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

The following is a correct list of his works: 1. “A practical treatise on Chimneys; containing full directions for constructing them in all cases, so as to draw well, and for removing smoke in houses,” London, 1776 12mo. 2. “Free Thoughts on the American Contest,” Edin. 1776, 8vo. 3. “Miscellaneous observations on planting and training Timber-trees, by Agricola,” Edinburgh, 1777, 8vo. 4. “Observations on the means of exciting a spirit of National Industry,” Edin. 1777, 4to. 5. “An enquiry into the nature of the Corn Laws, with a view to the new Corn Bill proposed for Scotland,” 1777, 8vo. 6. “Essays relating to Agriculture and rural affairs,” 1777, 8vo. 7. “An enquiry into the causes that have hitherto retarded the advancement of Agriculture in Europe; with hints for removing the circumstances that have chiefly obstructed its progress,” 1779, 4to. 8. “The interest of Great Britain, with regard to her American Colonies, considered,” 1782, 8vp. 9. “The true interest of Great Britain considered; or a proposal for establishing the Northern British Fisheries,” 1783, 12mo. 10. “An account of the present state of the Hebrides and Western Coasts of Scotland; being the substance of a report to the Lords of the Treasury,” Edin. 1785, 8vo. 11. “Observations on Slavery; particularly with a view to its efforts on the British Colonies in the West Indies,” Manchester, 1789, 4to. 12. “Papers drawn up by him and sir John Sinclair, in reference to a report of a committee of the Highland Society on Shetland Wool,” 1790, 8vo. 13. “The Bee; consisting of essays, philosophical, philological, and miscellaneous,” 18vo ls. Edin. 1791—1794, 8vo. 14. “Observations on the effects of the Coal Duty,” Edin. 1792, 8vo. 15. “Thoughts on the privileges and power of Juries; with observations on the present state of the country with regard to credit,” Edin. 1793, 8vo. 16. “Remarks on the Poor Laws in Scotland,” Edin. 1793, 4to. 17. “A practical treatise on Peat Moss, in two essays,” 1794, 8vo. 18. “A general view of the Agriculture and rural œconomy of the county of Aberdeen; with observations on the means of its improvement. Chiefly drawn up for the Board of Agriculture; in two parts,” Edin. 1794, 8vo. 19. “An account of the different kinds of Sheep found in the Russian dominions, &c. By Dr. Pallas; with five appendixes, by Dr. Anderson,” Edinburgh, 1794, 8vo. 20. “On an Universal Character. In two letters to Edward Home, esq.” Edin. 1795, 8vo. 21. “A practical treatise on draining Bogs and swampy grounds; with cursory remarks on the originality of Ellungton’s mode of Draining,” 1797, 8vo. 22. “Recreations in Agriculture, Natural History, and Miscellaneous Literature,” 6 vols. 8vo. 1799—1802. 23. “Selections from his own correspondence with general Washington,” London, 1800, 8vo. 24. “A calm investigation of the circumstances that have led to the present Scarcity of Grain in Britain; suggesting the means of alleviating that evil, and of preventing the recurrence of such a calamity in future,” London, 1801, 8vo. 25. “A description of a Patent Hot-house, which operates chiefly by the heat of the sun; and other subjects,” London, 1803, 8vo.

The following are also of his composition: An account of the antient monuments and fortifications in the Highlands of Scotland; read in the Society of Antiquaries, 1777 and 1780. On the antiquity of Woollen manufactures of England, Gent. Mag. Aug. 1778; aud other papers in that work. A letter to J. Burnett, esq. on the present stute of Abercleenshire, in regard to provisions, 1783. A letter to Henry Laurens, esq. during his confinement in the Tower, Public Advertiser, Dec. 6, 1781. Several articles for the Encyclopaedia Britannica, first edition, Edinburgh; among which are, under the heads, Dictionary, Winds and Monsoons, Language. Sound. He contributed numerous essays, under a variety of signatures, in the early part of the Edinburgh Weekly Magazine; the principal of which were Agricola, Timoleon, Germanicus, Cimon, Scoto-Britannus, E. Aberdeen, Henry Plain, Impartial, A Scot. He also reviewed the subject of Agriculture for the Monthly Review for several years.

, 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.

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

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

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

To this high character it is with regret we add, that it is sometimes difficult to distinguish his prints, from a circumstance that reflects no great honour on him. He procured many other engravings, the works of different masters, and sold the impressions with his own name, after effacing the name of the true artist, to substitute his own with more security. Such are the tricks which artists are sometimes tempted to practise, when they exchange their more honourable employment and rank for that of dealer.

