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

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.

, 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.”

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:

“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.

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.

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.

, 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.

, 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.

, 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.

, 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.

, 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.

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

, D. D. a native of Scotland, for fifty years minister of Chirnside, where he died at a very advanced age, July 1800, deserves some notice in this work as the author of the History of France, which was published in 1769, under the title of “The History of France during the reigns of Francis II. and Charles IX. To which is prefixed, a Review of the General History of the Monarchy, from its origin to that period,” 2 vols. 4to. The success of these volumes was very indifferent; yet in 1775, the author published “The History of France, from the commencement of the reign of Henry III. and the rise of the Catholic league to the peace of Vervins, and the establishment of the famous edict of Nantes, in the reign of Henry IV.” 1 vol. 4to. In 1783, he published two more volumes, containing his history “From the commencement of the reign of Lewis XIII. to the general peace of Munster.” The reception of this was equally discouraging with that of the former works. Dr. Anderson displays none of the essential qualities of historic writing, no research into the secret springs of action, no discrimination of character, and no industry in accumulating and examining authorities. Even as a compiler, he is guided only by one set of materials which he found in the French writers, and may therefore be consulted by the English reader, as a collector of their opinions, while he is highly censurable in not having recourse to original papers and documents respecting the affairs occasionally introduced pertaining to his own country. His style is uniformly tame and defaced by colloquial barbarisms.

His next publication deserves to be mentioned in more favourable terms. It was entitled “The Philosophy of ancient Greece investigated, in its origin and progress, to the acras of its greatest celebrity, in the Ionian, Italic, and Athenian schools, with remarks on the delineated systems of their founders,” 4to. His principal object appears to have been to supply the deficiencies in Mr. Stanley’s work, and to give place to remarks upon the reasoning employed by the most eminent of the Grecian philosophers, in support of their physical, theological, and moral systems; to give a fuller and more connected display of their theories and arguments, and to relieve the frigidity of their bare details, by interspersing observations. In this work he displays much learning, and is in general both accurate and perspicuous, although he is still deficient in the graces of style. Perhaps it would have been more successful, had it not appeared at the same time with Dr. Eufield’s excellent abridgement of Brucker’s history of philosophy. In his youth he is said to have published “The Life of Crœsus,” 12mo, which he sold himself, and is now become scarce.

, a lawyer and professor at Basil, was rector of the university in 1471, and many of his manuscripts are preserved in the library. His work, “De Imperio Romano,” was printed at Strasburgh, 1603, 4to, and reprinted 1612. He wrote also a historical chronicle in German, from the creation to the year 1400; but it is doubtful whether it was ever published. There is another Andlo, an assumed name, of which some account will be given in the life of Des Marets.

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

, and not Androque, as in some authors, was a counsellor of the presidial court of Beziers in France, whore he died in 1664. He published, 1. “Histoire de Languedoc, avec l'etat des provinces voisines,” Beziers, 1618, fol. Le Long mentions a previous edition of 1623, the existence of which is doubted in our authority. 2. “Catalogue des eveques de Beziers”, 1650, 4to. The history of Languedoc comes down to the year 1610, and the list of bishops to the time of publication.

, a Spanish writer, was born at Toledo in 1590, and taught philosophy in that city before he entered the society of the Jesuits in 1622. He was likewise professor of moral philosophy, and died at Madrid, June 20, 1672. llis principal works were: 1. “An Historical Itinerary,” Madrid, 1657, 2 vols. 4to. 2. “Meditations on every day of the year,” 1660, 4 vols. 16mo. 3. “The lives of ' illustrious Jesuits,” 1666 7, 2 vols. fol. &c.

was born about 1580, entered when very young, as we find was usual, into the society of the Jesuits, and became noted for his missionary zeal in India and Tartary. Whatever religion owes, geography is in some respect indebted to his labours. In 1624 he went to Thibet, which was probably visited by Mark Paul in the thirteenth century, but had been till now totally forgotten by European travellers. On his return to Goa, his superiors employed him in some affairs of importance, and he died March 1.6, 1634, as it is said, of poison. The chief merit of his travels, published at Lisbon, 1626, consists in their affording the first description of Thibet, but they contain many mistakes and fabulous matters; nor has the state of that country ever been faithfully delineated, unless by our countryman Turner. Ah­drada’s work, which was written in Portuguese, has been twice translated into French: the last translation is that of Peron and Billecocq, in their “Recueil de voyages au Thibet,” Paris, 1796.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

