector of Saxony, with the title of king’s chamberlain. This proved the commencement of a diplomatic career, for which he was thought qualified by his extensive knowledge and accomplishments, and the address with which he retained the good opinion of Frederic II. During the war for the succession of Bavaria, he acted as intermediate agent between the king of Prussia and the old electorate court, and between the army of Frederic and that of Prince Henry. After having been engaged in this office for twelve years, he was sent as ambassador, in 1787, to the court of France. In 1788 he was sent, in the same capacity, to Holland and in 1789 to England. In 1790 he was recalled from the latter, and appointed minister for foreign affairs, and his zeal and activity rendered him highly acceptable in the court of Berlin. During his administration he founded several benevolent establishments. He died at Berlin in 1802. As a writer he is known by a historical work entitled “Essai d‘un tableau chronologique des evenements cle la guerre, depuis la pair de Munster, jusqu’a celle de. Hubertsbourg,” Berlin, 1792, 8vo.

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

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

, a philosopher of Alexandria, flourished in the fifth century, and was contemporary with Jamblicus. He was one of the most subtle dialecticians of his time, was much followed, and drew away the hearers of Jamblicus. This occasioned some conferences between them, but no animosity, as Jamblicus wrote his life, in which he praised his virtue and steadiness of mind. Alypius died very old, in the city of Alexandria. In stature he was so remarkably diminutive as to be called a dwarf.

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

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

, from being a monk of Madeloc, rose to be archbishop of Treves, in the year 8 10, and the following year re-established the Christian religion in that part of Saxony which is beyond the Ebro, consecrated the first church in Hamburgh, and in the year 813 went as ambassador to Constantinople to ratify the peace which Charlemagne had concluded with Michael, the emperor of the east. He died the year following in his diocese. His only work is a “Treatise on Baptism,” which is printed among the works and under the name of Alcuinus. It is the answer to a circular letter in which Charlemagne had consulted the bishops of his empire respecting that sacrament. From a similarity of names this writer has sometimes, particularly by Trithemius, Possevin, and Bellarmine, been confounded with the subject of the next article.

, was successively deacon and priest of the church of Metz, director. of the school in the palace of Louis de Debdnnaire, abbot of Hornbac, coadjutor to the bishop of Ia-Ous, and then to that of Treves, and according to some was made bishop; but this seems doubtful. Some authors likewise attribute to him a work which appeared in the year 847, in favour of the opinions of Hincmar, archbishop of Rheirns, on predestination; but it is probable that Amalarius was dead ten years before that. He was, however, esteemed a man of great learning in liturgical matters; and his acknowledged works procured him touch reputation in the Romish church. The first mentioned is a “Treatise on the Offices,” written in the year 820, but re-written with many improvements in the year 827, in consequence of a visit to Rome for the purpose of becoming better acquainted with the rites of that church. The most correct edition of this work is in the Bibl. Patrum of Lyons. His object is to give the rationale of the prayers and ceremonies which compose the service, mixed, however, with what is less reconcileable to reason, the mystical use of them, and some scruples about trifles which now will hardly bear repetition. 2. “The order of the Antiphonal,” in which he endeavours to reconcile the rites of the Roman with the Gallican church. This is usually printed with the preceding. 3. “The Office of the Mass.” 4. “Letters,” which are in the Spicilegium of d'Achery, and Martenne’s Anecdotes. His works met with considerable opposition, and Agobard, archbishop of Lyons, wrote against the two first-mentioned works. Florus, deacon of Lyons, accused him of heresy before the council of Thionville, where he was acquitted, and the council at Quierci, where some expressions of his respecting the sacrament were adjudged to be dangerous, but his reputation did not suffer much by the decision.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

, a painter of Nuremberg, of the sixteenth century, was the disciple of the younger Holbein, and a successful imitator of his manner. His designs were correct, the disposition of the figures admirable, and the perspective excellent, nor was he deficient in colouring. His chief reputation rests on a composition of the history of Joseph, which he described in twelve pictures. He also painted a portrait of the emperor Charles V. which that monarch, according to the testimony of Sandrart, accounted equal to any of the portraits of him painted by Titian; and to express his high approbation of that performance, he not only paid the artist three times as much as he expected, with a liberality truly royal, but he honoured him also with a rich chain of gold and a medal. There are several of his pictures in the royal gallery of Munich. The abbé Marolles, and, after him, Florent le Comte mention Amberger, as an engraver, without specifying his works; but Basan tells us, that he engraved in wood several prints, from his own compositions. He died in 1550.

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

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

, a brother of the preceding Francis and Adrian, followed his father’s profession, that of medicine, and obtained a doctor’s degree in 1594. After Henry IV. had reduced Paris to its loyalty and submission, Amboise became rector of the university, which Crevier says he found in great decay and disorder, and which he left in a renovated and flourishing state: He began by making the members of the university take an oath of allegiance to Henry IV. He afterwards supported the unfversity in the law-suit with the Jesuits, which was given against the latter, and they were expelled; he even accused them of being enemies to the Salique law, and to the royal family. He died of the plague in 1606. His only works are, “Orationes duae,” against the Jesuits, Paris, 1595, 8vo, and “Questiones Medicales,” mentioned in Carrere’s “Bibliotheque de la Medicine.” Haller attributes other medical treatises to one of the same name, but does not notice the “Questiones.”

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

, an eminent Italian scholar, was born at Florence, June 13, 1713, and died at Rome in 1788, where he had been professor of eloquence for thirty years with great reputation. Most of the present Italian literati are indebted to him for their taste for study and the happy manner in which he taught them to employ their talents. He published a “Translation of Virgil into blank verse,” of which the edition printed at Rome, 3 vols. fol. 1763, a most superb book, is very scarce: he translated likewise some of the tragedies of Voltaire, Florence, 1752, and a selection of Cicero’s epistles; he published a Latin oration on the election of Joseph II. to be king of the Romans; but he is principally known for the “Museum Kicheranum,” in 2 vols. folio, 1765. The care of this valuable museum was long confided to him, and he prevailed upon the learned cardinal De Zelada to enrich it by his collections. He left in manuscript, a Latin poem on the cultivation of the lemon-tree. One other publication remains to be noticed; his translation of the Jesuit Noceti’s two poems on the Iris and the Aurora Borealis, which were printed in the same magnificent manner with his Virgil.