, 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 Neapolitan poet, flourished about the year 1630, and died in 1647. Although he is not free from the prevailing corruption of style in his time, Crescembini and Le Quadrio rank him among the best poets of the seventeenth century. He wrote two poems: “Aci,” in ottava rima, Naples, 1628, 12mo, and “Italia liberata,” a heroic poem, Naples, 1626, 12mo; two theatrical pieces, “Elpino, favola boscherec-. cia,” and “La Vana gelosia,” a collection of lyric poems, in two parts, and “Discorsi in prose” on different subjects of morality and philosophy, Naples, 1636, 4to.

, 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.

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

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

, 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.”

From Oxford next year he seems to have returned to Cambridge, as in 1619 he published “An Encomion of the famous kingdom of Great Britaine, and of the two flourishing sister universities of Cambridge and Oxford,” also Greek and English. The Greek in this, as in his other writings, though not perfectly chaste, is elegant and perspicuous, and the spirit of composition becoming thft genius of Greece, except perhaps in certain hyperboles of panegyric, which seem, however, to have sprung from the generous ardour of gratitude rather than from the base servility of adulation. His next work, the same year as the above, and from the university-press, is a curious account of the rites and ceremonies of the Greek church. This is in Greek and Latin, “Enchiridion de institutis Groecorum.” Of this there were afterwards two editions by Fehlavius, Francfort, 1655, 12mo, and Leipsic, 1676, 4to. The former appears to have been the Latin only.

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.

, 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Father Annat wrote several books, some in Latin, which were collected and published in three vols. 4to, Paris, 1666; and others in bad French, mostly upon the disputes between the Jesuits and Jansenists. He died at Paris in 1670.

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

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

It was not however thought proper to remove him from his high office on this account; but the duke of Ormond was prevailed upon to exhibit a charge against him, on account of his reflections on the earl of Castlehaven’s Memoirs. This produced a sharp contest betwixt these two peers; which ended in the earl of Anglesey’s losing his place of lord privy seal, though his enemies were forced to confess that he was hardly and unjustly treated. After this disgrace, he remained 'pretty much at his country seat at Blechhlgdon in Oxfordshire, where he devoted his time to his studies, and meddled very little with public affairs. However, he got into favour again in the reign of James II. and it is generally believed he would have been appointed lord chancellor of England, if not prevented by his death, which happened April 6, 1686, in the 73d year of his age. He was perfectly versed in the Greek and Roman history, and well acquainted with the spirit and policy of those nations. He had studied the laws of his country with such diligence, as to be esteemed a great lawyer. His writings which are extant, are proofs of his learning and abilities; but the largest and most

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

The earl of Anglesey has been very variously characterised; Anthony Wood represents him as an artful time-server; by principle, a Calvinist; by policy, a favourer of the Papists. Burnet paints him as a tedious and ungraceful orator, and as a grave, abandoned, and corrupt man, whom no party would trust. Our account is taken from the Biog. Bntannica, which steers an impartial course. Lord Orford, in his “Noble Authors,” is disposed to unite the severities of Wood and Burnet, but what he asserts is rather flippant than convincing.

His lordship published in his life-time the following pieces: 1. “Truth unveiled, in behalf of the Church of England; being a vindication of Mr. John Standish’s sermon, preached before the king, and published by his majesty’s command,” 1676, 4to. To which is added, “A short treatise on the subject of Transubstantiation.” 2. “A letter from a person of honour in the country, written to the earl of Castlehaven; being observations and reflections on his lordship’s memoirs concerning the Wars of Ireland,” 1681, 8vo. 3. “A true account of the whole proceedings between James duke of Ormond, and Arthur earl of Anglesey, before the king and his council, &c.” 1682, fol. 4. “A letter of remarks upon Jovian,” 1683, 4to. Besides these, he wrote many other things, some of which were published after his decease; as 5. “The Privileges of the House of Lords and Commons, argued and stated in two conferences between both houses, April 19 and 22, 1671. To which is added, A discourse, wherein the Rights of the House of Lords are truly asserted; with learned remarks on the seeming arguments and pretended precedents offered at that time again&t their lordships.” 6. “The King’s right of Indulgence in Spiritual matters, with the equity thereof, asserted,” 1688, 4to. 7. “Memoirs, intermixt with moral, political, and historical Observations, by way of discourse, in a letter to sir Peter Pett,” 1693, 8vo.