, of Pistoia, an Italian comedian of the sixteenth century, deserves some notice on account of his wife, a woman of considerable talents, and his son, whose history is in one respect connected with that of our immortal Milton. This Francis appears to have been a species of buffoon stroller. In 1609, he published a work entitled “Le Bravure del capitan Spavento, Venice,” 4to, which consists of dialogues between the captain and his man Trappola. Prefixed to it is a serious lamentation over the death of his wife, the subject of our next article. He afterwards published other dialogues in prose, “Ragionamenti fantastici posti in forma di dialoghi rappresentativi,” Venice, 1612, 4to. He also is the author of two dramatic pieces, “L'Alterazza di Narciso,” Venice, 1611, 12mo; and “L'Ingannata Proserpina,” ibid, same year. He was remarkable for the powers of memory, and spoke, with great facility, French, Spanish, Sclavonian, modern Greek, and even the Turkish language. He was living in 1616, as appears by the date of his edition of his wife’s works, and it is thought that he died soon after that publication.

, wife to the preceding, was born at Padua in 1562, became an actress of great fame, and was flattered by the applauses of the men of wit and learning in her time. She is described as a woman of elegant figure, beautiful countenance, and melodious voice, of taste in her profession, and conversant with the French and Spanish languages; nor was she unacquainted with philosophy and the sciences. She was a votary of the muses, and cultivated poetry with ardour and success. The Intend, academicians of Pavia, conferred upon her the honours of their society, and the titles of Isabella Andreina, Comica Gelosa, Academica Intenta, delta l'Accesa. She dedicated her works to cardinal Cinthio Aldobrandini (nephew to Clement VIIL), by whom she was greatly esteemed, and for whom many of her poems were composed.

In France, whither she made a tour, she met with the most flattering reception from the king, the queen, and the court. She composed several sonnets in praise of her royal patrons, which are inserted in the second volume of her poems. She married Francis Andreini, whom we have just noticed, and died at Lyons, June 10th, 1604, in consequence of a premature delivery during a state of pregnancy, in the forty -second year of her age. Her husband, whom her loss overwhelmed with affliction, had her interred in the city in which she expired, and erected a monument to her memory, on which he caused an epitaph to be inscribed, enumerating her virtues, her piety, and her talents. Her death was lamented in many Latin and Italian elegies and panegyrics, and even a medal was struck to her memory, with the inscription, “JEterna Fama.” The justice of these high praises may still be appreciated by a perusal of her works 1. “Mirtilla, favola pastorale,” Verona, 1588, 8vo, and often reprinted. She is said to have begun this in her infancy, but it does not appear to have been very successful on the stage. 2. “Rime,” Milan, 1601, 4to; Paris, 1603, 12mo, &c. Most of these had appeared in various collections, and there are others of her writing in “Componimenti poetici delle piu illustri rimatrici d'ogni seculo,” Venice, 1726, 12mo. 3. “Lettere,” Venice, 1607, 4to. These letters are mostly on love subjects. It has-been remarked as somewhat singular in bibliography, that the dedication of this work to the duke of Savoy, as well as the title-page, bears date 1607, three years after the author’s death. 4. “Fragmenti d'alcune scritture,” &c. a collection of fragments, dialogues, &c. on love subjects, published by her husband, Venice, 1616, the date of the preface, but in the frontispiece, 1625, 8vo.

, the son of the two preceding, was born at Florence in 1578, and was also a comedian, and wrote several pieces for the theatre, and some poems. They once had a temporary reputation, but such as have survived to our times, are indebted to particular circumstances, independent of their merit. They are all in that bad style of Italian poetry, of the seventeenth century, peculiar to the school of Marino, and most of them, in the plot and conduct, are irregular and fantastic, and demonstrate a wretched taste in the public. The only piece worthy of our notice is his “Adamo,” a sacred drama in five acts, with chorusses, &c. Milan, 1613 and 1617, with prints designed by Carlo Antonio Proccachini, a celebrated landscape painter of his time, and of the school of the Carracci, but in a wretched style, paradise being represented as full of clipt hedges, square parterres, strait walks, &c. But what is more interesting, Voltaire, in his visit to England in 1727, suggested that Milton took his hint of the Paradise Lost from this drama. This obtained little credit at the time, and was contemptuously rejected by Dr. Johnson in his life of Milton. Mr. Hayley, however, has revived the question, and with considerable advantage to Voltaire’s supposition, and it seems now to be the opinion that the coincidence between Andreini’s plan and Milton’s is too great to be the effect of chance. We have no account of Andreini’s death.