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

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

In the year 374, Auxentius, bishop of Milan, died, and immediately the bishops of the province met together to elect a successor. The emperor, Valentinian, sent for them, and told them, that they, as men acquainted with the scriptures, ought to understand better than himself the qualifications necessary for so important a station; that they should chuse a man fit to instruct by life as well as doctrine, in which case, he (the emperor) would readily submit his sceptre to his counsels and directions; and, conscious that he was liable to human frailty, would receive his reproofs and admonitions as wholesome physic. The bishops, however, requested his majesty to nominate the person, but Valentinian persisted in leaving the decision to their choice. This was at a time when factions were strong, and when the Arian party were very desirous of electing one of their number. The city, accordingly, was divided, and a tumult seemed approaching, when Ambrose, as a magistrate, hastened to the church of Milan, and exhorted the people to peace and submission to the laws. On concluding his speech, an infant’s voice in the crowd was heard to say: “Ambrose is bishop;” and immediately the whole assembly exclaimed: “Let Ambrose be bishop,” a decision in which the contending factions agreed unanimously.

Ambrose, in the greatest astonishment, endeavoured to refuse the offer, and afterwards took some measures of an extraordinary, and certainly unjustifiable nature, to evade the office. By exercising unnecessary seventy on some malefactors, he endeavoured to give the people a notion of his savage aild unchristian temper; and by encouraging strumpets to come to his house, he thought to obtain the character of a man of loose life. This singular species of hypocrisy, however, was easily detected. He had then no other means left to prove his repugnance to the profered office of bishop, than by retiring from Milan; but, mistaking his way, he was apprehended by the guards, and confined until the emperor’s pleasure should be known, without which no subject could leave his office. Valentinian immediately consented; but Ambrose again made his escape, and did not return until it was declared criminal to conceal him. He then, with great reluctance, entered upon his new office, in the thirty-fourth year of his age.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ambrose immediately wrote a letter to Theodosius, in which he stated his own duty, and the emperor’s crime, and refused to admit him into the church at Milan. The emperor pleading the case of David, Ambrose desired him to imitate David in his repentance as well as in his sin, and he accordingly submitted, and kept from the church eight months, nor was he at last admitted without signs of penitence, and the performance of public penance. One condition which Ambrose imposed cannot be mentioned without approbation; it was, that the emperor should suspend the execution of capital warrants for thirty days, in order that the mischiefs of intemperate anger might be pre vented. Although in these public penances we see more of superstition than real compunction, and perhaps what might now be reckoned an immoderate exercise of episcopal power, yet it is probable in the then state of society, Theodosius lost nothing by submission in the case of so flagrant a crime, nor Ambrose by performing what not only he conceived, but was then acknowledged, to be his duty.

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

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

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

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

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

, a pious and learned capuchin, whose family name was la Peirie, was born at Lombez in 1708, and died the 25th of October 1778, at St. Saviour, near Bareges, at the age of 70. His order was sensible to his merit, and he was successively professor of theology, guardian, and definitor. His tract on “Inward Peace,” and his “Lettres Spirituelles,” each in one vol. 12mo, are said by persons of his communion, to be full of light and unction, and breathe that gentle piety that characterised their author. We are told by pere Mayeul, that he had great talents as a spiritual director, and was an instrument in the hand of God for converting sinners, and consoling the just. Fere Ambrose had by nature a self-love by far too sensible, with an exuberance of delicacy, and an ardent desire of public esteem: but an adherence to the precepts of the gospel effectually cured him of all these defects. To his native pride he opposed humility and self-contempt. “It is self-love,” said he, “that corrupts our virtues, and spoils our happiness. Of a hundred things that offend us in society, ninety-nine were never meant to offend. But pride takes all things in their strictest rigour.” “Let it take things,” added he, “as it will; I will suffer all. If they should spit in my face, have I not a handkerchief to wipe it off?”

, a noted presbyterian teacher in the times of the usurpation, was son of a clergyman, and descended from the Ambroses of Ambrose-hall, in Lancashire. In the beginning of the year 1621 he was admitted of Brazen-nose college in Oxford, where he took the degree of bachelor of arts. Afterwards he went into holy orders, and officiated in some little cure in his own county. Being in very low circumstances, he was often obliged to the bounty of William earl of Bedford for the relief of himself and family. Mr. Wood thinks that lord procured him to be inserted in the list of his majesty’s preachers, appointed for the county of Lancaster. Afterwards, when the times changed, in 1641, he left the church of England, and went over to the presbyterian party, took the covenant, and became a preacher at Preston, and afterwards at Garstang, in his own county. He was very zealous and very active against the clergy of the established church, especially after he was appointed assistant to the commissioners for ejecting such whom they called scandalous and ignorant ministers and school-masters. In 1&62 he was ejected for nonconformity. It was usual with him to retire every year for a month, into a little hut in a wood, when he shunned all society, and devoted himself to religious contemplation. He had, according to Calamy, a very strong impulse on, his mind of the approach of death: and took a formal leave of his friends at their own houses, a little before his departure, and the last night of his life, he sent his “Discourse concerning Angels,” to the press. Next day he shut himself up in his parlour, where, to the surprise and regret of his friends, he was found expiring. The time of his death is stated to have been in 1663-4, in the seventysecond year of his age, but at the bottom of the portrait prefixed to his works, is the inscription “aetat.5.9. 1663.” This contradiction has not been reconciled by Granger. His works were printed in a large folio volume, in 1674, 1682, and 1689, and often since. They consist of pious tracts on various subjects, and have ever been popular.

, was a physician of considerable eminence and professor of botany at Bologna, where he died in 1657. He was also director of the botanic garden, and was appointed by the senate superintendant of the museum of natural history belonging to the republic. His principal botanical work was entitled “De Ccipsicorum varietate cum suis iconibus: accessit panacea ex herbis quas a sanctis denominantur,” Bologna, 1650, 12mo. He was also distinguished as a successful medical practitioner; and during the plague in 1630, his extensive experience furnished the materials of a work on that subject, “Modo, e facile preserva, e cura di peste a beneficio de popolo di Bologna,” 1631, 4to. He published afterwards, “Theorica medicina in tabulas digesta,” 1632, 4to, ibid. “De Pulsibus,” 1645, 4to; “De externis malis opusculum,” 1656; “De Urinis,” &c. He likewise discovered great ability as an editor, in the publication of the 9th, 10th, 11th, and 12th volumes of the works of Aldrovandus.