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

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

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

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

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

His principal writings are: 1. “Histoire civile et politique de la ville de Reims,” 1756 7, 3 vols. 12mo; a work in the true spirit of antiquarian research, which he wrote in concert with one Felix de la Salle, and when they were about to publish, they cast lots, as to whose name should be prefixed, and the lot fell on Anquetil. Towards the end of his life, he said, “I have been reading the history of Rheims, as if it did not belong to me, and I have no scruple in pronouncing it a good work.” 2. “Almanach de Rheims,” 1754, 24mo. 3. “L'Esprit de la Ligue; ou histoire politique des troubles de France pendant les 16 et 17 siecles,” 1767, 3 vols. 12mo. This has been, often reprinted, and is accurate and curious as to facts, but not thought profound in reasoning. 4. “Intrigue du. cabinet sous Henry IV, et sous Louis XIII. terminee par la Fronde,” 1780, 4 vols. 12mo. 5. “Louis XIV. sa cour et le regent,” 1789, 4 vols. 12mo, 1794, 5 vols. 12mo, translated likewise into English. It is a kind of sequel to the preceding, and a collection of anecdotes without much order, which has lost its value since the memoirs have been published from whence it was formed. 6. “Vie du marechal Villars, ecrite par lui-meme, suivie du journal de la cour de 1724 a 1734,” Paris, 1787, 4 Tols. 12mo, and 1792. 7. “Precis de l'Histoire unirerselle,” 1797, 9 vols. 12mo, the third and best edition, corrected by M. Jondot, 1807, 12 vols. 12 mo. This work has been translated into English, (1800,) Spanish, and Italian. It has not been very successful in this country; his French biographer calls it merely an abridgment of the English universal history, and says that it must be read with caution. 8. “Motifs des guerres et des traites des paix de la France, pendant les regnes de Louis XIV. XV. et XVI.” 1798, 8vo. This work was adapted to the state of the French government at the time it was written, but the author lived to find his theory overturned by the accession of a monarchical constitution. 9. “Histoire de France, depuis les Gaules jusqu'a le fin de la monarchic,” 1805, &c. 14 vols. 12mo, a performance of which his countrymen do not speak in very high terms. Besides these, he wrote a life of his brother, the subject of the following article, and several papers in the memoirs of the institute.

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

, a French historian, and ecclesiastical writer, was born in the Artois, in 1723, and became a Benedictine, but being appointed procurator of one of the houses of that order, he disappeared with the funds intrusted to his care. How he escaped afterwards, his biographer does not inform us, but he attached himself to the order of Malta, became an advocate of parliament, and doctor of laws of the faculty of Paris. He was afterwards made prior of Villeconin, and a member of the academies of Arras and of the arcades of Rome. He died about 1790, after having published: 1. “Dialogues sur l'utilité des moines rentés,” 1768, 12mo. 2. “Exposition sur le Cantique des Cantiques de Salomon,” 1770, 12mo. 3. “Histoire de S. Maur, abbé de Glanfeuil,” 1772, 12mo. The first part contains the life of St. Maur; the second and third give an account of his relics; and the fourth is a history of the abbey of St. Maur-des-Fosses. 4. “Eloge de Charles V. empereur,” from the Latin of J. Masenius, 1777, 12mo. 5. “Esprit de St. Vincent de Paul,” proposed as a pattern to ecclesiastics, 1780, 12mo. 6. “Histoire de Sainte Reine d‘Alise, et de I’abbaye de Flavigny,” 1783, 12mo. 7. “Histoire de S. Fiacre,” 1784, 12mo. 8. “Bibliotheque litteraire du Maine,” Chalons sur Marne, 1784, 8vo, in which he has revived the memory of above three hundred authors. The work was intended to consist of eight volumes, but no more was printed than this. 9. “La Vie de Gregoire Cortez, Benedictine, eveque d'Urbin, et cardinal,” 1786. Ansart, according to his biographer, was both ignorant and idle, and took the substance of all the works he published with his name, from the archives of the Regime, formerly at Germain-des-Pres.

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

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

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

Anscarius wrote many books, but none are extant, except some letters, and “Liber de vita et miraculis S. Wilohadi,” printed with the life of Anscarius, Cologne, 1642, 8vo, and often since. Anscarius’s life is also in the “Scriptores rerurn Danicarum,” No. 30, of Langebek.