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

The poems of Andrelini, which are chiefly in Latin, are inserted in the first tome of the “Deliciæ poetarum Italorum.” Mr. de la Monnoie tells us, that his love-­verses, divided into four books, entitled “Livia,” from the name of his mistress, were esteemed so fine by the Roman academy, that they adjudged the prize of the Latin elegy to the author.—It is upon this account, that when he printed his Livia, in quarto, at Paris, in 1490, and his three books of Elegies four years after, in the same city, he took upon him the title of poet-laureat, to which he added that of “poeta regius et regineus,” as he was poet to Charles VIII. Lewis XII. and queen Anne IV. The distichs of Faustus (continues the same author) are not above two hundred) and consequently but a very small part of his poems, since, besides the four books of Love, and three books of Miscellaneous Elegies, there are twelve Eclogues of his printed in octavo, in 1549, in the collection of thirtyeight Bucolic Poets, published by Oporinus. The death of Andrelini is placed under the year 1518. The letters which he wrote in proverbs have been thought worth a new edition at Helmstadt in 1662, according to that of Cologn of 1509. The manner of life of this author was not very exemplary; yet he was so fortunate, says Erasmus, that though he took the liberty of rallying the divines, he was never brought into trouble about it.

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

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

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

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

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

, a French Jesuit, born May 22, 1675, at Chateaulin in the comte de Cornouailles, the country which produced the pere Ardouin, and pere Bougeant, and like them was received into the order of Jesuits. He settled himself at Caen, in the chair of professor regius of the mathematics, which he filled from 1726 to 1759; when, having attained the age of eighty-four, he found it necessary to seek repose. His laborious life was terminated Feb. 26, 1764. Nature had endowed him with a happy constitution, and he preserved it unimpaired by the regularity of his life, and the gaiety of his temper. No species of literature was foreign to him; he succeeded in the mathematical chair, and he wrote lively and elegant verses; but he is chiefly known by “Essai sur le Beau,” of which a new edition was given in the collection of his works in 1766, 5 vols. 12mo, edited by the abbé Guyot. It is composed with order and taste, has novelty in its subject, dignity in its style, and force enough in its argument. Much esteem is bestowed on his “Traitesur PHomme,” in which he philosophises concerning the union of the soul with the body, in a manner which made him be suspected of an innovating spirit. He was a great, admirer of Mallebranche, and corresponded with, him for many years.

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

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

Mr. Andrews appears to have been for a time diverted from his own work, by being engaged to continue Henry’s History of Great Britain, which was published accordingly, in 1796, in one volume 4to, and 2 vols. 8vo, and formed an useful supplement to the labours of the Scotch historian, but one more corresponding to Henry’s plan is yet wanting.

Besides these elaborate works, Mr. Andrews displayed his antiquarian knowledge in “An account of Saxon Coins found in Kintbury church-yard, Berks,” which was printed in the 7th volume of the Archæologia; “The account of Shaw,” in Mr. Mores’s Berkshire Collections. He translated also “The Savages of Europe,” a popular French novel, illustrated with prints from his own designs. To the Gentleman’s Magazine he was a very liberal and intelligent contributor.

On the institution of the new system of London police, Mr. Andrews was appointed one of the commissioners for the district of Queen’s square and St. Margaret’s Westminster, and discharged the duties of that office with great industry and integrity, until his death, which happened at his house in London, August 6, 1797, in his sixtieth year. He was buried at Hampstead. He marrried Miss Anne Penrose, daughter of the rev. Mr. Penrose, late rector of Newbury. By this lady, whom he survived twenty years, he had two sons and a daughter: one of the former is dead; the other in 1800 succeeded to the title and estates of his uncle, sir Joseph Andrews, bart. a man of a most amiable and exalted character.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

, a barefoot Augustine, and a learned genealogist, whose family name was Francis Haffard, was born at Blois in 1655, and died at Paris in 1126. He was preparing a new edition of the History of the Royal Family of France, and of the great Officers of the Crown; begun by pere Anselm, the first edition of which appeared in 1672, 2 vols. 4to, and the second in 1712, improved by M. de Fourni. But he was suddenly seized by death, leaving behind him the memory of a laborious scholar; le pere Simplicion, his associate in this work, published it in 9 vols. fol. Pere Ange also composed “l'Etat de la France,” in 5 vols. 12mo, and republished in 1746, in 6 vols. a very curious and useful work on what may now be termed the ancient history and constitution of France.