, brother to the preceding, and his successor in the direction of the botanic garden at Bologna, in 1657 published the catalogue “Hortus Bononiae studiosorum consitus,” ibid. 1654, 1657, 4-to; and a little before his death, “Phytologia, hoc est, de plantis partis primae tomus primus, &c.” ibid. fol. 1666. This contains the names, synonyms, and etymologies of the plants, with a botanical lexicon, and index in three languages. It has been often consulted for the synonyms, but the etymologies are thought to be sometimes fanciful. The second volume, which was to include trees, never appeared. The Ambrosini were skilful botanists, but living before the science was so well understood as it has been since the time of Linnæus, their works are deficient in order and precision. Bassi dedicated a genus of plants to their memory, under the name of Ambrosinia, a genus of the polyandria order, of which there is but one species, a native of Turkey.

, a French ecclesiastic, born at Paris about 1629, for a few years practised at the bar, but from some disgust with the world, entered the congregation of the oratory in April 1660, and having repaired to the university of Saumur to study divinity, became there intimately acquainted with father Malebranche. He was ordained a priest in 1663, and about the same time was appointed grand chantor of the church of Paris; but this situation affording no scope for his zeal, he exchanged it for that of grand archdeacon, an office which placed under his inspection the greater part of the curates of the diocese. He published, 1. “Traite de la volont6,” Paris, 1684, 12mo, the fruit of his intimacy with Malebranche, but Avhich Bayle has erroneously attributed to M. Nicole. 2. “Traite de l'amour desouverain bien, &c.” Paris, 1699, 12mo, against the Quietists. Some also think he wrote “L'art de vivre heureux,” Paris, 1690, which others give to Louis Pascal.

, an eclectic philosopher of the third century, was a native of Tuscany, and the contemporary of Porphyry, and studied the principles of the Stoic philosophy under Lysimachus. He became afterwards acquainted with the writings of Numenius, and from him learned and adopted the dogmas of Plato, but at last, about the year 246, became the disciple of Plotinus. For twenty-four years he associated with this master, and probably never would have quitted him, if Plotinus, on account of his health, had not been obliged to go to Campania. Amelius then settled at Apamea in Syria, and it was no doubt his long residence here which led Suidas into the mistake that he was a native of the place. The word Amelius in Greek signifies negligent, but no epithet could ever be worse applied than to him. Porphyry therefore tells us that he preferred being called Amerius, and he is accordingly recorded under this name by Eunapius in his lives of the Greek sophists. His disciples also bestowed on him the title of noble. He wrote nearly an hundred treatises, none of which have descended to our times. One of them was a discussion on the difference between the doctrines of Numenius and Plotinus. Eusebius, Theodoret, and St. Cyril, quote a passage from Amelius in which he brings the beginning of the Gospel of St. John in confirmation of the doctrine of Plato on the divine nature. He had an adopted son, Justin Hesychius, to whom he left his writings. The time of his death is not known.

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

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

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

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

was born at Wedinguen in Bavaria, and studied law, philosophy, and divinity, at Wittemberg, where he professed to be a follower of Luther; but on returning to his own country, he became a Roman catholic, and professor of philosophy at Ingoldstadt, where he died in 1557, at the age of 70. He translated into Latin the orations of Isocrates and Demosthenes; the treatise of St. Chrysostom on Providence, and that of Epiphamus on the catholic faith. He published also commentaries on Cicero’s Offices, on the poems of Pythagoras and Phocyllides, on the Tristia of Ovid, and Horace “De arte poetica.” To much learning he added a considerable talent for poetry, in which he left various small pieces, epigrams, epitaphs. His philosophical works “De Anima, de philosophia naturali, &c.” are less known; but a list of them may be seen in Teissier’s Essays, vol. I.

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

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

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

Mr. Ames died suddenly of a fit of coughing, Oct. 7, 1759, and on the 14th was interred in the church-yard of St. Georo-e in the East, in a stone coffin, on the lid of which is an inscription in Latin by the rev. Dr. Flexman; and over the grave was placed a ledger-stone with two inscriptions, one in English, the other in Latin. His collection of coins, natural curiosities, inscriptions, and antiquities, were sold by Mr. Langford, Feb. 20 and 2 1, 1760: his library of books, manuscripts and prints, on May 5 12, 1160. Many of the books had notes by him, and Mr. Gough has enumerated many valuable articles among his collection, with the buyers’ names.

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

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

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

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

His works are: 1. “Sermons, preached at St. Mary’s Cambridge,” but whether printed is uncertain. 2. “Puritanismus Anglicanus,” 8vo, 1610; and in English, London, 4to, 1641, containing the chief doctrines of the Puritans. 3. “Disceptatio scholastica inter Nic. Grevinchovium and Gul. Anaesium,” 8vo, Amst. 1613, concerning Arminuis’s opinions on election, &c. 4. “Disputatio inter Amesium et Grevinchovium,” Rotter. 8vo, 1615; Lugcl. Bat. 1617, 1633, on reconciliation by the death of Christ. 5. “Coronis ad collationem Hagiensem,” 12mo, Lugd. Bat. 1618, 1628, 1630, confuting the answers given by the Arminians to the Dutch pastors. 6. “Medulla Theologica,” Frank. 1623, reprinted four times at Amsterdam, and translated into English. 7. “Explicatio litriusque Epistolos S. Petri,” )2mo, Amst. 1625, 16?. 5, and also translated into English, Loncl. 1461, 4to. 8. “De Incarnatione Verbi,” Franek. 1626, 8vo, against the Socinians. 9. “Bellarrainus enervatus,” 8vo, often reprinted at Amsterdam, Oxford, and London. 10. “De Conscientia,” thrice printed at Amsterdam, and in English with this title, “A treatise on Conscience, with the power and cases thereof,” Lond. 4to, 1643; this book is still much read. 11. “Antisynodalia,” Franek. 1629, 12mo, against the Remonstrants. 12. “Demonstratio logicae verse,” 12mo, Lug. Bat. 1632. 13. “Disputatio Theologica,” ibid, against metaphysics. 14. “Technometria,” Amst. 1632, 8vo, on the purpose and bounds of arts. 15. “A reply to Bfshop Morton,” on his lordship’s defence of the surplice, the cross in baptism, and kneeling at the sacrament, 4to, 1622, which he followed up, by 16. “A fresh Suit against Roman ceremonies,” 1633, 4to. 17. “A First and Second Manuductton.” 18. Rescriptio ad responsum Grevinchovii de Redemptione generaii,” Lugd. Bat. 1634, 8vo. 19. “Christiana) Catechesis Sciographia,” Franek. 1635, 8vo. 'Jo. “Lectiones in omnes Psalmos Davidis,” Amst. 1635, 8vo; Lond. 1647. These last five were posthumous publications. Besides these, ha wrote some prefaces, &c. to the works of others. His Latin works were reprinted at Amsterdam in 1658, 5 vols. 8vo, by Matthias Nethenus.