, abbot of Lobies, an old Benedictine motiastery upon the Sambre, in the diocese of Cambray, lived in the ninth century. Pithseus, Antonius, Augustinus, Valerius, Andreas, and others, being too implicit in following Trithemius, have made this Ansegisus and another of that name, archbishop of Sens, the same persons. Our Ansegisus of Lobies was in great esteem with the bishops and princes of his time, and his learning and conduct deserved it. In the year 827, he made a collection of the capitularies of Charlemagne, and Lewis his son, entitled “Capitula seu Edita Caroli Magni & Ludovici pii Imperatorum.” We have several editions of this work one printed in 1588, by Pithaeus, with additions, and notes of his own upon it: it was afterwards printed at Mentz in 1602, and by Sirmundus at Paris in 164-0, to which he added a collection of the capitularies of Charles the Bald. Lastly, in 1676, Baluzius furnished a new edition of all these ancient capitularies, with remarks upon them, two volumes in folio. But Baluzius’s impression differs considerably from those before him; for, besides a great many different readings, there are the 39th, 52d, 67th, 68th, 74th, and 79th chapters of the first book wanting: there are likewise added, the 89th and 90th chapters of the third book; and also the 76th and 77th chapters of the fourth book, which yet, as Le Cointe observes, are the same with the 29th and 24th chapters. There are three appendixes annexed to the four books in the Capitularies, the first of which, in the old editions, consists of 33 chapters, but in the Baluzian there are 35. The second, in the old editions, has 36 chapters, but the Baluzian impression reaches to 38. The third appendix contains 10 chapters; with these appendixes, several constitutions of the emperors Lotharius and Charles the Bald are mixed. He died in the year 834.

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

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

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

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

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

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

His private life is allowed to have been pious, humble, and exemplary, and his works, which are partly scholastical, and partly devotional, prove that he was a man of first learning and genius in his time. Like Augustine, whom he seems to have followed as his model, and whose “Meditations,” as they are called, are chiefly abstracts from Anselm’s works, he abounds both in profound argumentation on the most abstruse and difficult subjects, and in devout sentiments on practical religion. Brucker, after remarking that he applied the subtlety of logic to theology, gives as an example of his refinement, his arguments for the being of God, derived from the abstract idea of the deity, afterwards resumed by Des Cartes. His writings on the will of God, on free will, truth, the consistency of the doctrine of divineprescience, with that of predestination, and other points, which abound in logical and metaphysical abstractions, entitle him to the honour of having largely contributed towards preparing the way for the scholastic system, which soon afterward universally prevailed.

His works have been often reprinted. The first edition is that of Nuremberg, 1491, fol. The best is said to be that of Gerberon, Paris, 1675, reprinted in 1721, and again at Venice, 1744, 2 vols. folio. In the library of Lyons there is a beautiful manuscript of his Meditations and prayers. His printed works consist of, 1. “Epistolarum libri iv.” 2. “Monologium, seu soliloquium.” 3. “Prosologium, seu alloquium.” 4. lt Liber incerti autoris pro insipiente adversus Anselmi Prosologium.“5.” Liber contra insipientem, seu apologeticus adversus librum precedentem.“6.” Dialogus de veritate.“7.” Dialogus de libero arbitrio.“8.” Dialogus de casu diaboli.“9.” Disputatio dialectica de grammatical' 10. “Tractatus de sacramento altaris, seu de corpore et sanguine Domini.” 11.“Liber de fide, seu de Incarnatione Verbi.” 12. “De nuptiis consanguineorum.” 13. “Libri ii. contra gentiles, cur Deus homo.” 14. “De processione Spiritus Sancti, contra Grsecos.” 15. “De conceptu Virginali active, et peccato originali.” 16. “^ragmen ta variorum Anselmi tractatuumde conceptu Virginali passivo.” 17. “De tribus Walleranni questionibus ac proesertim de fermento et azymo.” 18. “De sacramentorum diversitate.” 19. “Concordia prescientiae, pnedestinationis, et gratiae cum libertate.” 20. “Liber de voluntate Dei.” 21. “Meditationum libri x.” 22. “Liber de salute animae.” 23. “Meditatio ad sororem de beneficiis Dei.” 24. “Meditatio de passione Christi.” 25. “Alloquia caelestia, sive faculas piorum affectuum,” &c. 26. “Mantissa meditationum et orationum in quinque partes tributa.” 27. “Hymni et psalterium in commemoratione Deiparas.” 28. “Liber de excellentia gloriosae Virginis Mariae.” 29. “Liber de quatuor yirtutibus B. Marise, ej usque sublimitate.” 30. “Passio Ss. Guigneri sive Fingaris, Pialse, et Sociorum.” 31. “Liber exhortationum ad contemptum temporalium et desiderium aeternorum.” 32. “Admonitio pro moribundo.” 33. “Parasnesis ad virginem lapsam.” 34. “Sermo sive liber de beatitudine.” 35. “Homilia in illud, Introit Jesus in quoddam castellum.” 36. “Homiliae in aliquot Evangelia.” 37. “Carmen de contemptu mundi, et alia carmina.” There are some other pieces ascribed to Anselm in the edition of Cologne, 1612; and in the edition of Lyons, 1630; but they are generally thought supposititious.