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

, an Italian historian of some reputation, was born at Ferrara in the sixteenth century. He was an able lawyer, and had the management of the affairs of the dukes of Ferrara. He afterwards settled at Parma, and became the historian of the place. Clement, in his “Bibliotheque curieuse,” informs us, that Angeli having collected materials from actual observation respecting the geography of Italy, with a view to correct the errors of Ptolomey, Pliny, and the modern geographers, took Parma in his way, and was requested to write its history. For this purpose Erasmus Viotto, the bookseller, accommodated him with his library, and the history was finished within six months, but was not published until after his death, if he died in 1576, as is asserted by Baruffaldi, in the supplement to his history of the university of Ferrara, and by Mazzuchelli in his “Scrittori Italiaui.” The work was entitled “Istoria della citta di Parma e descrizione del Fiume Parma, lib. VIII.” Parma, 1591, 4to. Each book is dedicated to some one of the principal lords of Parma, whose pedigree and history is included in the dedication. The copies are now become scarce, and especially those which happen to contain some passages respecting P. L. Farnese, which were cancelled in the rest of the impression. The year before, a work by the same author was published which ought to be joined with his history, under the title “Descrizione di Parma, suoi Fiumi, e lar^o terntorio.” He wrote also the “Life of Ludovico Catti,” a lawyer, 1554, and some other treatises, “De non sepeliendis mortuis;” “Gli elogi degli eroi Estensi,” and “Discorso intorno l'origine de Cardinali,” - 1565.

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

, a writer of the seventeenth century, was a monk of the order of the minorites of St. Francis, and a native of Marsalla in Sicily. He was also vicar-general of his order at Madrid, and became afterwards one of the fathers of the Observance. He was living in 1707, as in that year Mongitore speaks of him, among living authors, in his “Bibl. Sicula.” This monk published two volumes, the nature of which may be judged from the titles: the first was called “Lux magica, &c. ccelestiurn, terrestrium, et inferorum origo, ordo, et subordinatio cunctorum, quoad esse, fieri, etoperari, viginti quatuor voluminibus divisa,” Venice, 1685, 4to. This he published under the assumed name of Livio Betani, but prefixed his name to the second, entitled “Lux magica academica, pars secunda, primordia rerum naturulium, sanabilium, infirmarum et incurabilium continens,” Venice, 1687, 4to. These, as appears by the first, were to be followed by twenty-two more volumes on the same subjects.

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

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

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

, a painter of considerable note in the last century, was born at Dunkirk in 1685, and visiting Flanders and Germany in the course of his studies, made the longest stay at Dusseldorpe, enchanted with the treasures of painting in that city. He came to England about the year 1712, and soon became a favourite painter; but in the year 1728, he set out for Italy, where he spent three years. At Rome his pictures gave great satisfaction, but being of a reserved temper, and not ostentatious of his merit, he disgusted several by the reluctance with which he exhibited his works; his studious and sober temper inclining him more to the pursuit of his art than to the advantage of his fortune. Yet his attention to the latter prevented his returning to England, as he intended; for, stopping at Rennes in Bretagne, a rich and parliamentary town, he was so immediately overwhelmed with employment there, that he settled in that city, and died there in a short time, in 1734, when he was not above forty nine years of age. He executed conversations and landscapes with small figures, which he was fond of enriching with representations of fruit and fish. His manner was a mixture of Teniers and Watteau, with more grace than the former, and more nature than the latter. His pencil was easy, bright, and flowing, but his colouring too faint and nerveless. He afterwards adopted the habits of Rubens and Vandyck, more picturesque indeed, but not so proper to improve his productions in what their chief beauty consisted, familiar life.

, an Italian mathematician, was educated under Bonaventure Cavalieri, the most eminent Italian scholar in that science in the seventeenth century. He was at first a Jesuit, but that order being suppressed in 1668, he applied closely to the study of mathematics, and taught at Padua with great success, publishing various works, and carrying on a controversy on the opinions of Copernicus with Riccioli and others. Moreri, from a manuscript account of the learned men of Italy, written by father Poisson, gives a numerous list of his publications, some of which were in Latin, and some in Italian. We have only seen his “Miscellaneum hyperbolicum et parabolicum,” Venice, 1659, 4to, and “Delia gravita dell' Aria e Fluidi, Dialogi V.” Padua, 1671—2, 4to. His controversy on Copernicus was begun in “Considerazioni sopra la forza d'alcune cagioni fisiche matematiche addote dal Pad. Riccioli, &c.” Venice, 1667, 4to, and continued in a second, third, and fourth part, 1669—9, 4to.