, was the second son of Jeffery Amherst, of Riverhead, in Kent, esq. and of Elizabeth, daughter of Thomas Kerrill, of Hadlow, in Kent, esq. and was born Jan. 29, 1717. He devoted himself very early to the profession of arms, having received an ensign’s commission in the guards, in 1731, when he was only fourteen years of age; but about ten years afterwards he was aide-de-camp to general, afterwards lord Ligonier, and in that capacity was present with the general at the battles of Roucox, Dettingen, and Fontenoy. He was afterwards admitted on the staff of the duke of Cumberland, with whom he was present at the engagements of Laffeld and Hastenbeck. In 1756, he was appointed to the command of the fifteenth regiment of foot, and in two years more obtained the rank of major-general in the army.

When the war broke out between France and England, of which North America was the principal theatre, general Amherst was appointed to serve in that country, where he soon had opportunities of displaying his talents. The courage and military skill which entitled him to the trust thus reposed in him, were not long unattested hy the fears of his enemies, and the acclamations of his country. In the summer of 1758, he undertook the expedition against Louisbourg, which, together with the island of Cape Breton, on which it is situated, in the gulph of St. Lawrence, surrendered, wiili all its dependencies, to his victorious arms, July 26 of that year. This conquest not only deprived the enemy of an important place of strength, on which the prosperity of their most valuable possessions in America depended, as it was the guardian and protector of their trade in that part of the world, but it also put Great Britain in possession of the navigation of the river St. Lawrence, cutoff France from the advantages of her fishery, and by that means considerably distressed her West India islands, and finally opened the road for the reduction of Canada. The same campaign was distinguished by another very important atchievement; for in the month of November following, a plan being laid by general Amherst for the capture of Fort du Quesne, one of the keys of Canada, situated on the lakes, and the execution being intrusted to brigadier-general Forbes, the assault proved successful, and the fortress was accordingly taken; measures being adopted at the same time with so much spirit and wisdom, that the Indians were so far detached from the alliance of the enemy, as to give no obstruction to the expedition. In the ensuing campaign another strong station was reduced, under the prudent auspices of general Amherst. Sir William Johnson, to whom the command of the expedition against Niagara devolved, in consequence of the accidental death of brigadier Prideaux, on the 24th July, 1759, having defeated and taken M. D' Aubrey near that place, the fort surrendered the next day. This important victory threw the whole of the Indian fur trade into the hands of the English; and also secured the British dominions in that quarter from all hostile annoyance.

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

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

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

The character of lord Amherst may be collected from the particulars of his life. His personal merits, however, have been universally acknowledged. He was a firm disciplinarian, but ever the soldier’s friend; a man of strict ceconomy, and of a collected and temperate mind, and ready at all times to hear and redress the complaints of the army in general. No ostentation of heroism marked any of his actions but the whole of his conduct evinced the firm simplicity of a brave mind, animated by the consciousness of what was due to himself and to his country. In private life, his character has been represented as truly amiable.

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

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

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

, of Messina, canon of the cathedral of Palermo, and historiographer to Philip IV. king of Spain, acquired much reputation for his knowledge in, the history and antiquities of Sicily. Of his numerous works on this subject, some have been printed, and the manuscripts of the rest were after his death deposited in. the libraries of the duke of Madonia and of Palafox, archbishop of Palermo. Those published are, 1. “Trium orientalium Latinorum ordinum, post captam a duce Gothofredo Hierusalem, &c. notitiae et tabularia,” Palermo, 1636, fol. 2. “Dissertatio historica et chronologica de antique urbis Syracusarum archiepiscopatu,” Naples, 1640, 4to. This relates to the serious disputes between the three churches of Syracuse, Palermo, and Messina, respecting the metropolitan title and rights, and was inserted, with the answers, in the 7th vol. of the “Thesaurus antiquitatutn Sicilian,” Leyden, 1723. 3. “Series ammiratorum insulse Sicilian, ab ann. 842 ad 1640,” Palermo, 1640, 4to. 4. “De Messanensis prioratus sacræ hospilitatis domus militum sancti Joan. Hierosolymitani origine,” Palermo, 1640, 4to. 5. “Chronologia de los Virreyes, &c. de Sicilia,” Palermo, 1640, 4to. Amico died Oct. 22 in the year following the publication of the four last-mentioned works.

, a learned Jesuit, born atf Anzo in Lucania in 1562, was professor of philosophy and theology in the college at Naples, and its president for some years. He died in 1649. His fame, as far as he can now be allowed a share, rests principally on a voluminous work on the writings of Aristotle, entitled “In universam Aristotelis philosophiam notae et disputationes, quibus illustriuna scholarum, Averrois, D. Thomae, Scoti, et Nominaliurn sententiae expenduntur, earumque tueudarum probabiles modi afferuntur,” 7 vols. fol. 1623 1648. He wrote other works, of which a catalogue is given by Alegambe, Bibl. Script. Soc. Jesu.

, an artist and an author, was a Franciscan of Gallipoli, in the kingdom of Naples, and prior of his order at Jerusalem. During a residence of five years there, he made drawings and wrote descriptions of that city and neighbourhood; and on his return to Italy, published a magnificent volume, entitled “Trattato delle Piante e immagini de' sacri edifizi di Terra Santa,” Rome, 1620. The plates were engraved by the celebrated Callot.

, a nobleman of Catania in Sicily, born in 1693, was for many years professor of philosophy and theology, and was not less distinguished for general learning, than for his acquaintance with the antiquities of Sicily. He was chosen prior of his order in 1743. His publications are 1. “Sicilia sacra, disquisitionibus et notitiis illustrata,” Venice, (although in the title Palermo), 1733, 2 vols. fol. Of this, however, he only wrote the second part, and being dissatisfied with this edition, he reprinted that part, under the title of “Sicilies sacrae libri IV. Integra pars secunda,” 1733, fol. 2. “Catana illustrata,” Catania, 4 vols. fol. 1741—1746. The time of his death is not specified.