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

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

, a celebrated French preacher, was born at Isle-en-Jourdain, a small town of Armagnac, Jan. 13, 1632; and first distinguished himself by odes and other poetical compositions, which were afterwards less esteemed. Being appointed tutor to the marquis D'Antin by his father the marquis Mentespan, Anselme removed to Paris, and acquired great fame in that metropolis by his sermons, and especially by his funeral orations. It was observed, however, that although elegant in style, they wanted much of that fervency which touches the heart. His noble pupil caused to be revived the place of historian of buildings, and bestowed it on Anselme; and the Academy of Painting, and that of Inscriptions and belles lettres, admitted him a member. Towards the close of life he retired to the abbey of St. Severe in Gascony, where he enjoyed the pleasures which his books and his garden afforded, and became a public benefactor; projecting new roads, decorating churches, founding hospitals, and by his discreet interposition, adjusting the differences which fell out among the country people. He died Aug. 18, 1737, in his ninety-sixth year. His works are a collection of “Sermons, Panegyriques, & Oraisontj Funebres,” 7 vols. 8vo. The “Sermons” have been reprinted in 6 vols. 12mo. He has also several “Dissertations” in the Memoirs of the Academy of Inscriptions, from the year 1724 to 1729.

of Antwerp, a very eminent lawyer, died in his 80th year in 1668, and left several works on civil law, written with method and perspicuity. These are, “Codex Belgicus,” Antwerp, 1649, fol. “Tribunianus Belgicus,” Brussels, 1663, fol. A collection of “Edicts,” 1648, 4 vols. fol.; and another of “Consultations,” published at Antwerp in 1671, fol. All his works are written in Latin.

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

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

, an eminent naval commander, and distinguished nobleman, of the eighteenth century, was descended from an ancient and respectable family, which had long been settled in Staffordshire. He was born at Shugborough manor, in the parish of Colwich, in that county, on the 23d April, 1697, being the third son of William Anson, esq. by Elizabeth, eldest daughter and coheir of Robert Carrier, esq. of Wirksworth in Derbyshire. The navy being Mr. Anson' s choice, he went early to sea; and on the 9th of May 1716, was made second lieutenant of his majesty’s ship the Hampshire, by sir John Norris, commander in chief of a squadron sent to the Baltic. In the following year, he was again in the Baltic, in the fleet commanded by sir George Byng; and on the 15th of March, 1717-8, was appointed second lieutenant of the Montague, belonging to sir George Byng’s squadron, in the expedition to Sicily; and was present in the celebrated action near that island, by which the Spanish fleet was effectually destroyed, and the designs of the king of Spain against Sicily received a very considerable check. On the 19th June 1722, he was preferred to be master and commander of the Weazel sloop; and on the first of February 1723-4, he was raised to the rank of post-captain, and to the command of the Scarborough man of war. In this ship he was ordered to South Carolina, in which station he continued above three years; and while he resided in that province, he erected a town, Anson Bourgh, and gave name to a county, which is still called Anson county. Being commanded home in October 1727, he returned to England in the following spring, and was paid off in May 1728. On the 11th of October, in the same year, he was appointed captain of the Garland man of war, and went out in her to South Carolina; from whence he was ordered back, in December 1729, and the ship was put out of commission at Sheerness. He did not, however, remain long out of employ, for on the 1.5th of May 1731, the command of the Diamond, one of the squadron in the Downs, was bestowed upon him, which he held about three months, when the Diamond was paid off. On the 25th January 1731-2, he was again called into public service, and appointed captain of the Squirrel man of war; in which ship he was ordered, in the following April, for South Carolina. This was the third time of his being placed upon that station, and it was probably peculiarly agreeable to him, on account of the property he had acquired, and the settlement he had made in the province. Here he continued till the spring of the year 1735, when, in consequence of an order given in December 1734, he returned to England; and, in the month of June, was paid off at Woolwich. In these several employments he conducted himself with an ability and discretion which gave general satisfaction. On the 9th of December 1737, he was put into the command of the Centurion, and, in. February following, ordered to the coast of Guinea; and returned home in July 1739. In this voyage he executed with great prudence and fidelity, the directions of government; and obliged the French to desist from their attempt to hinder our trade on that coast, wthout coming to any action, at a time when it would have been/very inconvenient to the British court to have had an open rupture with France.