, a Florentine writer of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, was born at Scarperia, in the valley of Mugello, and studied under John de Ravenna, Vargerius, Scala, Poggio, and other learned men. After studying mathematics for some time, he went to Constantinople, where he resided nine years, and Whence he sent a great number of letters to Emmanuel Chrysoloras at Florence. Here likewise he had an opportunity of studying the Greek language, and acquired such an acpurate knowledge of it as to attempt various translations. On his return he went to Rome, and was a candidate for the place pf the pope’s secretary, which at that time Leonard d'Arezzo obtained, but Angelo appears to have held the office in 1410. From this time we have no account of him, except that he is said to have died in the prime of life. He translated from Greek into Latin, J. “Cosmographise Ptolomaei, lib. VIII.” 2. “Ptolojnaei quadripartitum.” 3. “Ciceronis vita,” from Plutarch. 4. The lives of Pompey, Brutus, Marius, and Julius Caesar, also from Plutarch, but not printed. There is likewise a work entitled “Jacob! Angeli historica na'rratio de vita, rebusque gestis M. Tullii Ciceronis,” Wirtemberg, 1564, Berlin, 1581 and 1587^ which Fabricius, in his Bibl. Lat. Med. Æv. says is a different work from the translation from Plutarch.

, a learned antiquary of the seventeenth century, was born at Terni, in the duchy of Spalatto, and became secretary to the cardinal Hippolito Aldobrandini, and apostolic prothonotary. He was also a member of the academy of the Insensati at Perugia, and made so extensive a collection of curiosities of art of every kind, that it was thought worthy of the name of the Roman museum. The marquis Vincenzo Giustiniani engaged Angeloni to publish his series of imperial medal’s, which accordingly appeared under the title “L'Istoria Augusta da Giulio Cesare Costatino il magno,” Rome, 1641, dedicated to Louis XIII. As he was considerably advanced in age, when he undertook this work, many defects were found, and pointed out with some severity, which induced him to prepare a new, enlarged, and corrected edition, but this he did not live to finish, dying Nov. 29, 1652. It was at length published by J. P. Bellori, his maternal nephew, in 1685, fol. Rome, enriched with additional plates and the reverses of the medals which Angeioni had neglected, and which, his own collection being now sold and dispersed, were taken from the museum of Christina, queen of Sweden. Angeioni published also the history of his native country, “Storia di Terni,” Rome, 1646, 4to, and 1685, with a portrait of the author; and wrote some letters and dramatic pieces, not in much estimation.

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

, a learned Greek of the seventeenth century, author of several learned and curious works, was born at Peloponnesus in Greece, and obliged by the Turks to abandon his country on account of his religion, for which he suffered a variety of torments. He came afterwards to England, where he was supported by the bishop of Norwich and several of the clergy. By this prelate’s recommendation, he went to Cambridge, and studied about three years in Trinity college. In Whitsuntide 1610, he removed to Oxford, and studied at Baliol college, where he did great service to the young scholars of the university, by instructing them in the Greek language; in which manner he employed himself till his death, which happened on the 1st of February 1638. He was buried in St. Ebbe’s church of church-yard, Oxford.

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

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

, was an Italian poet of the sixteenth century, of whose history we have no particulars. His poems, which are in Latin, were printed for the first time at Naples, 1520, 8vo, under the title of “De obitu Lydæ; de vero poeta; de Parthenope.” His EfuloKouyviov, which is a collection of love verses, dedicated notwithstanding to the archbishop of Bari, was reprinted at Paris in 1542, 12mo, with the poetry of Marullus and Johannes Secundus, to both of whom, however, he is inferior. There was another edition in 1582, 12mo. Many of his works are also inserted in the “Carm. illust. Poet. Italorum.”

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

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

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

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

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

A portrait of one of these sisters, by Sophonisba, a circle in pannel, was sold in 1801, at the sale of Sir William Hamilton’s pictures. An engraving of Sophonisba was given in the Gentleman’s Magazine for October 1801, from a miniature in Mr. Cough’s possession, painted by hersel Hound the monogram is this inscription, “Sophonisba Angussola, virgo, ipsius manu ex speculo depicta Cremonse.”

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