, a painter well known in England, was a native of Venice, and came to England in 1729, when he was about forty years of age. He had studied under Bellucci in the Palatine court, and had been some years in the elector of Bavaria’s service. His manner was a still fainter imitation of that nerveless master Sebastian Ricci, and as void of the glow of life as the Neapolitan Solimeni. His women are mere chalk; nor was this his worst defect: his figures are so entirely without expression, that his historical compositions seem to represent a set of actors in a tragedy, ranged in attitudes against the curtain draws up. His Marc Antonys are as free from passion as his Scipios. He painted some staircases of noblemen’s houses, and afterwards practised portrait-painting with rather more success. In 1736 he made a journey to Paris with the celebrated singer Farinelli, and returned with him in October following. His portrait of Farinelli was engraved. He then engaged with Wagner, an engraver, in a scheme of prints from Canaletti’s views of Venice, and after marrying an Italian singer, returned to his own country in 1739, having acquired here about 5000l. At last he settled in Spain, was appointed painter to the,king, and died in the 63d year of his age, at Madrid, September 1752. His daughters, the signora Belluomini and the signora Castellini, the latter a paintress in crayons, were living at Madrid in 1772, as Mr. Twiss informs us in, his Travels, p. 167, 1775, 4to.

Such is lord Orford’s account of this painter. Mr. Pilkington’s character is rather more favourable, although perhaps modern connoisseurs will place less dependance on it. Amiconi possessed, says this writer, a very fertile invention; his taste of design was considerably elegant; and the air and turn of some of his figures, in his best compositions, were allowed to have somewhat engaging, natural, and even graceful. He confessedly had many of the accomplishments of a good painter; but, although his merit must in many respects be allowed, and his drawing, in particular, is generally correct, yet his colouring is abundantly too cold, too pale, and (as it is termed by the artists) too mealy.

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

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

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

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

The multitude of designs which he made, and the number of plates which he engraved, are incredible. He lived at a time when almost every book which made its appearance was ornamented with prints, and he was employed mostly by the great booksellers, especially by Feyeraband. There are editions of Livy, Tacitus, Diogenes Laertius, and many other classics, with his prints. His portraits of the kings of France, with short memoirs, appeared in 1576. He engraved also for the New Testament, and a “Theatrum nmlierum,” Francfort, 1586, 4to. One of his most curious works is the “Panoplia omnium liberalium, mechanic-drum et sedentiarium artium genera continens,” Francfort, 1564, a collection of one hundred and fifteen plates, exhibiting the various artificers at work. In the plate of the art of engraving, he introduced a portrait of himself.

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

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

, a Roman historian of the fourth century, was a Greek by birth, as we may collect from several passages in his history; and from a letter which the sophist Libanius wrote to him, and which is still extant, he appears to have been born at Antioch. In his youth he followed the profession of arms, and was enrolled among the “protectores domestici” a species of guards consisting of young men of family. From the year 350 to 359, he served in the East, and in Gaul, under Urficinus, master of the horse to Constantius. In the year 363, he was with Julian in his Persian expedition, after which he seems to have continued in the East, and to have lived generally at Antioch. In the year 374, however, he left Antioch, and went to Rome, where he wrote his history of the Roman affairs from Nerva to the death of Valens in the year 378. This consisted of thirty-one books, but the last eighteen only remain, which begin at the seventeenth year of Constantius, A. D. 353. His style is rough, which is not perhaps extraordinary in a soldier and a Greek writing in Latin, but there are many splendid passages, and he is allowed to be faithful and impartial. From the candid manner in which he speaks of Christianity, some have thought him a Christian, but there being no other foundation for such a supposition, the question has been generally decided in the negative, especially in the preface to Valesius’s edition of his works, and in his life in the General Dictionary by Bayle. Lardner is of opinion, that as he wrote under Christian emperors, he might not judge it proper to profess his religion unseasonably, and might think fit to be somewhat cautious in his reflections upon Christianity. Mosheim thinks that Ammianus, and some other learned men of his time, were a sort of neuters, neither forsaking the religion of their ancestors, nor rejecting that of the Christians; but in this Dr. Lardner cannot coincide. It is evident that he defended idols and the worshippers of them, that he makes Julian the apostate his hero, and appears to be unfriendly to Constantius. It is generally allowed, however, that he deserves the character which he gives of himself at the conclusion of his work, that of a faithful historian. Lardner has quoted some important passages from him, in his “Testimonies of Ancient Heathens.” His death is supposed to have taken place about the year 390.

There are many editions of Ammianus: the first, Rome, 1474, a rare book, was edited by Sabinus, with scrupulous fidelity to the manuscript; Castellus published one in 1517, at Bologna, and Frobenius another at Basil, 1518, all in folio, but comprising only thirteen books. The other five were added to Accursius’ edition, 1533, in which he boasts of having corrected five hundred errors. The best, perhaps, is that of Gronovius, Leyden, 1693, fol. and 4to. There are differences of opinion among bibliographers respecting the early editions, which we have not been able to reconcile, some making the princcps editio to. consist only of eleven books.

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

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

, son of Hermias the peripatetic philosopher, flourished at the beginning of the sixth century, and was the disciple of Proclus. He is said to have excelled in mathematical learning, and wrote a “Commentary on Aristotle De Interpretatione,” which was printed by Aldus at Venice, 1503; and a “Commentary In Isagogen Porphyrii,” first printed in 1500, and often reprinted. He has been sometimes confounded with Ammonius the grammarian, but the latter flourished in the fourth century, and wrote a valuable work on Greek Synonymes, which may be seen in Stephens’s Thesaurus and Scapula’s Lexicon.

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

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

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

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

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

The eloge of Amontons may be seen in the volume of the Memoirs of the Academy of Sciences for the year 1705, Hist. p. 150. And his pieces contained in the different volumes of that work, which are numerous, and upon various subjects, as the air, action of fire, barometers, thermometers, hygrometers, friction, machines, heat, cold, rarefactions, pumps, &c. may be seen in the volumes for the years 1696, 1699, 1702, 1703, 1704, and 1705.

, a canon regular of the order of St. Augustine, distinguished himself in Bavaria by the mimher and value of his writings, although many of them are on subjects that will not now be thought interesting. He was esteemed a wise and modest man, but rather singular in some points. He published, among other works, “Philosophia Pollingana,” Augsburg, 1730, fol. at the end of which is an extraordinary attempt to deny the earth’s motion; “A theological history of Indulgences,” fol.; a supplement to “Pontas’s Dictionary of cases of Con-­science;” “Rules from holy scripture, councils, and the fathers, respecting revelations, apparitions, and visions,” 2 vols. 1744, 4to; “A dissertation on the author of The Imitation of Jesus Christ, usually attributed to Thomas a Kempis.” All these works, of which, except the first, we have not been able to recover the exact titles, were written in Latin. Amort died Nov. 25, 1775, at the age of eightytwo.