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

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

Mr. Anson, a few days after his return into his own country, was made a rear-admiral of the blue, and in a very short time, he was chosen member of parliament for Heydon in Yorkshire. On the 27th December 1744, when the duke of Bedford was appointed first lord of the admiralty, he was appointed one of the commissioners of the admiralty; and on the 23d of April, in the following year, was made a rear-admiral of the white. On the 14th of July 1746, he was raised to the rank of vice-admiral; and in the latter end of that year, and beginning of 1747, he commanded the squadron in the channel service, and bore the inconveniencies of a long and tempestuous winter navigation, with his usual patience and perseverance. Nothing would have frustrated the success of this expedition, but the accidental intelligence which was given, by the master of a Dutch vessel, to the duke of D'Arville’s fleet, of admiral Anson’s station and intention. However, being employed again early in the ensuing spring, he had an opportunity of rendering a very signal service of his country. Being then on board the Prince George, of 90 guns, with rear-admiral Warren, in the Devonshire, and twelve ships more under his command, he intercepted, on the 3d of May 1747, off Cape Finisterre, a considerable fleet, bound from France to the East and West Indies, and laden with merchandise, treasure, and warlike stores; and took six men of war, and four East Indiamen, not one of the enemy’s vessels of war escaping. By this successful exploit, he defeated the pernicious designs of two hostile expeditions, and made a considerable addition to the force and riches of our own kingdom. M. St. George, captain of the Invincible, in allusion to the names of two of the ships which had been taken, and pointing to them at the same time, said, when he presented his sword to the conqueror, “Monsieur, vous avez vaincu V In-vincible, et la Gloire vous suit.” On the 13th of June following, the king raised him to the honour of an English peerage, by the style and title of lord Anson, baron of Soberton, in the county of Southampton; and his lordship made choice of a motto, very happily suited to his perils and his successes, ML Desperandum. On the 25th of April 1748, he married Elizabeth, eldest daughter of Philip lord Hardwicke, at that time lord high chancellor of Great Britain; but his lady died without issue on the 1st of June 1760.

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

The history of lord Anson’s voyage, although published under the name of Mr. Walter, we have attributed to Mr. Robins. A general and uncontradicted report had for many years prevailed, that the work was drawn up by Mr. Robins, nor was this a vague report, but grounded on positive testimony. Dr. James Wilson had publicly asserted the fact, in the short account of Mr. Robins, which he prefixed to his edition of the mathematical tracts of that ingenious writer; and Mr. Martin in the life of Robins in his “Biographia Philosophica,” speaks positively to the same purpose, although probably on Dr. Wilson’s authority. Soon after the publication, however, of the first volume of the Biographia Britannica, in which the same assertion was repeated, the widow of Mr. Walter addressed a letter to the editor of that work, maintaining Mr. Walter’s claim as author of the work; but in our opinion her proofs are far from affording more than a probability. In our article of Robins this dispute will be adverted to more particularly.

, a miscellaneous French writer, was born at Paris, July 18, 1744, and at first was in practice as a lawyer, but afterwards was taken into the office of the comptroller general of finances, and became successively receiver-general for Dauphiny, a member of the central committee of receivers-general, a deputy of the constituent assembly, and farmer of the post, which last place he filled until his death, Nov. 20, 1810. During the reign of terror, he was long concealed in the house of one of the members of the Jacobin club, to whom he promised a pension for this service, which he afterwards paid most punctually. He was considered as an able financier, and a man of much taste in literature. He wrote, 1. “Anecdotes sur le famille de Le Fevre, de la branche d'Ormesson,” printed in the Journal Encyclopedique for 1770. 2. “Deux memoires historiques sur les villes de Milly et de Nemours,” printed in the “Nouvelles recherches sur la France,” 1766, 2 vols. 12mo. 3. “Les deux seigneurs, ou l'Alchymiste,” a. comedy, 1783, partly written by M. L. Th. Herissant. 4. A translation of Anacreon, 1795, 3 vols. 12mo, of which the notes are thought preferable to the text. 5. A translation of Lady Montague’s letters. 6. Several Reports to the Constituent Assembly, short pieces in various collections, and songs, &c.