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

Dr. Amory’s character was excellent in every view. It seems, says Dr. Kippis, to have been formed upon that of his uncle, Mr. Grove; with whom he had been closely connected from his infancy, and his connection with whom he considered as the principal felicity of his life. His piety was equally rational and fervent. It was founded on the most enlarged sentiments concerning the divine providence and government; and was, therefore, displayed in a spirit of cheerful devotion, love, and confidence. None could excel him as a husband, a father, a master, and a friend. He was distinguished for his general benevolence and humanity; and as a companion he was remarkably pleasing and engaging. He abounded with a number of short stories, drawn from an extensive knowledge of books and inen, which, while they were entertaining, were calculated and designed to convey instruction.

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

His works consist principally of Sermons preached on various occasions, some of which were after their first publication collected into volumes, and a volume was published after his death. Besides these he published “A Dialogue on Devotion,” 1733; “Forms of Devotion for the closet,” 1763, -8vo. He was also the editor of Dr. Grove’s posthumous works, and wrote his life, and the Life of Dr. Benson, and of Dr. Samuel Chandler. Some poetical pieces have been attributed to him, particularly a poem on the praises of Taunton, the place of his birth, published in 1724. .

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

In 1751, on the publication of lord Orrery’s remarks on the. life and writings of Dr. Swift, the following advertisement appeared in the Whitehall Evening Post, Dec. 12, 1751; but we have not been able to discover that the pamphlet was ever printed:

“Soon will be published, A Letter to lord Orrery, in answer to what his lordship says in his late remarks in praise of Swift’s sermon on the Trinity; being an attempt to vindicate the divinity of God, the Father Almighty; and to convince his lordship, if he has a mind open to conviction, that the tritheistic discourse preached by the dean of St. Patrick’s, is so far from being that masterpiece my lord Orrery calls it, that it is ija reafity the most senseless and despicable performance that ever was produced by orthodoxy to corrupt the divine religion of the blessed Jesus. By Thomas Amory, esq.”

In 1755 he published “Memoirs, containing the lives of several ladies of Great Britain.” “A history of antiquities, productions of nature, and monuments of art.” “Observations on the Christian religion, as professed by the established church and dissenters of every denomination.” “Remarks on the writings of the greatest English divines: and a review of the works of the writers called Infidels, from lord Herbert of Cherbury to the late lord viscount Bolingbroke. With a variety of disquisitions and opinions relative to criticism and manners; and many extraordinary actions. In several letters,” 8vo.

The characters of the ladies celebrated in this work are truly ridiculous, and probably the offspring of fiction. They are not only beautiful, learned, ingenious, and religious, but they are all zealous Unitarians in a very high degree; as is the author himself. At the end of the history of these memoirs, he promised a continuation of them, which was to contain what the public would then have received with great satisfaction, and certainly would still, should the Mss. luckily remain in being. His words are as follow:

“N. B. In an appendix to the second volume of this work, the reader will find an account of two very extraordinary persons, dean Swift, and Mrs. Constahtiu Grierson, of Dublin.

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

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

“As to Mrs. Grierson, Mr. Ballard’s account of her in his memoirs of some English ladies, lately published, is not worth a rush. He knew nothing of her; and the imperfect relation he got from Mrs. Barber is next to nothing. I was Intimately acquainted with Mrs. Grierson, and have passed a hundred afternoons with her in literary conversations in, her own parlour. Therefore it is in my power to give a very particular and exact account of this extraordinary woman. In the appendix you shall have it.”

The monthly reviewers of the time having given an account of this work unsatisfactory to the author, he published (for there can be little doubt but he was the author) a pamphlet entitled “A letter to the Reviewers, occasioned by their account of a book called Memoirs. By a lady.” 3vo. 1755. This lady signs herself Maria de Large; and subjoined are some remarks signed Anna Maria Gornwallis.

In 1756 he published the first volume of “The life of John Buncle, esq. containing various observations and reflections made in several parts of the world; and many extraordinary relations,” 8vo, which may be considered in some measure as a supplement to the Memoirs; and in 1766 appeared the second volume. Both parts exhibit the same beauties, the same blemishes, and the same eccentricities. It has been thought, that in the character and, adventures of Mr. Buncle, the author intended to sketch his own picture; and perhaps there may be some truth in the conjecture. Both the Memoirs and Life have been reprinted in 12 mo, the former in two volumes, the latter in four. It is said also that he published many political and religious tracts, poems, and songs.

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

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

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

, a native of the province of Over-yssel, was first a clergyman at Haerlem, but afterwards studied medicine and practised in Lower Saxony, having also been appointed medical professor at Rostock, and physician to the duke of Mecklenburgh. He died at Rostock in 1612, aged eighty-three?., he wrote, 1. “Dissertatio iatromathematica,” Rostock, 1602, 1618, 4to; 1629, 8vo. In this, after preferring medicine and astronomy to all other sciences, he contends for the necessity of their union in the healing art. 2. “De Theriaca, oratio,” 1618, 4to. 3. “De Morborum differentiis,” 1619, and other works, in which his practice appears rather more rational than his theory.

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

, a Danish political and miscellaneous writer, was born at Stoiberg in 1678, was educated at Rundsburgh by one of his uncles, and in. 1704, was appointed professor of law and political science at Kiel, where he acquired great reputation. Some verses which he wrote in praise of, the Danish ministers having given offence to the court of Holstein-Gottorp, he entered into the service of Denmark in 1713, and was appointed historiographer to the king, and counsellor of the chancery of the duchy of Holstein Schleswic. In this situation he wrote, at the king’s request, several pamphlets on the differences which existed between Denmark, Sweden, and the duchy of Holstein-Gottorp, which were published in German, 1715, 4to. These were so much approved of, that in 1715 he was invited to Copenhagen, appointed counsellor of justice, and had apartments in the royal castle of Rosembourg until his death, Feb. 21, 1721. He wrote also “Meditationes philosophies de justitia divina et materiis cum ea connexis;” and a volume of “poems and translations,” in German, Flensburgh, 1717.

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

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

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

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

His character has been variously represented. He has been accused of ambition, from his many promotions, and of avarice, from the riches he left behind him; but these are equivocal proofs, and we have given one instance of gratitude which marks something more estimable in his character. Another proof may be brought from his will, that his preferments had not elevated him beyond the recollection of his mean origin. In his will is the following clause: “I leave 1200 crowns to the hospital of Orleans, in acknowledgment of the relief I formerly received there.”

It is generally allowed that Amyot contributed essentially, in his translation of Plutarch, towards the polish and refinement of the French language. Vaugelas, a very competent judge, gives him this praise; and adds, that no writer uses words and phrases so purely French, without any mixture of provincialisms. It has been said, however, that he was a plagiarist, and there are two opinions on this subject; the one, that he took his Plutarch from an Italian translation; the other, that the work was executed by a learned but poor man, whom he hired. But both these opinions were contradicted by an inspection of the copies of Plutarch in his possession, many of which are marked with notes and various readings, which shewed an intimate acquaintance with the Greek. It may, however, be allowed, that his translation is not alxvays faithful, and the learned Meziriac pretends to have discovered nearly two thousand errors in it. Yet it has not been eclipsed by any subsequent attempt, and notwithstanding many of his expressions are obsolete, Racine pronounced that there is a peculiar charm in his style which is not surpassed by the modern French.

His works are, 1. His translation of “Heliodorus,” 1547, fol. and 1549, 8vo, republished and retouched in 1559, fol. in consequence of his meeting with a complete manuscript of Heliodorus in the Vatican; and from this last edition all those of Lyons, Paris, and Rouen have been copied. 2. “Diodorus Siculus,” Paris, 1554, fol. and 1587, containing only seven books, viz. book XI. to XVII. 3“Daphnis and Cloe,” from Longus, 1559, 8vo, of which there have been many, and some very splendid editions, particularly that called the Regent’s edition, 1718, 12mo, one by Didot, 1798, large 4to, and one at Florence, 1810, large 8vo, by M. Courier. 4. “Plutarch’s Lives and Morals,” 1559, 2 vols. fol. Vascosan’s edition in 13 vols. 12mo, 1567—1574, was long in the highest estimation; the Lives occupy six of these, and the Morals seven, but vol. VI. ought to contain the lives of Hannibal and Scipio by L'Ecluse, which is not the case in all the copies. There have since, however, appeared two more valuable editions, the one in 22 vols. 8vo, 1783—87, with the notes of Brottier and Vauvilliers, and the other in 25 vols. 1801—1806, edited by M. Clavier, with considerable additions. 6. “Lettre a M. de Morvillier,” dated Sept. 8, 1551, containing an account of the author’s journey to Trente. This is printed in Vargas and Dupuy’s histories of the Council of Trent. 7. “Œuvres mélées,” 1611, 8vo, is mentioned in Niceron, but it is doubtful whether such a collection exists. 8. “Projet de l'Eloquence royale, compose pour Henry III. roi de France,” printed for the first time in 1805, 8vo and 4to. Not long before his death he was solicited to write the history of his country, but his answer was, “I love my sovereigns too well to write their lives.”

, an eminent French divine, was born in September 1596, at Bourgueil, a small town of Touraine, of an ancient family originally from Orleans. Having gone through his course of philosophy, he was sent to Poictiers, to read law; to which he applied himself with great assiduity, and is said to have spent fourteen hours a day in that study. At the end of his first year, he took the degree of licentiate; but Mr. Bouchereau, minister of Saumur, advising him to study divinity, and the reading of Calvin’s Institutions having strongly inclined him to follow this advice, he acquainted his father that he earnestly desired to be a clergyman, and obtained his assent, though tiot without difficulty. He then went to study at Saumur, where he continued a considerable time as student of divinity. Upon his admission into orders, he was presented to the church of St. Agnau, in the country of Mayne, and eighteen months after, he was invited to Saumur, to succeed Mr. Daillé, appointed minister of Charenton. About the same time that the church of Saumur desired him for their minister, the academic council fixed upon him for professor of divinity; and his admission to the professorship, his previous examination, and his inaugural thesis “De sacerdotio Christi,” redounded much to his reputation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

, was a lawyer of much reputation in the fifteenth century. His origin was obscure, and on that account, it is said, he took the name of Anania, a town of the ancient Latium, instead of that of his family. He became afterwards professor of civil and canon law at Bologna, and archdeacon,-and was highly esteemed for piety and learning. His “Commentaries on the fifth Book of the Decretals,” a volume of “Consultations,” and his treatise on feudal rights, “De revocatrone feudi alienati,” Leyden, 1546, 4to, are among his principal works. It is rather suprizing that a man of his learning and sense, should have also written on the subject of magic and demons, “De magia et maleficiis”, Leyden, 1669, 4to; if indeed this belongs to him, and not to the subject of the following article. He died in 1458, at an advanced age.

, a native of Taverna in Calabria, lived about the end of the sixteenth century. He wrote a book of geography in Italian; and a work in Latin, entitled “De natura Daemonum,” which was printed at Venice in 1582, 8vo. The other work bears the title “Cosmographia, overo P universal* Fabrica del Mondo,” and was published at Venice in 1576, 4to. This author is not mentioned by Vossius in his catalogue of geographers.

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

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

, St. born at Alexandria, bishop of Laodicea in Syria, in 269, cultivated successfully arithmetic, geometry, grammar, and rhetoric. Some works of his are still remaining; among others, a tract on Easter, printed in the Doctrina temporum of Bucherius, Antwerp, 1634, folio.

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

The reputation which be acquired, at length excited the jealousy and envy of his contemporaries, and brought upon him a cruel persecution. It is generally agreed, that he was thrown into prison, and condemned to death; and that it was with difficulty that Pericles obtained from his judges the milder sentence of fine and banishment; but the nature of the charge alleged against him is variously represented. The most probable account of the matter is, that his offence was, the propagation of new opinions concerning the gods, and particularly, teaching that the sun is an inanimate fiery substance, and consequently not a proper object of worship. As he was indefatigable in his researches into nature, on many occasions he might contradict the vulgar opinions and superstitions. It is related that he ridiculed the Athenian priests, for predicting an unfortunate event from the unusual appearance of a ram which had but one horn; and that, to convince the people that there was nothing unnatural in the affair, he opened the head of the animal, and showed them, that it was so constructed, as necessarily to prevent the growth of the other horn.

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

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

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

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

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

, a philosopher of Abdera, in the 110th olympiad, B. C. 340, was the favourite of Alexander the Great, and used a liberty, in speaking to him, that was worthy of the philosophy of Diogenes. That prince being. wounded, Anaxarchus put his finger to the wound, and looking him in the face, said, “This is human blood; and not of that kind which animates the gods.” Once this prince asked him at table, what he thought of the feast? He answered, “that there was but one thing wanting, the head of a great nobleman, which ought to have been served in a dish:” and in saying this, fixed his eyes on Nicocreon, tyrant of Cyprus. After the death of Alexander, this Nicocreon, in his turn, caused him to be put in a mortar, and beat with iron pestles. The philosopher told the tyrant to pound his body as much as he pleased, but he had no power over his soul. Nicocreon then threatened to have his tongue cut out. “Thou shalt not do it, wretch!” said Anaxarchus; and immediately spit it in his face, after having bit it in two with his teeth. Anaxarchus was of the sect of the Sceptics. Such is the common account of this philosopher, but it is wholly inconsistent with his character, which was that of a man softened by effeminate pleasure, and a flatterer of kings. The same story is told of Zeno.