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

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

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

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

And favour to a court’s affection;

And sons of Anstis by election.”

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

, esq. LL.D. and F.A.S. eldest son and heir of the preceding, succeeded by virtue of the grant passed in 1727. He had been educated as a gentleman commoner at Corpus Christi college in Oxford. At the revival of the order of the Bath he was made genealogist and registrar. He was presented by Dr. Brookes, regius professor of civil law in Oxford, with the degree of LL.D. April 22, 1749, being the opening of the Radcliffe Library. July 21, 1736, he had been elected a member of the Society of Antiquaries. The margrave of Anspach, when invested with the order of the garter, presented him with 300 ducats, the gold-hilted sword his highness then wore, and gave him 100 ducats in lieu of his upper robe, which Garter claimed as belonging to him, by virtue of his office. He spent most of his time at Mortlake, where, indulging himself too freely with wine, it shortened his life, dying there December 5, 1754, aged only forty-six. He was undoubtedly a man of abilities, but harsh in his temper, especially towards the members of the college. Never having married, his brother, the Rev. George Anstis, became his heir. The manuscripts and well-chosen collection of books which had been possessed by his father were disposed of at his death.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

, a monk of Seba, in Palestine, lived in the beginning of the seventh century. He was the author of “Pandecta3 divinse Scripturee,” and of an hundred and ninety homilies. He speaks in his preface of the taking of Jerusalem by Chosroes, king of Persia, and of the cruelties inflicted on the monks of Palestine. To this is added a poem, in which he deplores the loss of the real cross which the Persians carried away among the rest of their booty, and celebrated the restitution of it in another poem written in Italian. The former, in Greek and Latin, is inserted in the supplement to the Bibl. Patritm.

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

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

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

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

, a learned Italian of the fifteenth century, was a native of Perugia, and of a family of some rank. He was the scholar of Joannes Antonius Campanus, and published the first and perhaps only entire edition of Campanus’ works, 1495. Michael Fernus, a Milanese scholar, at his request superintended the press, and enriched the publication with a copious life of Campanus, and a variety of elaborate prefaces addressed to various persons. That which is addressed to Antiquarius himself bears ample testimony to his literary reputation. On quitting his native city, Antiquarius obtained a political orKce of consequence and responsibility at Bologna. About 1460 he removed to Milan, where his erudition enabled him to secure the favour and patronage of Giovanni Galeozzo and Lud. Maria Visconti, dukes of Milan, to whom he was secretary and prime minister, and employed his influence in the patronage of literature. As he was in the church he obtained some rich benefices from pope Alexander VI. Many learned works, the publication of which he had encouraged, were dedicated to him, but we have nothing of his own, except an “Oratio,” Milan, 1509, 4to, and a volume of Latin letters, 1519, 4to. He died at Milan in 1512.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In his days the enemies of the Christians had no pretensions to support persecution but the grossest misrepresentations. These were probably offered to Antoninus as they had been to other sovereigns. To repel them Justin Martyr presented his “Apology” to Antoninus about the third year of his reign, in 140, and not in vain. Antoninus was a man of sense and humanity, and open to conviction. Asia Proper was still the scene of Christianity and of persecution, and thence the application was made to Antoninus, and earthquakes had then happened, with which the Pagans were much terrified, and ascribed them to the vengeance of heaven against the Christians. This will explain some circumstances in the edict sent by our emperor to the council of Asia, which is one of the most remarkable productions of pagan wisdom, and evinces an uncommon spirit of liberality. No apology, we trust, can be requisite for its insertion in this place.

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

Eusebius informs us, that this was no empty edict, but was really put in execution. Nor did Antoninus content himself with one edict. He wrote to the same purpose to the Larisseans, the Thessalonians, the Athenians, and all the Greeks. It may be therefore concluded that the Christians enjoyed complete toleration during his reign, which lasted twenty-three years. He died March 7, 161, aged seventy-three. His death was a public calamity, and his memory was honoured by every testimony of public gratitude. For a century afterwards, all the Roman emperors assumed the name of Antoninus, from its popularity. Many curious particulars of his private and public life may be seen in the authors referred to in the note.