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

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

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

Other opinions ascribed to Anaximander are, that the stars are globular collections of air and fire, borne about in the spheres in which they are placed; that they are gods, that is, inhabited and animated by portions of the divinity; that the sun has the highest place in the heavens, the moon the next, and the planets and fixed stars the lowest; that the earth is a globe placed in the middle of the universe, and remains in its place; and that the sun is twenty-eight times larger than the earth.

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

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

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

, the son of Aristocles of Lampsacus, an orator, was the disciple of Diogenes the cynic, and of Zoilus of Amphipolis, the absurd critic on Homer. He was preceptor to Alexander of Macedon, and followed him to the wars. When the king was incensed against the people of Lampsacus, because they had taken the part of the Persians, and threatened them with grievous punishments, he saved them by a trick. The people, in danger of losing their wives, children, and country, sent Anaxixnenes to intercede for them, and Alexander knowing the cause of his coming, swore by the gods, that he would do the very reverse of what he desired of him. Upon this Anaximenes said to him, “Grant me the favour, O king, to enslave the wives and children of the people of Lampsacus, to burn their temples, and lay their city even with the ground.”, Alexander, not being able to retract his oath, pardoned Lampsacus against his will. Anaximenes revenged himself on his enemy Theopompus the son of Damostratus in a manner not much to his credit. Being a sophist, and able to imitate the style of sophists, he wrote a book against the Athenians and Lacedaemonians, carefully framing a railing story, and setting the name of Theopompus to it, sent it to those cities. Hence arose an universal hatred of Theopompus throughout all Greece. Anaximenes is said to be the inventor of speaking ex tempore, according to Suidas, although it is not easy to comprehend what he means by that being an invention. He wrote the lives of Philip and Alexander, and twelve books on the early history of Greece, but none of these have descended to us.

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

, a Danish lawyer of the eighteenth century, filled several situations of importance in the Danish administration, and about the end of that century bore the title of counsellor of conference. He wrote many elementary works on the civil and criminal law of Denmark, which differs from the Roman in many particulars; but his principal and most learned and useful work, is “The History of Danish law from the time of king Harold to that of Christian V.” 1769, 3 vols. 8vo, which is in the Danish language.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

During his inspection of the records and archives necessary to be consulted for his work, he was induced by a curiosity which is not yet satiated in his countrymen, to examine what he happened to meet with respecting the conduct and character of the beautiful and unfortunate Mary queen of Scotland. But, without engaging on either side in this contested part of history, he contented himself with publisping what might be serviceable to others, “Collections relating to the history of Mary, queen of Scotland,” 4 vols. 4to, Edinb. 1727. He had then very nearly finished, and meant soon to have published, the diplomatic work recommended by parliament, when he was prevented by a stroke of apoplexy, of which he died, April 3, 1728. The work, however, was at length given to the publick in 1739, under the title of “Selectus Diplomatum et Numismatum Scotiæ Thesaurus,” a most splendid folio volume, enriched with fac similes of charters, &c. beautifully engraven by Sturt, and a very elaborate preface in Latin from the classical pen of Thomas Ruddiman, A. M. The copper plates were sold by auction, Dec. 4, 1729, for the sum of 530l. but the price of the book, originally four guineas the common paper, and six guineas the fine, is now raised to more than double.

, LL. D. an eminent agricultural writer, was born in 1739, at Hermiston, a village near Edinburgh. His ancestors were farmers, and had for many generations occupied the same land; a circumstance which may be supposed to have early introduced Mr Anderson to that branch of knowledge which formed the chief occupation of his life.

Mr. Anderson lost his parents when very young: and as his guardian destined him to occupy the farm when he should be of age, a learned education was not thought necessary. But he soon discovered, from perusing books of agriculture, that few pursuits can be extensively cultivated without elevating the mind beyond mere mechanical knowledge; and in the first instance, he perceived that it would be necessary to study chemistry. To chemistry he added the study of other collateral branches; and entered upon his farm at the age of fifteen, with knowledge superior to most of his neighbours, and an enterprising spirit, which induced him to attempt improvements, wherever they could be introduced with apparent advantage. Among these was the small two-horse plough, now so common in Scotland.

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

In 1783, having previously entrusted the management of his farm to proper persons, he removed to the neighbourhood of Edinburgh; partly with a view to the education of his numerous family, and partly to enjoy the society of those literary persons with whom he had corresponded. About this time, he printed and circulated a tract among his friends, on the subject of the establishment of the North British Fisheries, which, although not published, drew the attention of government; and he was requested by the treasury to take a survey of the western coast of Scotland, for the purpose of obtaining information on this important subject. He readily acquiesced, and performed the task in 1784. The report of the Committee appointed to inquire into the state of the British Fisheries, May 11, 1785, makes very honourable mention of Mr. Anderson’s services.

After his return, he resumed his literary labours in various shapes; and, among other schemes, projected a periodical work, intituled “The Bee,” to be published weekly, and to consist of the usual materials of a Magazine. Its encouragement was for a considerable time such as to enable him to carry on this work with advantage. Agriculturists, scholars, men of taste and fancy, became occasionally his correspondents in the Bee; which, however, owing to some difficulties in the mode of publication, he was compelled to relinquish. He wrote much in this work: not only the principal part of the papers that are without signature, but numerous others signed Senex, Timothy Hairbrain, and Alcibiades.

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

About the year 1797, Dr. Anderson removed to the vi cinity of London, where, at the request of his friends, he again took up his pen, in a periodical work, entitled “Recreations in Agriculture;” the first number of which appeared in April 1799. The greatest part of this work was composed by himself, except what was enriched by correspondence from abroad, and a very few contributions from his friends at home. The same difficulties, however, occurring as in the, case of his “Bee,” with respect to the mode of publication, he pursued this work no longer than the sixth volume, March 1802.

From this time, except in the publication of his correspondence with general Washington, and a pamphlet on Scarcity, he devoted himself almost entirely to the relaxation of a quiet life, and particularly the cultivation of his garden, which was now become the miniature of all his past Jabours. For some time before his death, his health and powers suffered a very sensible decline. He died Oct. 15, 1808, aged 69.

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

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

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

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