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

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

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

In Dacier’s, and some other lives of this emperor, in which he is celebrated as possessing every virtue that can adorn public and private life, and doubtless he had many, the edict which we have given in the life of his predecessor Antoninus Pius, in favour of the Christians, has been ascribed to Marcus. Lardner has very ably stated the arguments usually brought to prove a fact so incredible. Marcus, it is certain, during his whole reign, was an implacable persecutor of the Christians, and this not from mere ignorance of their moral character, for he knew them, hated them, and shewed them no mercy. He allowed and encouraged the most barbarous treatment of their persons, and was yet himself a person of great humanity of temper, just and beneficent to the rest of mankind, free from reproach in his general conduct, and in several parts of it was a model worthy of the imitation of Christians. Mosheim remarks, that, if we except Nero, there was no reign under which the Christians were more injuriously and cruelly treated, than under that of the wise and virtuous Marcus Aurelius; and yet there was no reign under which such numerous and victorious apologies were published in their behalf. Those which Justin Martyr, Athenagoras and Tatian wrote upon this occasion are still extant. Among the victims in his reign were the above Justin Martyr and Polycarp. Lardner, Mosheim, and Milner, have many excellent observations on this inconsistency of character in the successor and admirer of Antoninus Pius.

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

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

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

, a celebrated German lawyer, was born at Frendenberg in Westphalia, and died in 1618, at that time professor of civil law, and chancellor of the university of Giessen, of which he was one of the founders. The landgrave Lewis had a great esteem for him, and employed him in various confidential matters. On the subject of the constitutional rights of the emperor of Germany, his opinions were more favourable to his imperial majesty than those of Herman Vullejus, with whom he was consequently drawn into a controversy. He wrote a great many treatises on almost every branch of the civil law, of which a catalogue is given in Witten’s “Memoriæ Jurisconsuitorum,” and in Strieder’s “Hesse savante.” His principal works are, 1. “Disputationes Feudales,” Marburgh, 1604, 4to, of which there have been six editions: that of Stryke, published at Halle, 1699, 4to, is the best. 2. “De Cameræ imperialis jurisdictione,” which involved him in the dispute with Herman Vullejus, and produced, 3. “Disp. Apolog. de potestate imperatoris legibus soluta;” and 4. “Disputationes anti-Vullejanæ,” Giessen, 1609, 1610, 4to; but Vullejus shewed more moderation in this controversy than his antagonist.

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

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

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

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

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

From Egypt, instead of coming home, where his debts very probably might not suffer him to be easy, he went to Caesar into Gaul; and after some stay there, being furnished with money and credit by Caesar, returned to Rome to sue for the questorship. In this suit he succeeded; and afterwards obtained the tribunate; in which office he was zealously active for Caesar. But finding the senators exasperated against this general, he fled in disguise to Caesar’s camp; complaining, when he arrived, that there was no safety at Rome, nothing right done there, and that the tribunes could not perform their office but with danger of their lives. Caesar upon this marched immediately into Italy, which made Cicero say, that Anthony was “as much the cause of the ensuing war as Helen was of that of Troy.” But this was said in a professed invective, which must not be interpreted too literally: the flight of the tribunes gave Caesar a plausible pretext for beginning, and seemed to sanctify his attempt; but his real motive, as Plutarch says, was the same that animated Cyrus and Alexander to disturb the peace of mankind the unquenchable thirst of empire, and the wild ambition of being the greatest man in the world, which was not possible till Pompey was destroyed.

Caesar, having made himself master of Rome, gave Anthony the government of Italy, with the command over the legions there, and he gained the love of the soldiery; to preserve which, he used to exercise and eat with them, and make them presents when his circumstances permitted. But what was more to his honour, he assisted Caesar so successfully on several occasions, that twice particularly, when Caesar’s army had been put to flight, he rallied the scattered troops, and gained the victory; this raised his reputation so much, that he was reckoned inferior only to Caesar. After the defeat of Pompey at Pharsalia, Caesar, as an acknowledgment of Anthony’s great services, made him master of the horse, but in this office he behaved most oppressively. For though he assembled the senate, and maintained a shadow of liberty, yet he exercised himself upon all occasions arbitrarily and tyrannically; and this behaviour, together with his dissolute life (for he was debauched to the last degree), was the reason, as Plutarch says, why Caesar the next year did not admit him his col-, league in the consulship, although he admitted him two years after.

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

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

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